Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
We know that consumers are frustrated by standing charges, which is why we are committed to lowering them. Ofgem has been consulting on introducing a zero standing charge tariff that would shift the costs on to unit rates. The consultation has now closed, and we will be working with Ofgem to take this forward.
Mr Reynolds
Has the Department assessed whether the rising standing charges are discouraging residents in our constituencies from switching to heat pumps and electric vehicles because they are concerned about the fixed costs that will come with them?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There are fixed costs within standing charges relating to, for instance, the cost of maintaining and upgrading networks, which we have to cover, but we recognise the imbalance between the price that people are paying for electricity and the price that they are paying for gas. We are committed to dealing with that imbalance, because we think it right that consumers can transition to clean heat. That is the way in which we reduce the amount of energy we use and, critically, that is the way in which we reduce bills.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Since the last oral questions in March, the Government have consented to the Rampion 2 offshore wind farm, creating 4,000 jobs; reached the final investment decision on the HyNet carbon capture, utilisation and storage cluster, creating 2,000 jobs; invested £300 million, through Great British Energy, in UK clean energy supply chains; shortlisted 27 hydrogen companies for hydrogen allocation round 2; and created a new £100 million fusion investment fund. This Government are building the clean energy future in Britain.
Jamie Stone
The reason I was here on that Saturday when Parliament was recalled is because some of the mightiest structures in the North sea were made from British steel at the Nigg yard. On the question of renewables, may I ask the Secretary of State what we are doing about getting out the skills to fabricate floating offshore wind structures in the United Kingdom?
Ed Miliband
That is very much part of our plans. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in March we announced the provision of more than £55 million for the expansion of Port of Cromarty Firth to create offshore wind supply chains in this country, and last week, along with GB Energy, we announced that investment of £300 million in supply chains. We are determined not just to generate offshore wind in Britain, but to take advantage of the huge economic opportunity that it represents.
Christine Jardine
I hear what the Secretary of State is saying, but Scotland’s declining oil and gas industries have lost 40% of their jobs in the past decade, and today Grangemouth has warned that it may have to pause important projects involving a switch to greener and more sustainable forms of energy because of what it describes as soaring energy bills and the pressures of income tax. We know that Grangemouth needs investment, but it also needs more than the Government are doing at the moment. What intervention are they planning to protect jobs and the communities that could be hollowed out if Grangemouth is not saved?
Ed Miliband
As the hon. Lady will know, we inherited this situation from the last Government, but we set aside £200 million to build the future in Grangemouth and we are working closely with the Scottish Government on precisely that, in a Government-to-Government collaboration. As for the hon. Lady’s wider question about industrial energy prices, we should obviously look at what different sectors are saying.
A lot of nonsense is being talked about steel. UK Steel has said categorically that the difference between our prices and those of continental Europe is a result of our reliance on natural gas power generation. [Interruption.] Opposition Members say “Rubbish”, but that is what UK Steel has said, and that is why our clean power mission is right for families and right for business.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Today marks the end of more than a century of refining at Grangemouth. Scotland is once again a victim of industrial vandalism and devastation—and I do not want anyone in this Chamber to dare mention a “just transition”, because we all know that the Conservatives when they were in power, and the Scottish National party currently in Holyrood, have done nothing to avert this catastrophic decision. I put it to the Secretary of State that during the general election campaign the Labour leadership said that they would step in and save the jobs at the refinery. What has changed, and why have we not done the sensible thing for Scotland’s energy security?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is talking about a very important issue, and Grangemouth has a very important role in Scotland. What I will say to him and to others is that as soon as this Government saw the situation that they had inherited, they put money in to help the workers, and they have made that huge investment commitment of £200 million, working hand in hand with the Scottish Government, so that we can build the future in Grangemouth. We are absolutely committed to building the future for Grangemouth communities, and we look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other Members on both sides of the House to do that.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Yesterday was International Workers’ Memorial Day. At a service this weekend in Falkirk, a Grangemouth refinery worker rightly called for oil and gas workers’ skills not to be considered obsolete, but utterly essential for the just transition. What consideration have Ministers given to the urgent policy recommendations in Project Willow to provide accelerated investment in clean energy infrastructure and the jobs it promises for Grangemouth?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend, who is also a really powerful advocate for his constituents, is absolutely right. Project Willow was left on the shelf by the previous Government. We put the money in to take Project Willow forward and we are now going to implement it. Absolutely crucial to that is ensuring the skills of oil and gas workers are properly used in the future, including with the skills passport which also lay dormant under the previous Government and which we are powering ahead with.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Through my work on the Select Committee, I have heard repeated concerns from industry leaders that existing workers in their 50s and 60s see no point in retraining because they believe they will see out their careers supporting old technologies. That has a knock-on impact on young entrants to the workforce, who have traditionally learnt their skills from more experienced workers. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking to incentivise retraining to support growth in the renewable energy sector?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. That is why we are working with the Department for Education to make sure we do not just have a clean power plan that will help to create hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country and invest in supply chains, which I talked about earlier, but crucially offer opportunities for younger workers and inspire them about the possibilities that are available, and create opportunities for older workers, too. All that work is ongoing in Government.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
We are working closely with the Brazilian presidency to support a high-ambition outcome at COP30 in Belém which reflects the scale of the challenge and our shared 1.5° goal. That includes ambitious new nationally determined contributions and the effective implementation of the global stocktake commitments, as well as action on issues such as tackling deforestation and methane emissions.
Mohammad Yasin
It was encouraging to see the Prime Minister’s commitment to going further and faster towards net zero at the international energy summit last week, because not taking action on climate change will cost us much more. Does the Minister agree that clean energy is not only good for the planet, but can give my constituents in Bedford and Kempston energy security and lower bills?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend is right. Other countries are looking to us. The conference last week was a good example of us being back in the business of global leadership. Whether it is through the Global Clean Power Alliance or our national mission to be a clean energy superpower, we are spearheading the transition because it is cheaper, cleaner and more secure. His constituents will benefit from that too.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I welcome the announcement made only a few days ago that the Government will adopt the amendment to the Great British Energy Bill to prevent slave-made goods, meaning that they will not be balancing their environmental consciences on the backs of some of the world’s most endangered and troubled individuals in the Uyghur population in Xinjiang. Will the Government extend that to the private sector to make sure no slave-made goods are coming into the UK? In New Ash Green and Ridley in my constituency, a solar panel farm is being put in that not only threatens the environment, but threatens to bring in slave-made goods into the United Kingdom.
Kerry McCarthy
I would dispute that it is threatening the environment, but we will be looking at the wider issue the right hon. Gentleman raises through the solar industry taskforce.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The overwhelming majority of those at the international energy summit last week said that the transition to low-carbon energy is crucial to energy security. Does my hon. Friend agree that those in this Chamber and beyond who do not support the transition to low-carbon energy are playing fast and loose with this country’s energy security?
Kerry McCarthy
That is absolutely the case. It was heartening to see so many countries and so many representatives from business come together at the conference last week. We are showing global leadership on this issue. We know it is the way forward in terms of our energy security, and not putting us at the mercy of dictators and petrostates. I thank my hon. Friend for his support.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Given the sheer scale of the outages in Portugal and Spain over the past few days, is it likely that the conference will consider and possibly conclude that there is some correlation between the obsession with net zero and what happened in Portugal and Spain?
Kerry McCarthy
First of all, I am sure the whole House will want to send support to Spain and Portugal following the incidents yesterday. There were no effects in the UK, but we will continue to closely monitor the situation and any lessons learned from this event. I am not going to speculate as to its causes, but we do need to ensure that our own systems are as resilient as possible.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
International leadership on climate change is critical for this Government, which is why we announced a world-leading nationally determined contribution at COP29 and were at the heart of negotiations during the summit. I have been working extensively with international counterparts to ensure maximum ambition from countries around the world at COP30, and look forward to further engagement.
Warinder Juss
I recently received letters from year 4 children at SS Peter and Paul primary school expressing concern over the impact of climate change on their futures, mentioning the extreme weather and the destruction of our natural habitats for our wildlife. The UK’s 10 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2002, and 2022 was the UK’s hottest year, with temperatures exceeding 40° for the first time. Despite being eight to nine years old, they gave suggestions for how the Government could help by providing cleaner sources of energy, such as making solar panels more affordable. Will the Secretary of State reassure me and those pupils that we are doing everything we can to be a world leader in tackling climate change and to sustain the future for our children?
Kerry McCarthy
I am glad to hear that the children at SS Peter and Paul primary school are taking such an interest in this issue. I can assure them that we are doing all we can to make Britain a clean energy superpower, such as lifting the onshore wind ban and setting up Great British Energy, and we are protecting nature too. We are also committed to engaging more with young people, and I will make sure my hon. Friend is kept informed of our plans.
Richard Burgon
It is welcome indeed to see the Government now playing a leading role internationally on climate action through the global clean power alliance, especially after a decade of failure that left us exposed to soaring gas prices. It is also great to see the Secretary of State standing up to climate deniers in this House, whose hostility to net zero would keep bills high and cost areas like mine the jobs and investment that they need.
One area where we need strong leadership is on funding climate action fairly. In the coming days, I will be introducing a Bill to make the biggest polluters pay for the action we need both at home and abroad. I do not expect the Minister or the Secretary of State to comment on a Bill they have not seen, but will the Secretary of State commit to a meeting between his Department and a broad group of charities and non-governmental organisations working to ensure fair and just climate financing?
Kerry McCarthy
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the Government’s climate leadership. We are doing all we can to mobilise climate financing in support of the new collective goal agreed at COP29. I would be more than happy to meet him and campaigners to discuss his Bill when he is ready to do so.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
One area where we could show significant leadership is in the sphere of floating solar, which comes with huge benefits. My constituency has 2,000 acres of raised reservoirs where we keep half of London’s drinking water—you cannot see the top of them, Mr Speaker. Floating solar is twice as efficient as land-based systems and comes with none of the opportunity costs of putting solar panels on grade A agricultural land; in fact, floating solar panels actually improve the water quality underneath, so that Thames Water would have to use less filtration downstream. I hear, however, that the Government’s solar road map has disappointingly little about floating solar. Would the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss this further, prior to publication?
Kerry McCarthy
As I understand it, the solar road map has not yet been published, so watch this space. I have been having conversations in the past couple of weeks with international counterparts who are interested in floating solar, and I would be happy to get the hon. Gentleman a more detailed response on our plans on that front.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
As the Minister knows, global leadership is about adaptation and mitigation. Does she expect the Climate Change Committee’s report on adaptation, which is due out tomorrow, to say that the Government are doing enough in this regard? Furthermore, will she show real leadership by requiring local authorities and major infrastructure providers to carry out climate risk assessments, so that, statutorily, they will have to ensure that climate resilience and preparedness form a part of their plans?
Kerry McCarthy
I cannot pre-empt what is in the report. We will wait for it to come out, and then respond in due course. On local leadership, the hon. Lady and I share a local authority, and I would be very happy to discuss with it what more we can do to set an example—as Bristol has done so many times in the past—on how things can be done at a local level.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
As we have seen in Portugal and Spain, renewable energy can sometimes be unreliable. Given the dominant role that China plays in our renewable energy infrastructure, will the Minister set out for the House the full details of the deal that the Secretary of State signed in secret with the Chinese Government?
Kerry McCarthy
My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, assures me that the deal was not signed. He will keep the House informed as and when it is appropriate to do so.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Under Ofgem’s current rules, suppliers must provide complete and accurate billing information. Critically, bills are required to be displayed in plain and accessible language. We will work with the regulator to ensure that suppliers abide by that. However, it is worth saying that we recognise that many consumers feel let down by a broken energy system that is not working on their behalf. That is why we are reviewing the role of Ofgem, to ensure that it has the powers necessary to be an effective consumer champion.
Dr Evans
When it comes to bills, the public understand what unit costs are, but not what standing charges are. When I raised this with the previous Government and Ofcom, they said that it was a complex matter, but what I am asking for is transparency, so that people understand how the charge is made up, and can then make a judgment on what it looks like. Will the Government commit to asking Ofgem to ensure that that information is included in the billing, so that we can see the breakdown of costs—how much is going on human resources and how much is going on the actual infrastructure and wires—so we know exactly what is going on in the energy market?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We support transparency. Ofgem publishes the breakdown of all costs within bills, but there is more that we need to do to ensure that consumers understand what is going on. Critically for us, we know that consumers are very frustrated about the standing charges, which is why we are committed to lowering them. As I have said, a consultation is under way around what we do with standing charges, which includes introducing a zero-standing-charge tariff. Within that, we will be considering options to increase transparency.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Many households in rural and coastal areas, including in South East Cornwall, are not connected to the gas grid and rely on alternative fuels, which often cost them more. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that, unlike under the previous Government, these residents are not left behind in future support schemes?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are very clear that every part of the country must benefit from this transition, so whether it is through our warm home scheme or the work that we are doing locally through Great British Energy, we are making sure that there is a solution for every single part of the country. In my Department, I am doing a lot of work to make sure that we have a set of propositions for households in rural areas, so that they can upgrade their homes and have bills that are cheaper and homes that are warmer, which is the central plank of our warm home scheme.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Several times now, I have asked Ministers to rule out aligning the British carbon price with the European one and each time they have refused to do so. They have already abandoned their promise to cut energy bills by £300 a year, but alignment would increase wholesale costs and therefore increase bills for every family in the country. Can the Minister, at last, be straight with the public and tell us whether the Government plan to match the European carbon price—yes, or no?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are engaging with industry on this matter. The Confederation of British Industry and Energy UK are clear that they should support alignment, but we are looking at that. Ultimately, we are doing everything that we can to bear down on energy costs in this country. That is why we are sprinting to clean power. We inherited an absolutely atrocious legacy from the Conservative party, which allowed businesses and consumers to bear the price of a broken system. We will not make the same mistakes, which is why we are cracking on with the job.
Nick Timothy
I think we are getting closer to the Government admitting their secret plan. As soon as the local elections are done, Labour is going to sell out to Europe, and the result will be higher bills for British families. But there is more: the EU is expanding carbon pricing to include transport and heating emissions, so alignment with the expanded scheme would mean extra taxes on every British family for driving their cars and heating their homes. Will the Minister rule out aligning at least with the expanded scheme and say no to new taxes on everyday life—yes or no?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am absolutely disappointed by the Conservatives. I should expect more, but maybe I need to get used to being disappointed. We saw the press release a week ago, and it has had no publicity because it is a Conservative party scare story. It is absolute nonsense. The Government are serious about bearing down on the cost of energy for businesses, and we are getting on with the serious work of doing that. I suggest that the Conservatives get a grip and join us in that task.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
We firmly believe that the clean energy transition is the economic opportunity of the 21st century. In recent weeks, we have secured thousands of new jobs in carbon capture, offshore wind and British supply chains. As we transform the way we power our country, we are determined to ensure that communities across our country benefit from good jobs and good wages. That is what our clean energy mission is all about.
Martin Rhodes
I thank the Minister for her response, but could she go further in setting out the Government’s assessment of how in the clean energy transition new jobs can be created here in the UK in the manufacturing of components for offshore wind and other green energy projects?
Sarah Jones
I was delighted that last week the Government were able to announce an initial £300 million through Great British Energy to invest in supply chains for domestic offshore wind. The fund will boost domestic jobs, mobilise additional private investment and secure manufacturing facilities for critical clean energy supply chains. We are publishing our industrial strategy in the spring, which will set out our approach to the highest growth-driving sectors, including clean energy industries.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
There was more good news last week for carbon capture, usage and storage workers in England, with £200 million in supply chain contracts for the Liverpool Bay HyNet project, which will even benefit north Wales now. That is on top of the £22 billion that benefits Teesside and Merseyside. I have checked, and those places were not the centre of the UK’s energy industry for the last five years. Why have the Government not allocated a single penny to the Acorn project in Scotland, where the clock is ticking and where investors are very concerned that this Government are not serious about it?
Sarah Jones
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for Government policy and for our investment in CCUS. As he knows, Acorn is a matter for the spending review. I talk to many industries in Scotland, and everyone is supportive of the scheme. We support the scheme and are working closely with industry, but it is a matter for the spending review.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
In 2025-26 alone we will upgrade up to 300,000 homes through the warm homes plan and other measures. That is more than double the number of homes upgraded last year. Later this year we will set out more detail of our warm homes plan to upgrade up to 5 million homes with energy-efficient technologies such as heat pumps, solar and insulation in order to deliver warmer homes and lower bills.
Tessa Munt
I recognise that there are very good schemes for those on lower incomes and that heating homes is really important. For many older properties and properties in conservation areas, as fast as we heat the homes, the heat just goes out the windows. In my area, where there are lots of older homes and homes in conservation areas, it is near impossible to get permission to apply double or triple glazing. Can the Secretary of State sort out this tension between having warm homes and older homes, particularly when he is trying so hard to ensure that homes meet the C grade rating for energy performance certificates by 2030? This needs to be sorted out with planning departments.
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. I am constantly on the look-out for small measures and large in the planning system that can obstruct the sensible energy efficiency measures, such as solar panels, that will make all the difference. I say to her and other Members of the House that if they have specific examples of barriers or interpretations of guidelines that are getting in the way—sometimes is not about the rules but about local councils’ interpretations of them—please bring them to our attention, because we are constantly trying to make it easier to make such upgrades happen.
Sarah Dyke
Earl, a social housing tenant from Glastonbury, is disabled and has faced multiple barriers that have prevented him from self-funding improvements to the sustainability and energy efficiency of his home, in order to help him reduce his energy poverty and improve his health. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that social housing tenants receive energy upgrades in their homes, and in particular those living in older housing stock, where upgrades might be more complex to achieve?
Ed Miliband
It sounds as though the hon. Lady is raising an individual case, and if she wants to draw it to our attention, she can do so. On the more general point, I believe that her local authority has received £6 million as part of the warm homes local grant, so it would be worth talking to it about this. Again—I am sure that I speak for the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), on this—where there are specific issues about how particular schemes are working, please do draw them to our attention and we will seek to act on them.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Royal Shrewsbury hospital in my constituency was delighted to receive a £450,000 investment for solar panels, which will see our local trust save more than £1 million by reducing its energy bills in the lifetime of the project. Will the Secretary of State join me in celebrating this excellent start to our nationalised Great British Energy company and update the House on the next steps to get us towards that mission?
Ed Miliband
I do join my hon. Friend in that. I say to all Opposition Members who voted against GB Energy that many of them will now be getting solar panels on schools and hospitals in their constituencies. Let all their constituents know that those are local MPs who opposed cutting bills for schools and hospitals in their own constituencies.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the £17 million of Government funding for Norwich’s Labour-led city council to improve energy efficiency in homes, which will help tackle fuel poverty and provide much more comfort. Will the Secretary of State welcome Norwich Labour’s leadership on this issue and set out how we will provide more funding to local councils so that they can go further, faster?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises a really important point about the crucial role of local authorities in relation to these issues. One of the things that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has done is devolve more funding to combined authorities on this. We want to go further, including in relation to local authorities, because it is local authorities—including my hon. Friend’s, which I congratulate—who know best the particular needs of their own localities, and they are a key part of the answer to the energy efficiency upgrade that we need.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Great British Energy will support the creation of thousands of high-quality, well-paid jobs right across the country and help rebuild the UK’s industrial heartlands. Just last week, the Prime Minister announced £300 million for Great British Energy to kick-start supply chains here in the UK. Once the Great British Energy Bill finishes its final stages in Parliament, we will come forward with more exciting plans for our domestic clean energy champion.
Chris Vince
I welcome the £300 million of investment for GB Energy announced last week. I think we all recognise the opportunities of the green energy transition, but what opportunities are there for my Harlow constituents to be part of that publicly owned energy company?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that, with Great British Energy and our clean power mission, we are trying to create the jobs that will deliver that transition here in the UK, which is something that the Conservatives failed on for many years. We expect that funding, and much more that will come from Great British Energy, to mobilise more than £1 billion in private investment in domestic supply chains, driving forward manufacturing and industry here in the UK and the good jobs that go with it.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
What assessment has the Minister made of the number of jobs that Great British Energy will create in the People’s Republic of China?
Michael Shanks
I think the right hon. Gentleman gives the game away there. Although the Conservative party did not particularly care where the supply chains were, we in the Labour party are committed to delivering good, well-paid jobs in this country. If he was so concerned about investing in British supply chains, he might have bothered to vote for Great British Energy in the first place.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
When GB Energy was first proposed, we were told it would employ 1,000 people and create 650,000 jobs. Fast-forward to February this year and that number has been revised down to 200 to 300, with a vague commitment to 1,000 at some point in the next 20 years. As the general secretary of the GMB said yesterday,
“they are going to open a shiny new office…on a high street full of charity shops because they are closing”
the city of Aberdeen down. GB Energy is a white elephant. If the GMB can see it, why cannot the Minister? Surely he agrees that the way to deliver jobs, growth and energy security and to protect communities such as Aberdeen is to lift the ban on licences, replace the energy profits levy as soon as possible and declare the North sea open for business.
Michael Shanks
I am not quite sure which one of the variety of parts in that speech the hon. Gentleman would like me to respond to. As usual, he steamrolls through his question faster than he ran the marathon— I congratulate him on that. He happens to be the only person in Aberdeenshire who is against investment in his community. When Labour Members voted to deliver investment through Great British Energy—not through jobs in the headquarters but through the investment it makes in supply chains and innovation in his city—he voted against it, and he will have to answer to his constituents for that.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Nuclear power is a critical part of our clean power ambitions. We are making strong progress on Sizewell C and Great British Nuclear is driving forward its small modular reactor competition. We have also seen the nuclear regulatory taskforce set up by the Prime Minister, and we are ending the legacy of no new nuclear being completed in the 14 long years when the Conservatives were in power.
Douglas McAllister
The transition to net zero is a chance to create decent, high-skilled jobs for the future. That includes the next generation of small nuclear reactors, which could revolutionise our energy market and deliver cleaner affordable energy. The SNP has vetoed nuclear energy projects in Scotland for almost 20 years, determined to leave Scotland behind. Is Scotland missing out on the economic opportunities that nuclear offers?
Michael Shanks
Planning matters, including the siting of new nuclear, are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so it is rightly for it to decide. However, I agree that Scotland is missing out on the huge potential of new nuclear. If the ideological block introduced by the SNP were lifted, billions of pounds could be invested in Scotland, with the countless skilled jobs that go with that. That could well be delivered next year if a Scottish Government are elected that take the industry and opportunity of Scotland seriously and deliver those well-paid skilled jobs—that would come by electing a Scottish Labour Government.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Data from the last year showed that Ynys Môn saw a drop of 57% in jobs linked to the nuclear industry; the worst figure for a UK constituency. Despite Wylfa being recognised as the best site for new nuclear in Europe, we saw no development from the last Government. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister give us the recognition and acknowledgment that Wylfa needs new nuclear and that that will be seen in the near future?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady has raised with me that point and the wider question of energy jobs in her constituency a number of times, and I thank her for that and for the way she has done so. Wylfa is an important site and continues to be one that the Government are considering. We will take forward those decisions in due course. As I have said to her on a number of previous occasions, we are committed to delivering the jobs that go with that and Wylfa remains an important site.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
Industrial energy prices doubled under the previous Government and industry suffered, as did consumers, when wholesale prices rocketed at the start of the Ukraine war. The best way to secure bills for the long term—for industry, as well as for consumers—is to deliver clean power by 2030. The truth is that the Tories ran down our energy infrastructure, just as they ran down our road and rail infrastructure and our public services. We are rebuilding that infrastructure, making it more secure for the long term and less reliant on foreign dictators, thus giving us energy independence, good jobs and cheaper bills.
James Wild
Growing the economy will need cheaper energy, but INEOS’s chief executive has warned that Labour’s crippling carbon taxes and other levies threaten UK manufacturing and make us more reliant on imports. When will Ministers start listening and realise that their dogma-driven energy policy is costing jobs and investment, and when will they actually act to make our electricity prices more competitive?
Sarah Jones
As UK Steel said recently, the main driver of the price disparity is the wholesale electricity cost, which is driven by the UK’s reliance on natural gas. The best way to secure bills for the long term is to deliver clean power by 2030, and that is what we are doing.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Green jobs are great jobs, and I welcome the £43 billion of private investment in clean energy since the election of this Labour Government. In order to bring down our industrial energy prices further, what steps will the Government take to get us on to clean energy that we control and off the fossil fuels that are in the control of dictators?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right to point out the huge amount of private sector investment that is coming in with clean energy. This is why, in the industrial strategy, clean energy is one of the growth-driving sectors where we have seen 10% growth in the economy. We are also seeing hundreds of thousands of jobs, which the Conservatives now seem determined to oppose. We will introduce the clean energy of the future, and that is why we are pushing for clean energy by 2030. That will bring down bills, give us energy security and create really good quality jobs.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Before I answer the hon. Lady’s substantive question, I want to offer her my huge congratulations on smashing to smithereens on Sunday the previous record held by a female MP in the London marathon.
Great Britain has a highly resilient energy network with diverse sources of supply. The national energy system operator can balance the system in a wide range of scenarios, including potential disruptions to offshore infrastructure.
Harriet Cross
The UK currently has about 15 GW of offshore wind capacity, which supplies about 17% of our energy. In order to reach the Government’s 2030 targets, this will have to increase by three times to 40 to 50 GW in just five years, and to achieve that we will have to rely on Chinese wind infrastructure and technology. What specific risk assessment have the Government carried out into the impact of this exposed vulnerability and reliance on China for what will be a significant amount of our energy supplies?
Michael Shanks
I will not comment on individual investment cases, but in every single case the Government make an assessment and we look at the national security implications seriously, just as the Conservatives did when they were in government. I would just gently say that the reason the supply chains in this country are as weak as they are is that they were underfunded and under-invested for years by the Conservatives. There could have been a decision, at the point when they took ambitious steps to move towards clean power, to build the supply chains here, but they chose not to do so; they chose to tow things into our waters instead. We are reversing that, but it cannot happen overnight.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
At the 2024 autumn Budget, £1.8 billion was allocated to local authorities and social housing providers, supporting them to deliver warmer and more energy-efficient homes across the country, targeting low-income households in particular. This goes alongside our plans to raise standards in rented properties to ensure that no social or private renter has to live in a cold, draughty home.
Tulip Siddiq
I am pleased to see the Government’s commitment to provide thousands of low-income households with energy-efficient upgrades. This could not have come too soon for my vulnerable constituents who are living on housing estates with outdated energy systems that sometimes leave them without hot water and heating for months on end. Camden Council, which I know the Minister knows well, has plans to upgrade the energy efficiency of those estates, but in many cases it just does not have the resources to replace the heating systems with heat pumps, which would lower bills and carbon emissions even further. What assurances can the Minister give me that local authorities will be given the support necessary to deliver the energy upgrades to the highest possible level?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Local authorities will have a critical role to play in our warm homes plan. Under our warm homes schemes, we are offering substantial support to enable low-income households to transition to clean heat. For example, our warm homes social housing fund allows grant recipients to receive an additional £7,500 clean heat upgrade, and under our warm homes local grant, £15,000 is being provided on top of the baseline to enable all households, particularly low-income households, to benefit from clean heat.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I know how on top of her brief the Minister is, so will she confirm that fewer than a third of council homes had an energy performance certificate C rating in 2010 compared with over 70% by last year? Less than 12% of homes in the UK had decent insulation in 2010 when Labour last left office and when the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, was in power, and more than 50% did by the time we left office. Will she commit to a faster rate of improvement under this Government than we ever saw under the previous Labour Government?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I welcome the right hon. Member’s commitment to our plans to upgrade homes. However, he is trying to rewrite history, because when we look at the record of the previous Government, we see many failures, but the most abject and egregious was the failure to insulate enough homes to ensure that households were protected from price rises. That is the Conservatives’ legacy, and it is one we are determined to turn around. That is why we are committed to upgrading millions of homes across the country.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
The National Wealth Fund has a critical role to play alongside Great British Energy in driving investment and jobs into clean energy industries. The fund is already making great progress, including participating in the latest round by GeoPura, a UK-based green hydrogen pioneer, as well as supporting critical minerals in Cornwall, as part of our mission for clean power by 2030.
Rachel Hopkins
Our Labour Government are driving economic growth in Luton and Bedfordshire through our support for the sustainable expansion of Luton airport and the exciting new Universal Studios. Does the Minister agree that we need to match those positive developments with incentivising investment in renewable energy to ensure that the pursuit of growth contributes to meeting our climate commitments?
Sarah Jones
The Government welcome the plans to invest in and around Luton, including the expansion of Luton airport and the incredibly exciting Universal theme park, which is on the “perfect site”, as its president said. It also has perfect MPs. These projects, along with the mass clean power investments we are delivering, will grow the economy and deliver direct benefits to the communities that host this vital clean power infrastructure which will take all of us off the fossil fuel market rollercoaster.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
The domestic user of electricity pays 24p per kilowatt; the domestic user of mains gas pays 6p. People who live in urban Britain buy their energy for a quarter of the price paid by people in rural Britain. This is a massive problem, and I wonder whether the Minister could explain how the Government will address it.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, though it was not quite about the National Wealth Fund. He is right to highlight electricity prices. This is a challenge for industry and one we inherited from the previous Government. The best way to bring those bills down is to secure clean power by 2030, but he is right to highlight the challenges, and that is what we are trying to fix.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Last week, 60 Governments and more than 50 global businesses gathered in London for the first global summit on the future of energy security with the International Energy Agency. I heard from country after country the hard-headed case for clean energy’s role in delivering energy security to free us from the global fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. I also heard from many clean energy businesses that Britain was the place where they wanted to invest because of the clarity and speed of this Government’s mission.
Markus Campbell-Savours
Homes in rural areas experience some of the highest rates of fuel poverty in the UK. Rural properties are less energy efficient than the national average and many are simply harder to insulate. Will the Minister confirm that my constituents in Penrith and Solway will see the additional challenge of rurality reflected in the Government’s ambitious warm homes plan?
Ed Miliband
One hundred per cent—my hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The Minister for Energy Consumers and I often discuss how we have to ensure that our warm homes plan takes account of the particular needs and challenges facing rural areas.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Voters
“feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices…when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal… Present policy solutions are inadequate and…therefore unworkable… The current approach isn’t working… Any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with his former boss Tony Blair?
Ed Miliband
The shadow Minister talks about the Tony Blair Institute report. I agree with a lot of what it says. It says that we should move ahead on carbon capture and storage, which the Government are doing. It says that we should move ahead on the role of artificial intelligence, which the Government are doing. It says that we should move ahead on nuclear, which the Government are doing. The shadow Minister said only three weeks ago, after his party dropped its net zero policy—this will surprise people, Mr Speaker—
Mr Speaker
Order. No, Secretary of State. This is topical questions; I do not need a full statement.
Andrew Bowie
To be honest, I was looking forward to hearing what I said a few weeks ago, Mr Speaker. It is okay for the Secretary of State to admit when he is wrong. As Tony Blair said yesterday, this strategy is “doomed to fail.” Why can the Secretary of State not see what the GMB and Tony Blair see, which is that clean power 2030 is doomed to fail and it is time for a change of approach?
Ed Miliband
That is not what the report says. The shadow Minister is talking absolute nonsense. The point I was going to make was that he said:
“Look, nobody’s saying that net zero was a mistake. Net zero in the round was the eminently sensible thing to do.”
Those are not my words but his. Some people say that the Tory party has only one policy. Actually, it has two: it is against net zero and, through the shadow Minister, it is for net zero.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
The Office for Clean Energy Jobs is focused on developing a skilled workforce in core energy and net zero sectors that are critical to meeting our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are working with Skills England to assess skill needs and engaging with the Department for Education on apprenticeships and the wider growth and skills offer.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Following the publication of the Severn estuary commission report on tidal power, will the Government produce a national policy statement to support tidal range energy, and will they publish a review of the available opportunities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I have had a number of meetings on this issue since coming into post. Clearly, tidal could play an important part in an energy mix. We have been clear that we are supportive of it in principle, but questions about its cost benefit and value for money must be answered. We are happy to continue looking at it in future, as projects develop and more detail comes forward.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend asks an important question. New nuclear is absolutely part of the energy mix. That is why we announced important reforms to the national policy statement. The previous such substantive reform was based on the one I published as Energy Secretary in 2009. We have updated the statement in order to enable new nuclear to be built right across the country, including in his constituency.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady asks an important question. I was in touch with the National Energy System Operator yesterday following the events in Spain and Portugal—the UK was not affected. NESO and my Department take this incredibly seriously. I would also add, given that there has been some comment on this, that we should not jump to conclusions about what happened. Let us see what happened and the reasons for it, and then learn the lessons.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right: this clean energy transition is about creating jobs. I was delighted to open the factory, which is creating 200 jobs and is a £40 million investment, manufacturing cylinders for heat pumps. This is an opportunity that this Government are going to seize for Britain.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman never ceases to amaze me, and not in a good way. Reform has made its decision; I am not sure what the Conservatives’ position is. Cheap, clean, home-grown power is the answer for Britain, because it gives us energy security and frees us from the petrostates and dictators. We are in favour of it; Reform is against it. Goodness knows where the Conservative party is.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. I have a lot of Members I need to get in. These are topical questions—they are meant to be short and punchy.
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to point out that public charging points are critical. That is why the regulator, Ofgem, allocated £22 billion over the next five years to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure. I have had a number of meetings with network operators about this question, and I work closely with my colleagues in the Department for Transport to ensure we are rolling out more points.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My constituents continue to face higher electricity bills—among the highest in the country at approximately £961 per year. One of my local hairdressers tells me that their electricity has gone up from £150 to £450 a month. Will the Government commit to bolder policies by easing restrictions on solar and wind power and driving investment in renewables to help struggling businesses?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady is 100% right—clean, home-grown power is the answer—so that is an unequivocal yes.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is right: there is a long-standing issue around industrial energy prices. The key is getting off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets, because just as family finances were ruined in the cost of living crisis, it is the same in relation to business finances and public finances. It is an essential part of the answer.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
In my constituency, many elderly and disabled people face very high energy bills due to essential medical equipment and heating needs. What support are the Government providing to ensure that these households are protected from the high cost of electricity?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
We know that consumers are under pressure with energy bills. That is why last winter, £1 billion of support was provided to help vulnerable customers through our warm home discount and through industry. That is why we are extending the warm home discount from 3 million households to 6 million households and doing ongoing work to ensure we are supporting the most vulnerable households with bills.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue about interconnectors. It is something I have been talking to the regulator about, particularly in relation to France, and indeed to my French counterpart, Marc Ferracci, who was in London for our international energy summit. I am happy for the Department to engage with her and tell her about the work we are doing on that issue.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
During the general election, the Secretary of State repeatedly promised my constituents that if they voted Labour, their energy prices would be reduced by £300—not by “up to” £300. Will the Secretary of State repeat that promise at the Dispatch Box?
Ed Miliband
We said we would cut bills by up to £300, and that is absolutely what we are determined to do.
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman says that bills have gone up, but let me give him a little basic lesson: they have gone up because we are exposed to fossil fuel prices. The only way to bring them down is by having sources of clean, home-grown power that we control.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Westminster city council owns the network, and we know that it is considering options for refurbishing and potentially decarbonising it. In the round, we are committed to working with district networks to do two things: to increase technical standards, so that they are more efficient; and, critically, to properly regulate them, so that we protect consumers from unfair prices.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
When will the Government decide whether to support the UK-Morocco power project?
Ed Miliband
I know the right hon. Gentleman has an important interest in this project. We continue to have discussions with Xlinks and obviously we are happy to brief him on those discussions.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Unlike Conservative Members, I really welcomed the £200 million investment last week. It will be integral to creating the good jobs of the future in constituencies that are developing key technologies for offshore wind, like my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. With that in mind, will the Minister and the Secretary of State visit my constituency to see GE Vernova and the hard work that it is doing there?
Ed Miliband
Yes is the answer; I look forward to it. My hon. Friend is 100% right: this is about the jobs of the future. Conservative Members might want to turn their back on them; we will not.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As we need some oil and gas while on the road to a clean energy economy, does it not make sense to produce our own, rather than importing it from other countries and thus increasing the global carbon footprint?
Michael Shanks
A consultation has just closed on the future of North sea energy. We have been very clear that our manifesto commitment was to not issue new licences for exploring new fields, but we will manage existing fields for the entirety of their lifespan.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
MPs across the Humber region are united in support for the Viking carbon capture, usage and storage project. Can the Government give an update on any progress with track 2 programmes?
Ed Miliband
As with Acorn, we think Viking is a really important project. I am very proud of the progress we made on track 1, and we are obviously looking at both Viking and Acorn in the spending review.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State ensure that GB Energy has a focused plan to deliver, and to help the 1,500 farmers in my constituency to tap the latent energy in their becks and rivers, so that we can support farming as well as the battle against climate change?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about the role that local community energy can play; I think that is what he is alluding to. We are committed to ensuring that. Great British Energy local has already made some announcements in this space, including on local energy funding in England. We will have much more to say in due course, but we want to ensure a partnership, so if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will make sure that what he says gets to GB Energy.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Scottish National party celebrated the closure and demolition of Longannet coal power station in my constituency without having a plan for its future. The former First Minister pressed the button on the charges herself. What conversations do Ministers plan to have with the site owner, Scottish Power, about the future of the site, and what role might there be for the UK Government in bringing investment and jobs to my constituency?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to make the point about Longannet. We have conversations with Scottish Power on a number of issues, including this. He again emphasises the important role that nuclear could play in Scotland in the future. It could obviously be an important site for a range of uses, but if the ideological ban on nuclear by the SNP were lifted, we could look at other opportunities for such sites.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
When I was at the Scotland Office, I was regularly lobbied by retired senior executives from the electricity industry who wanted to state their concerns about how long it would take to reboot the network in Scotland if there was a major outage. Obviously, I sought the necessary assurances from those running the network, but in the light of what has happened in Spain and Portugal, I would be reassured if Ministers sought those assurances again.
Ed Miliband
My Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), and I regularly discuss this issue, which relates to one of the first duties of Government. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that not only is this a focus for Government, but we will look at what happened in Spain and Portugal to see if there are any lessons to be learned about our resilience.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fusion energy, I know that fusion technology not only has the potential to create thousands of jobs, but could also be the answer to our long-term clean energy security needs. Does the Minister agree with me that supporting fusion is a good example of the Government’s crowding in private sector investment, creating jobs and winning investment for places like the east midlands?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
My hon. Friend is a real champion for his constituency, and for the benefits that the development of fusion will bring. We continue to invest and to have discussions with international counterparts. There is a very bright future for fusion, and for his constituents as a result.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Minister will be aware of the switch-on of Moray West offshore wind farm at Buckie, in my constituency, last week, creating jobs, delivering clean energy and helping our nation to achieve net zero. Does the Minister accept that the current transmission charging regime poses significant and immediate threats to investment in offshore wind in Scotland? Will he meet me and industry representatives to explore that matter further?
Michael Shanks
We were delighted to switch on the wind farm; the Secretary of State for Scotland was there to push the button last week. It is a fantastic example of the potential of offshore wind. Of course, I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I have already met him, and had a very enjoyable conversation, and I am very happy to talk about the issue. The review of the electricity market arrangements that we are going through will look at the issue of transmission charges. It is an important conversation to have, and I am happy to speak to him on the subject.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The United Kingdom was particularly susceptible to changes in international gas prices during the energy crisis, and bills and prices soared as a result. Under this Government, GB Energy is installing solar panels in hospitals in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, but will the Minister remind us which party presided over the worst cost of living crisis in memory—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Moon, please. You will not get called again if you carry on like that. I am sure the Minister will know the answer.
Ed Miliband
I am delighted to remind the House that it was the Conservative party that left us with energy insecurity, and we are never going to leave this country vulnerable in the way that it did.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) said, the Government seem to have a three-point plan. Point one is to cover farmland in solar panels, and point two is to block out the sun. What is point three?
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I have been contacted by several constituents who have experienced failed ECO4 scheme installations. What support is there for constituents when installations go wrong? Are rogue installers getting paid for work that is not completed properly? What steps are being taken to address such failures?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are aware of issues that we have had with ECO4 and the Great British insulation scheme. If constituents have been affected, they should have received a letter from Ofgem. They should be able to contact their installer, who is obliged to fix the work, and there is a clear redress mechanism. There is a wider point: we know that the system for quality assurance and consumer redress is not fit for purpose and we are determined to overhaul it.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
In the 1970s, global warmists wanted to put black dust on the Arctic to block the sun. Now the Minister wants to put black dust on clouds to block the sun again. Is his plan not bonkers? £50 million of taxpayer’s money has been spent, which will only put up energy prices even further.
Ed Miliband
This is like conspiracy theories gone mad. I feel like we have entered a whacky world. Let us keep our eyes on the prize. As a country, we are vulnerable because of our exposure to fossil fuels. This Government have one mission alone: to get clean, home-grown power, so that we take back control.
Kashmir: Increasing Tension
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): Will the Minister make a statement on the killing of 26 people in Pahalgam in Kashmir and the increasing tension between India and Pakistan?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April was devastating. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Members must sit down, because the Minister is on his feet replying.
Mr Falconer
Our thoughts are with those affected, their loved ones and, of course, the people of India. This attack left 26 people dead, most of whom, we understand, were tourists travelling to the region. Following the attack, India has announced a number of diplomatic measures against Pakistan, and Pakistan has reciprocated. The official UK travel advice for Indian-administered Kashmir continues to advise against all travel to Jammu and Kashmir, except for travel by air to the city of Jammu, travel within the city, and travel within the union territory of Ladakh.
This is a very sensitive situation, with real risks to regional and wider stability. Understandably, there has been huge interest within UK communities. Kashmir has been a flashpoint for conflict between India and Pakistan many times over previous decades. The Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Modi on 25 April to express his condolences on behalf of the British people. The UK condemns all forms of terrorism and the extremism that sustains it, wherever it occurs. The Foreign Secretary spoke to India’s External Affairs Minister Jaishankar on 27 April to pass on the UK’s condolences and to express the UK Government’s support to the Indian people at this difficult time. The Foreign Secretary has also spoken over the weekend to Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar.
Heightened tensions between India and Pakistan inevitably raise concerns about escalation. Effective channels of engagement to safeguard stability in the region are essential. The UK supported the UN Security Council press statement on 25 April, which condemned the attack and reaffirmed that acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable. The long-standing position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK to prescribe a solution. We will continue to monitor the situation closely through our high commissioners in New Delhi and Islamabad.
Gurinder Singh Josan
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this question, and I thank the Minister for his statement. I have three further points.
First, this is a terrorist attack of the utmost barbarity, and it deserves to be condemned by all. My thoughts are with the families of those killed. The killing took place in a popular tourist location, and most victims were tourists. Among the victims was a man married only the week before, who was honeymooning with his wife. The manner of the selection of the victims was particularly horrific, with the killers actively seeking out non-Muslims before killing them in cold blood. The Minister will be aware that the Kashmir region has been the scene of previous terrorist attacks that have claimed many innocent lives, including in Chittisinghpura, where 35 Sikhs were killed in 2000. What support can the UK provide to ensure that the terrorists are found and brought to justice, and to ensure that their networks of support are dismantled?
Secondly, there has been a significant escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan, including the measures that the Minister has outlined. India and Pakistan have engaged in large-scale military hostilities in the past in the region, and there is a real risk that the nations could revert to a military conflict again. What can the UK do to encourage a de-escalation of tensions, while ensuring the eradication of the terrorist organisations and their support networks wherever they exist?
Finally, the Minister will be aware that there have been protests in the UK outside India and Pakistan’s high commissions. Those protests have been characterised by provocative language and gestures, including what appears to be a throat-slitting motion by an alleged Pakistan official. Windows have been smashed at Pakistan’s high commission in London, and an individual has been arrested and charged. Does the Minister recognise the importance of proactive work with communities across the UK to ensure that we do not see a downturn in community relations here?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on these questions. I am sure that the whole House shares his horror at the details of this incident—the targeting of the victims and the way in which it was carried out.
First, I will address the scenes on UK streets. We are aware of reports of the video that my hon. Friend refers to; the Metropolitan police are investigating, so I will not provide any further commentary on that particular incident, but it is obviously concerning. We take seriously our responsibility for the security of all embassies and high commissions under the Vienna convention, so both the Pakistani and Indian high commissions will receive all the support of the UK state to ensure that they stay safe. As my hon. Friend has said, and as I know many in this House feel, these issues have long been discussed with passion on British streets. We call on all sides, all community leaders and all involved to call for calm at a time of tension in the region.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) for securing the question and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who also requested a question on this topic today, for the support he has given to India.
My condolences, thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the murderous violent terrorism that has taken place in Pahalgam. I recognise that for India and the diaspora communities—those in the UK in particular—this has been a really difficult week. This was an act of terrorism, and we should call it out for exactly what it is. It is part of a long-standing pattern of attacks on civilians, visitors to the region and minority communities, and the UK must always stand with our friends during times of this nature.
We have a series of long-standing security and counter-terrorism partnerships with India, going back to the New Delhi declaration in 2002 and including the India-UK strategic partnership in 2016, the comprehensive strategic partnership announced in 2022, and the UK-India 2030 road map agreed under the last Government. Under those partnerships, security issues have been absolutely watertight, which is why we must always be in lockstep with our friends in India.
Can the Minister tell us what information the UK Government have on those responsible for carrying out these terrorist attacks? Do the Government believe that Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist group proscribed in the UK, bear responsibility? Are the Government aware of any cross-border links to Pakistan among the perpetrators of this terrorist act? Given that attacks seem to take place at the same time as high-profile US politicians visit India—this is not the first time—do the Government have a view on whether this is a coincidence, or whether it demonstrates a pattern of targeted and deliberately timed attacks?
We know that the Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Narendra Modi last week, but has the UK provided any specific support in response to this terror attack or taken any practical steps to assist our friends in India? Have the Government undertaken an assessment of the security implications of this attack for the UK? If Lashkar-e-Taiba or a front linked to them are responsible, it should be noted that disturbing reports are emerging that this terrorist group may have had engagement with Hamas. Have the Government made an assessment of the relationship between groups causing terror and destabilisation in Kashmir and those pursuing violence and terrorism that threaten our interests and global peace and security?
Finally, can the Minister give an update on the actions being taken to prevent tensions from escalating among communities in the UK—including protections for the high commissions, which have already been mentioned—and will the UK leverage its influence to ease tensions between India and Pakistan?
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. India is a friend to the UK, and we have been clear about the depth of our friendship in our response to this incident. She would not expect me to comment in detail on intelligence and security matters in relation to this attack, but I assure her that we are looking at it very closely. She is right that wherever terrorism is found, it is a threat to global peace and security, including in the UK. I will not comment further from this Dispatch Box on links between some of the groups that the right hon. Lady has mentioned, but I assure her that our security agencies take these matters very seriously, as she would expect.
The right hon. Lady asks important questions about the Indian high commission. As I said in my earlier answer, we will offer our full support. There is 24/7 enhanced protection outside the high commission, and it will be a top priority for the Government to ensure that no harm comes to any Indian diplomats or, indeed, any other diplomats here in the UK.
We are playing our role to try to ensure that tensions do not escalate. Many of us in this House are familiar with the tense and storied history between the two countries. We are friends to them both, and we do not want to see an uncontrolled escalation in tensions.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
May I pay my respects to those who have lost loved ones in the horrific terrorist attack in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir? My thoughts are with them at this devastating time. Many of my constituents have written to me about the escalation of hostilities here in the UK. Can the Minister say what conversations he is having with Indian and Pakistani counterparts to address this situation?
Mr Falconer
This escalation is unsettling for communities within the UK. British Pakistanis and British Indians are valued parts of our community, but we look to all community and faith leaders to spread the message that now is the time for coming together across religious and ethnic differences, not to play out the tensions between two states on the streets of the UK, and we will continue to send that message.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I associate myself with the comments that have already made, reflecting on the grief of the communities torn apart last week. Tuesday’s horrific murders were utterly devastating, and those responsible must face the full weight of the law. The escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan is alarming, as are reports of incidents of fire being exchanged by soldiers at the border, and it threatens to destabilise the entire region. It is vital that leaders in both countries commit to an open dialogue and wider efforts to de-escalate. We hope that that includes India committing to reinstate the Indus waters treaty, the suspension of which threatens water access for Pakistanis, and Pakistan reopening its airspace to Indian-owned airlines.
The UK must engage with both Governments and encourage a return to dialogue and a retreat from retaliatory action to ensure that decisions taken in the wake of Tuesday’s horrific attack do not endanger more lives. Can the Minister confirm what conversations he has had with officials in New Delhi on reinstating the Indus waters treaty and with officials in Islamabad on reopening its airspace?
Mr Falconer
It is vital that effective channels of engagement to safeguard stability in the region exist, and we are encouraging both parties to that effect. There has been a lot of speculation about the diplomatic measures that have been announced so far. As we understand it, international agreements have been put in abeyance, rather than being rescinded. In the long term, the proper functioning of water management in the Indus water catchment area is vital for both sides of the line.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The whole House is united in its condemnation of the horrific attack that killed 26 people in Pahalgam, Kashmir. It has rightly been condemned by all in the region, and we must now see a full and independent investigation where those responsible are brought to justice. The response from the Indian Government has been somewhat concerning, with unilateral action taken to revoke the Indus waters treaty, risking the lives and livelihoods of millions in Pakistan. We are now hearing reports of crackdowns in Kashmir, with 1,500 people rounded up by the police and bulldozer tactics used on households. Hard-line groups have issued statements promising reprisal attacks, death threats and action against every Muslim in India. Kashmir continues to be a flashpoint between the two nuclear neighbours, so does the Minister agree that the international community must now seriously focus on de-escalation and long-term peace in the region? Can he also set out what the Government are doing to ensure that Kashmiris do not face further persecution or oppression?
Mr Falconer
This is clearly a time of heightened tensions, which inevitably invites concern both in the region and here in the UK. We are, as I said, engaged with both states to try to find the most effective way to prevent these terrible incidents from ever being repeated, but also to ensure continued stability in the region.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I asked at business questions last week for a statement on this issue this week, so I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for making sure that we have that statement through this urgent question.
The reality of this terrorist attack, which was well organised and well co-ordinated, is that, despite the Minister’s words, these 26 men who were murdered systematically by being shot in the head were either Hindu or Christian. This was a deliberate Islamist attack on those tourists who were just going about their business in a peaceful manner. These terrorists were well equipped, and they were well co-ordinated.
The sad reality is that while the Government may offer expressions of condolence and support to the people of India, the terrorist bases that exist along the line of control in the part of Kashmir illegally occupied by Pakistan continue to operate across that line of control. Will the Government commit to full support for India in apprehending the terrorists responsible and bringing the backers of those terrorists to justice? Will the Government take all steps to support the erosion and elimination of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Gentleman has come to have an argument, but I am not sure which part of the statement he did not like. Until the investigation is concluded, we should not speculate on the nature of the attack. I say to him that will do everything we can to ensure that those who committed this horrific attack are brought to justice, and India will have our support in that.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I share in the comments made in this House. We are horrified by this terrorist attack, and my thoughts are with the families, the victims and those in India. We have seen worrying scenes play out in London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) mentioned. We cannot let the situation escalate on to UK shores. We all bear a responsibility to help de-escalate tensions. What steps is the UK taking to support international bodies, especially the United Nations, in their calls for a de-escalation in tensions?
Mr Falconer
As I have said, we have spoken at the senior level to both states, and we have made clear the importance of maintaining stability in the region at this time.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I echo the words of condemnation over the horrific terror attacks in Pahalgam, which took the lives of 26 innocent tourists. I express my heartfelt condolences to all those who have been affected. The rapid escalation of events following this tragedy has been deeply worrying. India’s unfounded claims against Pakistan are a dangerous and irresponsible reaction to the tragedy suffered in Kashmir. The unilateral and illegal decision to suspend the Indus waters treaty threatens to cut the lifeline of 200 million people in Pakistan, and it cannot stand. Will the Minister join me in expressing concern over the knife-edge position that these two nations are in and call for adherence to the guidance set under international bodies of law? Will he make a plea to calm the situation? If it is exacerbated, it will have severe consequences that spread much further than that region alone.
Mr Falconer
I think I have set out our views on the importance of stability in the region already this afternoon. I agree with the hon. Member that it is critical for all actors and international partners to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Indus river system.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Minister today. In light of the awful terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, what work are the Government undertaking to consult the Kashmiri diaspora here in the UK and identify their concerns?
Mr Falconer
Both the Foreign Office and other UK Government Departments engage regularly with the British Kashmiri community—who are an important part of so many communities across the United Kingdom—and will continue to do so.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sure the Government recognise that the strategic aim of this sort of terrorist atrocity is to provoke indiscriminate retaliation and undermine peaceful relations between neighbouring countries between which there may be some history of hostility. Will the Minister impress on the Indian Government the necessity of focusing on the actual perpetrators and not on the wider community, and will he impress on the Pakistani Government the importance, in good faith, of tracking down those responsible?
Mr Falconer
Too often in the region for which I am responsible, and indeed in this country, we have seen terrorist attacks designed to have exactly the effect that the right hon. Gentleman has described, namely to provoke tension, intercommunal hostility and a breakdown of law and order. As he says, a proper, law-enforcement-led response based on a focus on the actual perpetrators is important in this area, as it is throughout the world.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
May I first send my condolences, thoughts and prayers to all the victims of this heinous terrorist attack in occupied Kashmir?
There is a large Kashmiri diaspora in my constituency, and many of my constituents have reached out to me expressing deep concerns. A number of them have mentioned the Indus waters treaty. Pakistan has already been suffering from the effects of floods in past years, from which it has not recovered. At times of escalation and troubles such as this it seems to be communities at large, be they in India or Pakistan, who suffer. What message can the Minister give my constituents to reassure them that the UK is doing all it can to de-escalate, bring things back to normal and hold the perpetrators to account?
Mr Falconer
We are focused on holding the perpetrators to account. I am familiar with the issues facing Pakistan in relation to acute natural disaster: I was there during the disastrous floods in 2010, and I recognise the importance of the Indus river system in both India and Pakistan and of co-operation between the two states to manage that vital system. There is a great deal of speculation about what has been decided and what has been agreed, but we understand that diplomatic treaties are being held in abeyance and that there is still space for a long-term answer to some of these questions.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
As an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on British Hindus, and with a constituency that contains a considerable Indian and Pakistani community, I was especially shocked and saddened by the news of the horrific murder of 26 people last Tuesday, and I have received many emails from constituents raising their own concerns. Of particular concern are reports of the targeting of Hindus and Christians: such race-based terror is unacceptable anywhere in the world. What steps are the Government taking to encourage both India and Pakistan to investigate these terrible crimes, and to ensure that lines of communication are kept open to avoid a further escalation of the conflict?
Mr Falconer
We are encouraging direct lines of communication, and we are of course encouraging Pakistan to provide all possible assistance with the investigation of these horrific crimes.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments of the Minister and other Members who have condemned the killing of 26 innocent people?
Given that tensions between India and Pakistan are running high and resulting in arrests, does the Minister agree with me, and with others who have raised the point, that we must not let this issue boil over into our streets? If anything, we should be working to convey a message of peace and hope to that part of the world. In the light of the tit-for-tat actions being undertaken by Pakistan and India, does the Minister also agree that we need to encourage the holding of an open, independent inquiry to establish the facts, ensure accountability and help to restore calm? That would be far better for the world than India and Pakistan—nuclear powers—going to war.
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is, of course right: peace and calm are vital for communities here and across the world. The two states are talking to each other, which is welcome. India’s concerns for its own security are understandable in the light of such a horrific incident. It is clearly taking steps to try to establish the facts as best it can, and it will have British support to do so.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
At a time of such tragedy, language is incredibly important. All of us, in all parts of the House, condemn this terrorist incident, but a number of my constituents have been particularly concerned about the BBC’s describing it as “militance” rather than as what it is—a terrorist attack. Will the Minister use his position to make representations to the BBC to ensure that it understands the importance of the language it uses?
Mr Falconer
I resist calls for Ministers to police the BBC’s language too much, but let me be clear: this was a horrific terrorist attack, and that is the view of the British Government.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
We have seen the Kargil incursion, the Chittisinghpura attack, the hijacking of Air India Flight 814, the attack on Gandhinagar, the attack on the Lok Sabah itself, the attack on the Taj Hotel in Mumbai and the suicide bomb attack at Pulwama that killed 44 people, and now 26 tourists have been murdered at Pahalgam. That is just a short list of the activities of Pakistan-based terror organisations such as Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba and its derivatives, including The Resistance Front, that have taken place since you and I were first elected to the House, Mr Speaker. They destabilise international security between two nuclear states, and cause unwarranted tension in community relations here. Is it not time to make the support that we give to Pakistan conditional on its finally dealing with and closing down the terrorist training camps that it harbours?
Mr Falconer
We expect all our friends to work closely on the shared international scourge of terrorism. Pakistan itself has faced a series of deeply damaging terrorist attacks in recent months and years, and we press Pakistan, as we press all our allies in the region, to take the steps that are necessary to investigate not only the terrorist threats that face it, but those that face its neighbours.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I share the sentiments that have rightly been expressed by all other Members. It is crucial to condemn unequivocally all forms of violence irrespective of their source, and our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.
The recent incident is a stark reminder of the fragile peace that hangs by a thread in a region that has suffered for too long from recurring cycles of violence. The intricate history of Kashmir requires a diplomatic approach underpinned by international co-operation Does the Minister agree that the role of the UK, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, must be to encourage and support efforts that prioritise dialogue and reconciliation between India and Pakistan? Does he also agree that the law-abiding people of Kashmir deserve to live in peace and security without the shadow of perpetual conflict, and that will be achieved only if they have the right of self-determination?
Mr Falconer
Of course the people of Kashmir, both Indian-administered and Pakistani-administered, have the right to live in safety, and we want to see that right exercised; and of course there must be dialogue between India and Pakistan at this time of heightened tensions. Let me add, however, that in the face of such a horrific attack, India also has the right to investigate, to find the perpetrators and to bring them to justice for these terrible crimes.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
A number of my constituents have expressed deep concern about the developments in Kashmir, and we all condemn the attacks and growing tensions in the strongest possible terms. Does the Minister agree that advocating for a peaceful resolution in Kashmir is also part of maintaining community cohesion in the UK, given that so many of us have constituents with family members and friends in the region?
Mr Falconer
I do, of course. The UK supports a peaceful resolution of the long-standing issues in Kashmir between India and Pakistan. It is a matter for the two countries and we will support them in those endeavours.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I join Members across the House in condemning this act of terrorism. The hon. Gentleman will know that his party’s manifesto pledged to pursue a new strategic partnership with India. I welcome that, but could he explain to the House what steps are being made in regard to that pledge? It will be by concerted diplomatic efforts, but it will also be by leadership from the Dispatch Box around re-characterising our commitment to India, that people will gain strength from this Government’s response.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to cast away any doubt there might be. We stand with India in the face of this horrific attack. We have, at the very highest levels, been in direct contact with the Indian Government. This is an absolutely atrocious incident and they have our support in trying to bring the perpetrators to justice. If he will forgive me, I will leave it to the Minister responsible for India to provide an update in the House in slower time on the state of our relationship. It continues to grow from strength to strength.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
In light of the recent tragic attack on civilians in Kashmir, which we all condemn, what steps are the Government taking to de-escalate tensions, and to urge the Governments of India and Pakistan to engage in a transparent and impartial investigation to establish the facts, while also pushing forward a new diplomatic engagement to address all outstanding issues, including the core dispute of Kashmir, through meaningful dialogue and a commitment to peace that prioritises the lives and rights of all Kashmiris?
Mr Falconer
As I said earlier, we have been engaged with both Governments. The long-standing position of the UK is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir. It must take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people and it is not for us to prescribe a solution. We will continue in those efforts.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister outlined that the Government have been in communication with both India and Pakistan, and the risk of escalation. Given that risk, has the Foreign Secretary been in communication with any other regional powers, such as China?
Mr Falconer
Honestly, I have not spoken to the Foreign Secretary in the past 24 hours so I am not totally sure, but I will write to the hon. Member and let him know.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I, too, associate myself with the condolences for the innocent families who have become victims of this appalling attack. It is important that there is an evidence-based investigation and I hope that, from what the Minister has said, Pakistan is assisting India in identifying the perpetrators and ensuring they are brought to justice. Tensions are certainly high, both within India and Pakistan. I appreciate the Minister’s remarks on the assistance being provided at the moment, but can this be used as an opportunity to also look at the longer- term issues that Kashmir has faced for decades?
Mr Falconer
I set out the Government’s position on the core dispute in Kashmir in the previous answer. I repeat that we encourage the Pakistanis to co-operate fully with the Indian Government in their efforts to investigate and we hope that they will provide assistance. This obviously remains a time of great heightened tensions, so direct dialogue on these issues is particularly important.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I join the Minister and other Members in my unequivocal condemnation of this heinous and cowardly act of terrorist violence. My heart goes out to the families and the victims. We stand in full solidarity with them, as well as with the civilian populations of India, Kashmir and wider Pakistan. As has been highlighted, the killings have heightened tensions in the subcontinent. At present, both nuclear-armed countries, India and Pakistan, are on a war footing. The escalation in military action will have ramifications globally, especially in the UK where reactionary bigots and far-right politicians are sowing division among British Kashmiris, Indians and Pakistanis. My Kashmiri diaspora and my Indian family and friends and I would like to know what specific steps the UK Government are taking to help de-escalate the heightened tensions in the region and the increased tensions within our borders.
Mr Falconer
As I said, we are seeking to play our full diplomatic role to help manage the heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, and the concerns of the region. It is vital that all of us in positions of influence at a community level here in the UK do everything we can to ensure that those tensions do not play out on British streets.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have contacted me in the past few days to register their horror at the appalling terror attack in Kashmir. I join the Minister in condemning it unequivocally. Will he confirm that the UK stands firm against terror in any form? Will he further confirm what steps the Government are taking to support our long history of community cohesion in the diverse constituencies of this country, such as Ealing Southall?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm that we stand against terrorism in all its manifestations. We will be working closely with all communities, including through colleagues in this House, to try to address the concerns that are being raised.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
One of the consequences of mass immigration and radical diversity at home is that we see foreign conflicts play out among diaspora communities in Britain. We should all do everything possible to stop this domestic disintegration, including drastically curtailing immigration, but will the Minister take this opportunity to tell Members of this House who have played the politics of communalism to stop playing with fire?
Mr Falconer
I think the hon. Gentleman’s question is: will I condemn the existence of British Indian and British Pakistani communities? No, I won’t. There is tension between those communities and I have called for calm. If he is asking me whether I think there has been too much immigration over the last 14 years, yes indeed—[Interruption.] I am very happy to take guidance from Mr Speaker on what the question was.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I would also like to associate myself with the condemnation of this horrific and cowardly attack on innocent people. Ilford South is home to a large diaspora of Indian and Pakistani descent. Following the horrific murder of the 26 tourists, whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the terrorists orchestrated their heinous attack, India points the finger at Pakistan and Pakistan denies any involvement. Both are nuclear powers. What steps are the Government taking to de-escalate this particular situation?
Mr Falconer
As I have said, we have been engaged with both states extensively over the past few days. We are taking all the steps we can to ensure that heightened tensions do not lead to the risk of uncontrolled escalation.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Many of my constituents have been hit hard by the recent massacre in Kashmir. The perpetrators of the massacre must face the full force of the law. An open dialogue between India and Pakistan is now vital to avoid an escalation of tensions over Kashmir. How are the Government working to support efforts to de-escalate and to prevent cross-border exchanges escalating into a full-blown conflict?
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. We will continue to work with both states on the issues he outlines in the way I have described over the course of the afternoon.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is our common humanity that unites many of us in this House in our condemnation of a terrorist act and our condolences to the families affected, whether they have community links to this country or not. I hear what the Minister says, and I support entirely his call for an investigation, as many Members do. What is troubling my British constituents who have family in the Kashmir region are the words of the Indian Defence Minister, who has said there will be a “strong response” in the coming days. In previous crisis moments, we have had missile strikes, airstrikes and special forces action from the Indian Government, and we have seen an explosion in anti-Muslim attacks in India in the past couple of days. What words of reassurance can the Minister offer my British constituents, who are concerned about human rights around the world and concerned about family members, that this Government will always speak up for innocent civilians, wherever they may live and wherever they may find friends?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We do, of course, stand up for human rights around the world, and we will continue our work to try to address heightened tensions between India and Pakistan. We want to avoid a dangerous spiral of escalation in the region.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
It is incumbent on us as an international community to engage with leaders on both sides. What have the Minister and the UK Government done so far to promote an open dialogue specifically and to ensure it stays open?
Mr Falconer
As I say, we have spoken at a senior level to both Governments and we are encouraging direct contact, which we understand is in place.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents, particularly those from the Kashmiri and Pakistani communities, strongly condemn this terrorist atrocity in Pahalgam. They are also worried about India’s response, in particular its suspension of the Indus waters treaty, but also the bulldozing of homes of those not connected to this attack in any way. Does the Minister agree that the Kashmiri people should not be subjected to collective punishment, as the people of Palestine have been in Israel?
Mr Falconer
As I hope has been clear in all my answers, a terrible terrorist attack has been perpetrated, and India has our full support in going after the perpetrators of that attack. We do, of course, expect all our partners to do that in accordance with their domestic standards and laws.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions and for the calm way he has responded, which is appreciated in this House. I travelled to the region in question some four or five years ago as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief; there was tension then, and there is greater tension now, in every sense of the word. The slaughter of tourists in that idyllic meadow in Kashmir can never be seen as anything other than pure, unadulterated evil: people were killed simply because they were Hindus or Christians. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families who mourn their loved ones today. What steps can the Minister take to provide support for the Government to deal with terrorism, and how can we get the message to British citizens that they should under no circumstances whatsoever travel to that region?
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will reiterate our travel advice: we advise against all travel to Jammu and Kashmir except for travel by air to the city of Jammu, travel within the city of Jammu and travel within the union territory of Ladakh.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
People in India and around the world were horrified last week by the news of the terror attack in which 26 innocent tourists were killed in Jammu and Kashmir. My thoughts are with all those who have lost loved ones. This was an appalling attack, aimed clearly at destabilising the situation in Kashmir. In my constituency, I have large Pakistani, Indian and Kashmiri communities, and many of my constituents are now very concerned about an escalation of tensions in the region. How are the British Government working with the Indian Government to provide support in the wake of this terror attack, and what more can the Minister say about the constructive role Britain must play in finding a diplomatic resolution?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend reflects the strength of feeling in her constituency, as in so many of the constituencies represented in this House. We will continue to play our full diplomatic role, and we welcome the efforts of my hon. Friend and many colleagues across this House in engaging right across the spectrum of their constituencies.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Kashmiri community in Stoke-on-Trent will have condemned the appalling atrocities taking place last Tuesday, but that condemnation will have quickly turned to fear and anxiety about what it means for their friends and loved ones in both the India and Pakistan-administered sides of Kashmir.
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers on the Government’s position that this is now an issue for India and Kashmir to resolve alone, and I welcome the actions the Government are taking to reduce tensions. However, in the long term, a peaceful settlement for this community will need help and need international facilitation, per UN resolutions 39 and 47. Self-determination for the people of Kashmir is going to take more than warm words from Ministers. Can the Minister therefore set out what actions he will take through the UN and his counterparts in other countries to ensure that we start to move down the path of peace quickly?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is a doughty advocate for his constituents in voicing their concerns. The long-standing position of the United Kingdom is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting resolution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for us to prescribe a solution.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Like many colleagues in this House, I was appalled by the terrorist attack in Kashmir, and my heart goes out to the victims and their loved ones. What really worries me now is the hatred, threats and incitement we have seen online since the attack, which I know are deeply unsettling for many of my constituents. Does the Minister agree that the incitement of hatred online is completely unacceptable, and can he share what measures the Government are taking to monitor and act against it?
Mr Falconer
We are aware of hatred being incited online in relation to events in the region, and we condemn it utterly. Where the threshold is met for police action, it should be taken.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I share the horror at this despicable act of terrorism inflicted on 26 innocent people, many of whom were on holiday—one young man was on his honeymoon. My condolences are with all those affected. The ripples are widespread and felt by the global Indian community, including my constituents in Winchburgh. They have raised their concerns with me about this incident, but they are also really fearful of what happens next. Can the Minister give my constituents assurances that the Government will work with international partners to support peace and stability in the region, and that community cohesion will remain a top priority for this Government?
Mr Falconer
India and Pakistan are our friends. We have historical connections to both states and to communities right across the region, and we will continue to be committed to regional stability. Of course, we also call for calm on our own streets.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan) on securing this urgent question, but I do say to the Minister that this really should have been a statement. We are all horrified by the act of terror that we saw just days ago and condemn it without equivocation. I have heard from many of my constituents from both diasporas in recent days, and it is important to note that many people are feeling this act of terror deeply in my community, and up and down the United Kingdom. India and Pakistan are two very important members of the Commonwealth. Can the Minister specifically outline what engagement the British Government have had with the Commonwealth to help to reduce tensions?
Mr Falconer
If my hon. Friend would like a statement, he can stay for 45 minutes and he will get another one from me. We have been in direct contact with both India and Pakistan, and we will continue to do so.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his condolences and for his strong condemnation of this horrific terror attack. In recent days, I have been contacted by hundreds of families in my constituency who have been horrified by these events. It is clear that the awful terror attack in Kashmir has sent shockwaves through the British Indian community and the global Hindu community more broadly. My constituents have spoken overwhelmingly of justice, and understandably so. We all want to see peace and de-escalation, but understanding that people will be held to account for these horrific crimes is vital to getting there.
I would just like to press the Minister a little more to be clear that the UK Government, when they stand with India, are doing all they can to identify the parties responsible for these events and those who support and fund them, so that they can be held to account and justice can be found.
Mr Falconer
Of course, we want to see the perpetrators held to justice properly, and we will be supporting India to do so.
Nick Timothy
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, I asked the Minister to tell Members of the House who were playing the politics of communalism to stop playing with fire. He not only failed to do so, but attacked me for observing the undoubted tensions and sometimes even violence that take place here as foreign conflicts are played out in this country. Can you advise me on whether the Minister can withdraw this attack? If he simply misheard my question, can he be allowed to answer it now? This is a very serious issue.
Mr Falconer
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As I understood the question, the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that there had been too much immigration from, presumably, both India and Pakistan over the last period, and that that was leading to communalism within constituencies across the country. This Government —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) is not going to carry on speaking from a sedentary position.
Mr Falconer
I have been absolutely clear from this Dispatch Box that I do not want to see any communal tensions in the UK. I have repeatedly called for calm. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he believes that too much immigration has led to these—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Obviously, we are not going to get anywhere like this. Sit down, Minister. I am not responsible for the answers that the Minister makes. I am sure that this matter will not rest there, but it will have to rest for now because we are moving on to the next urgent question.
Irish Republican Alleged Incitement
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the alleged incitement to murder Members of Parliament by the Irish republican group Kneecap.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his urgent question. Let us never forget that we lost two Members of this House, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, in tragic circumstances. Both Jo and Sir David were passionate advocates for their constituents, and they cared deeply about a range of issues and embodied the finest democratic qualities, traditions and values of this House. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with their families today and every day.
I want to reiterate the Home Secretary’s words and fully condemn the comments that have been made. Such remarks are dangerous and irresponsible, and this Government utterly reject the views expressed by this group. Let me be crystal clear: political intimidation and abuse have no place in our society.
I know that the House will want immediate answers on this issue, but as the Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention said yesterday, in relation to the urgent question on the Headingley case, the desire for immediate answers is often constrained by the obligation that we have, as Ministers and as Members of this House, not to do or say anything that would interfere in what is a live police investigation.
As Members know, the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to determine, and they are operationally independent of the Government. It is important that the police are allowed to carry out their ongoing investigations free from political interference.
However, for the benefit of the House, let me recap what the Metropolitan police have themselves said about these reports. They said:
“We have been made aware of the video and it has been referred to the counter-terrorism internet referral unit for assessment and to determine whether any further police investigation may be required.”
Although I will not comment further on this specific case, the safety and security of Members of this House, and all those who serve in elected office, is an issue to which I attach the utmost seriousness, as does the Home Secretary and as do you, Mr Speaker.
Elected representatives at all levels and across all parties must be able to perform their duties safely and without fear, and, through the defending democracy taskforce, we are driving a whole-of-government effort to ensure that that is the case. The taskforce has recently agreed a programme of work to tackle the harassment and intimidation of elected Members. The taskforce is also supporting the Speaker’s Conference that is addressing these issues.
Those of us who attend this place are all too aware of the devastating consequences of violence against our colleagues and friends. We may not always agree, but if there is one universal truth to which we would all subscribe it is surely that our politics is better when it is conducted respectfully and safely. I hope and trust that that will have the support of Members right across the House.
The Home Secretary and I condemn the comments that have been made and we will work tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of all those who step forward to serve in public office.
Mr Francois
Two MPs—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess—have been murdered within the past decade, in the line of duty while meeting their constituents. Frankly, that could have been any of us. I should like to ask the Home Secretary, albeit in absentia, four specific questions.
First, how long is this counter-terrorist police inquiry likely to take? The video plainly speaks for itself. How could the words “Kill your local MP” possibly have been taken out of context?
Secondly, we now know that Kneecap applied for a £14,000 Government grant, during the previous Parliament, which was vetoed, quite rightly, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch). Kneecap then appealed against this decision as “discriminatory”. The incoming Labour Government concluded that fighting the appeal would be
“not in the public interest.”
Can the Home Secretary tell the House which Government Minister approved that absurd decision to effectively surrender to Kneecap over this, and why?
Thirdly, Kneecap are still booked to appear at Glastonbury—the organisers of which, incidentally, received some £1.5 million of taxpayer subsidy during the covid pandemic. Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be unconscionable for Kneecap to appear, at least while the police inquiry is under way? Kneecap should surely be barred today. To be crystal clear, do the Government agree with that—yes or no?
Finally, Kneecap have now offered a “crocodile tears” apology to Katie Amess. Have that family not been through enough already? So, as it is within her gift, will the Home Secretary now seriously reconsider their request to examine potential failures by Prevent that may have contributed to David’s death, via the auspices of the Southport inquiry? Is that not the least we can do? Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Dan Jarvis
I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this matter, because it provides us with an opportunity to discuss these issues, which is something I have been keen to do for some time. Let me gently say to him that he mentioned the name of the band on a number of occasions. I deliberately did not do so, and I will not do so. It is for right hon. and hon. Members to choose what language they use, but my advice is not to give the band or its members any further publicity by naming them. I will not be doing so and I suggest that other Members do not either.
The right hon. Member spoke about the Home Secretary. Let me tell him what she said about this. She said that this is a “total disgrace”. She said:
“It’s dangerous and irresponsible to say these sorts of things, and I hope that everybody involved—not just the band but also those involved surrounding them and those involved in events—also take some responsibility on this and looks very seriously at the consequences of these kinds of remarks, not just what’s been said.”
Let me also say to the right hon. Gentleman that I chair the defending democracy taskforce. Clearly, the Home Secretary has overall responsibility, but the judgment was that I would be here as the person who chairs the taskforce, but we both, of course, take the matter incredibly seriously. He asked about the length of the investigation. As I know he will understand, that is a matter not for Ministers but for the Metropolitan police. He also asked about the funding of the group.
Let me say again, gently and respectfully, that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the case relating to the group’s funding. I did not raise this point proactively; I refer to it now only in response to his specific question. The truth of the matter is that we inherited this situation from the previous Government. We inherited the scheme and we inherited this situation. After approving the grant, the previous Government then U-turned on it being given. They did not take proper legal advice and ended up in a costly legal battle that they lost. This Government have a duty to bring that situation to an end and protect taxpayers’ money. We are deeply concerned about all the things that made up this case. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said yesterday, that is precisely why we are rightly taking the opportunity to review the scheme now.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Glastonbury. It is for the organisers of the festival to decide who appears.
Dan Jarvis
If the right hon. Gentleman can be patient, he will hear the entirety of my response. It is not for Government Ministers to say who is going to appear at Glastonbury; it is for the organisers of the festival. As I have said, there is a live police investigation ongoing, so the Government urge the organisers of Glastonbury to think very carefully about who is invited to perform there later this year.
For reasons that I completely understand and appreciate, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Amess family. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the Amess family, as they are with the family of Jo Cox. The House will be aware, because I have spoken about it previously, that we have published the Prevent learning review to ensure that there is public scrutiny and transparency over the perpetrator’s dealings with Prevent. We will also publish the findings from Lord Anderson’s review.
The Home Secretary and I want to ensure that every avenue has been explored. That is why we will appoint a senior figure to scrutinise all of the previous reviews that have taken place, to see whether any questions still need to be answered or any issues still need to be addressed. We will act as necessary if any such gaps are identified as a result of that process.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his answer to the urgent question. Nobody but those in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) know what it is actually like when somebody kills your MP. The reverberations are still being felt in Southend West and Leigh three and a half years later by the constituents, never mind the family of Sir David Amess, who will never recover from the loss. Does my hon. Friend agree that those in the public eye—anyone, in fact, but especially those in the public eye—should be careful with their words, because words have power and can be incredibly dangerous. We should condemn with all force the type of incitement we have seen from this particular group.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the remarks he has made, and not just today but previously. I totally agree; he is absolutely right that words have consequences. All of us, both in and outside this House, should treat others with respect and dignity. I join my hon. Friend in condemning the words that have been used, and I give him and the House my categorical assurance that we will do everything we possibly can to ensure the safety and security of all who serve in elected office.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Our thoughts today are with our dear friends Sir David Amess and Jo Cox. They were brutally murdered on a surgery Friday doing their job on behalf of their constituents. Tragically, they were not the first MPs to be murdered; the crest of Airey Neave is up there above the door, with those of Sir David and Jo behind me. Those who incite the murder of MPs are attacking democracy itself. Will the Minister join me in condemning unreservedly the despicable evil that Kneecap represent in the appalling comments they made?
I would like to ask about the funding. In November 2024, the Department for Business and Trade decided to end its support for the legal challenge—a decision that resulted in the band winning and becoming entitled to the money. Why did the Government make that decision? In the light of what we now know, will they appeal against that decision? Critically, will the Minister give categoric assurance from the Dispatch Box that this band will never, under any circumstances, receive public money again from any source, including the National Lottery and Northern Ireland Screen?
This organisation has also expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah, which are proscribed terrorist groups. The Minister said that he did not want to comment on the police investigation. However, the Government commented quite extensively on the investigations after Southport, so I would like him to make clear, as the Government did last summer, that they consider it in the public interest that the police investigate and, if there is evidence, prosecute these offences or potential offences. If he is not willing to do that now, he risks the perception of two-tier justice.
Finally, I had a meeting very recently with Sir David’s widow Julia and his daughter Katie, who bear an enormous burden of grief. They want to make sure that the lessons are learned from Sir David’s murder. As the Minister knows, the perpetrator had been in the Prevent programme previously, like the perpetrators in Reading and Southport. Julia and Katie Amess would like Sir David’s murderer and the failings of Prevent to be looked at alongside the Southport case, which is being investigated, and the Reading case. Will the Minister honour his memory by agreeing to that today?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks. He is right that when a threat is made to a Member of this House or anyone who serves in elected office it is an attack not just on that individual but on our democracy. That is precisely why this Government have placed, as the last Government did, so much emphasis and importance on the work of the defending democracy taskforce.
The right hon. Member will know from his time in government that the taskforce is the fulcrum on which all the different bits of Government join together, ensuring that our response to the threats we face is properly organised and that the resources are marshalled correctly and appropriately. It is how we enable all those who wish to serve in public life to do so without fear of the completely unacceptable attacks we have seen in recent years. I agree with him on that, and I hope it is a matter on which we can all agree. I also agree with his points about the remarks themselves. I will not name the band, but I reiterate that the Government unreservedly condemn the remarks that have been made.
The shadow Home Secretary asked specifically about funding. In my earlier response I gave detail about the sequencing of the funding that was agreed under the previous Government. He asked about future funding, so let me be clear with the House: we do not think that individuals expressing the views we have heard should be receiving taxpayer funding. That is a non-controversial thing to say. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said yesterday, officials are reviewing the music export growth scheme in the light of the comments that have emerged. I would add—the right hon. Member will probably agree—that it seems strange to me, and I am sure to other Members of the House, that a republican group who are seemingly opposed to the British Government would want to receive funding from them. I find that baffling.
The right hon. Member mentioned proscription and Hamas and Hezbollah; he knows well that those are proscribed organisations. It is a criminal offence to belong to, invite support for, recklessly express support for or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing, carry articles in public or publish an image of clothing or any article in a way that arouses reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or a supporter of a proscribed organisation. The Government are crystal clear: support for proscribed organisations is wholly unacceptable, and where an offence has been committed, the Government trust that the police will use the full extent of the offences available to them.
The right hon. Member’s final point was about Lady Amess and Katie Amess. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take comfort from the response I gave to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about the seriousness with which we address these issues. I am acutely conscious that we have with us in the Chamber a member of Jo Cox’s family, and it is right that we conduct ourselves in a way—as we are—that remembers the loss that the families have suffered, and that this House has suffered. The Government will do everything we possibly can to ensure that those families are supported and those terrible events never occur again.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is disappointing to see how Conservative Members have approached this question. I would have hoped that this was an issue on which the whole House could remain united. The way in which it has been approached is to be regretted.
I have no desire to pour cold water on the daft political posturings of adolescents given voice in pop music—that has been going on for decades and is somewhat of a rite of passage—but the comments of this band go far beyond what is remotely acceptable in a civilised country. Will the Minister therefore please use his good offices to look to minimise the number of mainstream platforms—not just Glastonbury—across the board on which this band appear?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right about the comments that have been made; we unreservedly condemn them. He makes a point that I want to raise about the importance of the way in which we work co-operatively and collaboratively across the House. I chair the defending democracy taskforce on behalf of the Government, but I also chair it on behalf of all Members of this House and the other House and on behalf of those who serve in local government. My approach has always been, and will always be, to work co-operatively with every political party. I am happy at any point to meet any Member or any political party to discuss these matters. My door is always open.
On the point my hon. Friend made about the profile of the band, he will have heard my words with regard to Glastonbury. That is specifically why I am not naming them—I do not want to give them any further publicity—but I agree with the sentiment of his point.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The remarks by members of the band are completely unacceptable, and it is right that they have apologised to the families of Sir David Amess and Jo Cox, but clearly those comments should never have been made in the first place. Incitement to violence against Members of Parliament cuts to the very heart of our democracy. The reality is that two MPs have been murdered in the last decade. It is absolutely right that the authorities are looking into other comments relating to encouraging support for proscribed terror organisations.
I want to look at what more the Government can do. What criteria does the Home Office apply when assessing whether artists or performers are promoting harmful or extremist rhetoric, particularly where there is a clear attempt to provoke public outrage? What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that comments like these may have on community cohesion?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am, for the sensible and reasonable way in which she framed her remarks. She is absolutely right. Incitement to violence is utterly unacceptable in any context, and it is completely unacceptable in the context of Members of this House and other elected politicians. That is why the Prime Minister recently refreshed the mandate of the defending democracy taskforce, and that is why, as chair of that taskforce, I am working closely with law enforcement, all Government Departments, the Electoral Commission and a range of different organisations, including the police, to ensure that right around the country we have the most coherent, joined-up and properly resourced response.
Back at the general election last year, I am sure all of us saw things that we consider completely unacceptable. It is my ambition as the chair, and that of the Government, to ensure that electoral events—I am conscious that we are working through one at the moment—are fought in a way that enables and encourages reasonable and robust debate. It is absolutely right that in the cut and thrust of politics there should be the rough and tumble of debate, but I think instinctively we all know where the line is drawn, and this incident went miles over where the line should be drawn.
We will continue to look carefully at the circumstances of this case. As I said, it is ultimately for the police to make an operational decision about where they want to go with it, but I give the hon. Member an assurance that through the DDTF we take these matters incredibly seriously. I would be happy to work even more closely with her, her colleagues and all Members of the House in that endeavour.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
May I take a moment to thank the Speaker’s Office for the support it gives new MPs to ensure that we all feel safe? I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question and equally for his commitment to ensuring that Members of the House feel safe and secure in their work. Does he agree that when we think about the security of MPs we must also consider the safety of MPs’ staff? I think about the staff who work in my constituency and do their jobs solely because they want to help people in my constituency. They should never feel intimidated or unsafe.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes some really important points. I join him in thanking Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and all the Speaker’s Office for the work they do with the Parliamentary Security Department in ensuring that all Members of the House are safe and secure. The Speaker’s Conference into these matters is an important process that the Government are supporting. A couple of weeks ago, I gave evidence to Mr Speaker along with the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), who is responsible for elections. We consider the process to be hugely valuable, and we look forward to Mr Speaker’s conclusions. We will want to work closely with him on implementing the findings.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to reference MPs’ staff. All of us will know that often where the rubber hits the road in our constituencies is the extraordinary, dedicated work being done on our behalf by our office managers, our parliamentary assistants and our parliamentary caseworkers. They are absolutely in my thoughts when I think about these matters. The Bridger network around the country is there for them as well as for Members of the House.
It is worth adding that in addition to Members and their staff, we need to ensure that our family members are properly protected. I have been in recent touch with the police specifically about incidents that have occurred on a couple of occasions at Members’ home addresses. That is totally unacceptable. I have written to the police constructively to remind them of the powers they have in that regard.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I know that the Minister will agree that part of the service that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has done the House today is that he has given us all the opportunity to make a point that really should not need making, namely that incitement to violence against Members of Parliament is no more acceptable than incitement to violence against any other member of our society. The Minister is entirely right to be cautious about prejudicing an investigation into whether the criminal law has been broken, but does he agree that what we can and should say today is that artistic licence is not a defence to a breach of the criminal law?
Dan Jarvis
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on both counts.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The concern is not just the glorification of violence against MPs, and the impact that has on the families of MPs who have been murdered in terrorist incidents, including Jo Cox and Sir David Amess; the same band has expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah, which are proscribed groups, and that has an impact on the feeling of safety and security in the Jewish community. The rhetoric that the band uses represents a return to an ugly rhetoric about communal differences in Northern Ireland—a return that I know will cause fear and pain to hon. Members from Northern Ireland who lost friends and colleagues due to terrorism.
My main concern, however, is about the impact on democracy as a whole. Calls for violence against politicians of any party have a chilling effect on the willingness of any normal citizen to think, “I could run for council,” or “I could run to be an MP.” They think that they will put themselves and their family at threat of violence. Does the Minister agree that it is vital for the future of democracy in this country that people feel that they can engage in public life without putting their life and safety in danger?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend made two really important points. I completely agree with his remarks at the beginning of his question. He is also absolutely right to raise concerns about the chilling effect that there could well be on our democracy. I am sure that all of us in this place know exceptional people who, for reasons that we all understand, have decided not to step forward to serve in public life. This House, local councils and police and crime commissioners are not getting people who could otherwise make a significant contribution to public life.
It is a tragedy for our country that some people might feel that they should not step forward because of the risks, pressures, harassment and intimidation that go with service in public life. That is precisely why we take the defending democracy taskforce so seriously, and are working with colleagues across Government, in local government and in the devolved Administrations to ensure that people do not feel that politics is too dangerous for them. It would be terrible for our country if we got to that point. I am absolutely determined, as is the Home Secretary, to make sure that the defending democracy taskforce is as successful as possible in ensuring that nobody feels that they do not want to step forward because of the risks.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
May I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for making that reference? Although it is natural that we refer to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, it is important for Members of this House to recognise that there are also four plaques in this Chamber for Ian Gow, Airey Neave, Robert Bradford and Sir Anthony Berry, all of whom were murdered by the Irish republican antecedents to Kneecap. Over the last 24 hours, we have seen crocodile tears and heard confected apologies and whataboutery, but nothing can be said that will mask the naked hatred within those individuals whose balaclavas have slipped.
I have heard the Minister speak about his defending democracy taskforce and his aspiration for coherency across this United Kingdom on the glorification of terrorism. For far too long, a blind eye has been turned to the glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland. When confined to Northern Ireland, it apparently seems to be quite acceptable, yet it keeps the wounds of our past open and frustrates reconciliation. To my mind, there is no coherency on the application of laws to prevent the glorification of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister meet my colleagues and me to ensure that there is?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that, and he is absolutely right to refer to all the plaques in this Chamber. We think about all those who have lost their life serving our country. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that I was in Northern Ireland recently, where I met the Justice Minister to discuss this and other matters. He may also be aware that in the autumn of last year, I wrote to the leaders of all the Northern Ireland political parties, offering a meeting.
Dan Jarvis
He says that he did not receive the letter. Let me say therefore that I would, of course, be very happy to meet him, and I am keen to do that as quickly as possible.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Yesterday, I wrote to Glastonbury festival, urging it to remove this music group from its line-up because they have allegedly called for the murder of Conservative colleagues in this House, and because we have seen footage of them appearing to show support for Hezbollah and Hamas, including by waving a flag of a proscribed organisation. Words, as others have said, have tragic consequences. Beloved colleagues Jo Cox and Sir David Amess were tragically murdered, and 16 June 2016 remains one of the worst days of my life. I know many colleagues in this House feel the same. We all have a duty to prevent that from ever happening again.
I welcome the Minister’s comments about Glastonbury. Does he agree that iTunes, Spotify, YouTube and others should strongly consider taking the group’s music off their platforms until the police investigation is over? May I also note the absence of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is not present and not involved in this discussion? Will the Minister join me in condemning the right hon. Member for Islington North’s appearance in a photograph with the group, and in calling for him to apologise for that?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. May I remind Members that if they make specific references to a colleague, they ought to give them notice in advance?
Dan Jarvis
I agree with my hon. Friend about words having consequences; he is absolutely right about that. He is also absolutely right that we all have a duty in this House to do everything that we possibly can to conduct our politics in a responsible and reasonable way, as do others. He mentioned Glastonbury; and I am grateful to him for the care and attention with which he has written to the festival’s organisers. He heard my earlier comments. I heard his remarks about streaming platforms; my sense was that there was a lot of agreement from Members from right across the House. With respect, I am not aware of the other matter he mentions, and I am keen not to annoy Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not refer to the right hon. Gentleman who is not in his place on this occasion.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Given the proximity of my constituency to the Glastonbury festival, many local people are concerned to learn that a pop group promoting harmful and extremist rhetoric are scheduled to perform there this summer. What criteria does the Home Office apply when assessing whether artists or performers are promoting harmful or extremist rhetoric, particularly when there is a clear attempt to provoke public outrage? Also, will the Minister work with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) to engage with the Glastonbury festival organisers on finding an appropriate resolution?
Dan Jarvis
Yes, I am happy to do all the things that the hon. Lady asks.
She mentioned funding. I hope that she heard the remarks that I made earlier, not least about the Government thinking that individuals expressing such views should not receive taxpayer funding. I do not think that is a controversial thing to say. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the music export growth scheme.
On the hon. Lady’s point about the Glastonbury festival organisers, I suspect and hope that, as a neighbouring MP, she will have a good and constructive relationship with them. I also very much hope that they have listened to what she has said.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
The comments made by this group are chilling and disgusting, and they risk dragging our politics and our country to a very dangerous place. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). When I go to schools in my constituency, the message I take to young people is: “You have a place in politics. You can represent your community. You can make a change.” Does my hon. Friend agree that incitement to violence, and violence against MPs, have a chilling effect, particularly on people from under-represented groups in our country? They push those people not to get involved in politics, which is deeply wrong.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I agree wholeheartedly with it. He is right about the chilling effect. It would absolutely extend to young people, as well as older people and others; it applies to anyone considering stepping forward to serve in public life. The strength of our democracy and our country depends on people who are prepared to step forward and serve their constituents as Members of this House, and we need to ensure that people feel that they can do that without being subjected to completely unnecessary harassment and intimidation. That is why a key theme of the defending democracy taskforce is incidents of harassment and intimidation, and whether there are gaps in legislation. Where there are gaps, we will fill them.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Every time I come to this House, I stand underneath the plaque for Jo Cox, and I look over at the plaque for David Amess. It seems impossible that within 10 years, two of our colleagues could have been murdered. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for raising this question, because it gives us a moment to reflect. When I read the words:
“The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP”,
and “Up Hamas! Up Hezbollah!”, I cannot see what time interval needs to pass before that is deemed an offence. I entirely recognise what the Minister says about these processes needing to happen independently, but speed of justice contributes to confidence in justice. As a former arts Minister who worked to support masses of creative groups, probably very few of which supported me or my party, I am clear-headed about the use of the music export growth scheme. I hope that the Minister, who I know to be a decent man, will, in his work on the defending democracy taskforce, proactively ensure that no taxpayers’ money goes to any organisation or creative group that uses language that has such a negative effect on the way that politics is conducted, and the way that we in this place are seen.
Dan Jarvis
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that the urgent question has provided us with a moment to reflect. The words that he repeated—I completely understand why he chose to repeat them—are utterly vile. They make my blood boil. I also agree with the other points that he made. He knows, as a former senior Minister, about the importance of the operational independence of the police, but he made his point in a very reasonable way, and it will have been heard. Finally, on his comments about funding, he is absolutely right again. That is why the Secretary of State, as a matter of urgency, will now look at these matters.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
It is good to hear that the House is united in its condemnation of the appalling comments by this band, inciting hatred and supporting terrorism, and our thoughts and prayers today are with the families of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Does the Minister agree that there can never be any excuse for inciting violence against MPs, or for supporting the vile, antisemitic terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah, and that a threat to MPs is a threat to democracy itself?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There can never, ever be any excuse for these kinds of words. This is not about free speech or artistic licence; it is about incitement. He is absolutely right to frame his question in the way that he has, and I can give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. Kneecap’s so-called apology simply underlines their hatred and refusal to see that they cannot call for murder simply because they do not agree with political beliefs. We know that they glorify IRA terrorist campaigns, and they make no apologies for that. No one can support a group who are proscribed, and this must be dealt with. I look to the Minister in particular, since the responsibility lies on his shoulders, and ask him how he will send the appropriate message from this House that although we may not agree politically, there is a line, and Kneecap have crossed that line. There is right and wrong, and if someone has done wrong they are accountable in law for it, so no half-hearted, grudging, fake apology will suffice. They need to be brought to justice by the police and taken to court. Better still, put them in jail.
Dan Jarvis
I agree with the hon. Member, and I think he framed the appropriate message very effectively himself. He is right to say that it is never acceptable to utter the kinds of words that we have heard today, and this Government take these matters incredibly seriously. He will also have heard the agreement I made earlier to meet the leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland—of course, I am happy to meet the political leaders of any party—to discuss these matters. I am grateful to him for his contribution.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that there is no context at all in which it would be acceptable to utter the remarks attributed to this group? Does he hope, as I do, that the criminal justice system pursues them with the utmost rigour, without any thought to mitigations such as so-called artistic licence? Does he share my disappointment as a south-west MP that, as of this afternoon, Glastonbury is still listing this outfit for a performance on Saturday 28 June?
Dan Jarvis
I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to there being no excuse whatsoever for these remarks. I know that he will understand the limitations placed on me with regard to what is an ongoing live investigation by the police, but the words that he has used are entirely reasonable and appropriate. With regard to Glastonbury, he will have heard the contributions made by other hon. Members and the words that I used earlier with regard to the organisers of that festival considering whether it is appropriate to have in their line-up a group who are currently subject to a live police investigation. I hope very much that they will take that seriously and listen to the concerns that have been expressed by Members right across this House.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The phrase, “Kill your local MP,” carries a sincerely sinister connotation right across this House. To my party, which has lost councillors, Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament and Members of this House to republican terrorists, those words are not clever or smart; they are an incitement to terrorist activity, which this band have glorified in the past. This band present a real danger, through what they call their art, of glorifying the actions that caused the murders and deaths of so many people in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister give a reassurance that the Government will do all in their power to look not just at what has been said in the recent videos that have come to light but at what the band have said in the past? As he looks to Glastonbury and gives the organisers advice, will he also look at a forthcoming event in Belfast and provide Belfast city council with the same advice?
Dan Jarvis
I can give the hon. Member that reassurance. The words we have heard are chilling anywhere, in any corner of this United Kingdom, but I completely understand the point he makes and the particular significance they will have in his constituency and his part of the world, so I can give him the reassurances he seeks.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister has a point about the name. An Irish republican band with a name that must send a shudder down the spine of so many in Northern Ireland, and which the hon. and gallant Minister chooses not to use, ought to have raised alarm bells long before they got their hands on any public money. Is there any prospect of getting that money back?
Dan Jarvis
I agree with the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. On the issue of the money, that is something the Secretary of State will be looking closely at.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
In Northern Ireland, the term “kneecap” is related to a violent criminal act. When a grouping take that as their name, express a desire for MPs to be murdered and support proscribed organisations like Hezbollah and Hamas, we have to question why they have been awarded so much UK taxpayers’ money. Yesterday, I took the opportunity to write to the US and Canadian authorities asking them to refuse any visa applications from these hatemongers ahead of their publicised tour of North America to prevent them from spreading their violent message across the world. Will the Minister join me in lobbying for that?
Dan Jarvis
As the hon. Member may be aware, I am—not to the same extent as herself—intimately familiar with the connotations of the name from my previous professional experience, so I completely understand why she has made the point in the way that she has. Let me undertake to go away and think more specifically about the points she has raised, but I am happy to discuss them further with her or with any of her colleagues should she wish to do so.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
If this band remain on the bill at Glastonbury this year, will the Minister undertake on behalf of the Government that no Ministers will attend the whole festival?
Dan Jarvis
I was not intending to attend myself. Let me reflect on the question, not least because I am not responsible for other Ministers’ diaries. However, as I have said previously, I am sure—I am certainly hopeful— that the organisers of Glastonbury will be listening to the contributions that have been made and will reflect on the decision that they have previously taken.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the Minister for the tone and manner in which he has answered questions. I am cognisant of the ongoing legal action that may be pursued in this case, so to generalise the point a little, how are the Government ensuring that public funding mechanisms, such as the music export growth scheme, are not inadvertently supporting entities that propagate extremist rhetoric and incitement to violence? This is not just about the money; it is about the official imprimatur that schemes like that offer to the entities involved.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member makes an entirely reasonable and legitimate point about the public funding. I say again that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing the scheme, and I am sure that she will have more to say about it in the not-too-distant future.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister has responded to the urgent question and given an unequivocal condemnation, which I am sure is shared across the House. Does he understand, though, that many of us have suffered threats down through the years? We have the plaques in the Chamber for those who have suffered and paid the ultimate sacrifice. Does he agree that while that condemnation is universal across the Chamber, our comments amount to diddly squat for the group concerned, but the actions that follow from the Minister’s words would matter? Will he come back to the House after he has taken the actions he has undertaken to take to update Members and the general public on them?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for and completely understand the points the hon. Member made, which he made in a fair, reasonable way. I give him that commitment to come back and update the House. I give him my personal assurance of the importance that I attach to these matters. I chair the defending democracy taskforce. I have personally invested a huge amount of time and effort working closely with officials not just in the Home Office but right across government. It is an important mechanism that brings together the collective resource of the UK Government, and it is on me to ensure that those resources are properly marshalled in the right place at the right time, so that we can be ambitious about ensuring that people are not subject to completely unacceptable harassment and intimidation. I give him the assurance that I will do everything I possibly can, working with colleagues across Government, and I would be happy to speak to him and to come back and update the House accordingly.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
An apology to the families of David Amess and Jo Cox was the only slim chance for redemption. The use of inciting language is to be condemned when it becomes apparent, just as violence against elected representatives is always to be condemned. Politics is about being alert to the right to use words powerfully and the risks and responsibilities of doing so. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that it is right and necessary to condemn incendiary language and to ensure freedom of speech right across the political spectrum?
Dan Jarvis
Yes, I agree. I was in Wales recently where I discussed these matters with the First Minister. As I mentioned earlier, it is very much the Government’s intention that our approach and response is not just conducted at the UK Government national level, but is wired through local authorities and the devolved Assemblies. I am acutely conscious of the fact that elections will be taking place in Wales next year, and I want to ensure that everybody who participates in those elections can do so in a safe and secure way. I want to work with the First Minister, the right hon. Member and all her colleagues in Wales to ensure that that is the case.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I join in the condemnation from across the political spectrum in this House and from the Minister of the comments from this group, which are abhorrent, evil and twisted. Does the Minister agree that any local government authorities—I think especially of Belfast city council—that are allowing groups such as these to use their property for concerts should rethink that policy? Will he give a further commitment that he will contact Belfast city council to ensure that this group are not allowed to use council property for spewing out sectarian hate and evil comments?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the point he has raised. All public bodies have an absolute responsibility to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent in an appropriate way. I will take away the comments he has made and reflect on them, and I am happy to correspond with him further about them.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Is the Minister confident that the existing framework that prevents public funds from being used to platform individuals and groups who seek to stoke division is robust?
Dan Jarvis
As the hon. Member will understand, these public funds have not been allocated via my Department, so I will look carefully at the points he has made. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is looking carefully and reviewing this scheme. However, as I have just said to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), all public bodies and certainly all Departments have an absolute responsibility to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely, and that is the approach that this Government will take.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
With the scale of imprisonment that we have seen in recent months for those who make inappropriate comments on social media, does the Minister agree that confidence in policing and the prosecution services is on the line in this appalling incitement to murder, and that such confidence requires action against this group—a group that have made their hateful career out of advocating and supporting terrorism, be it Hamas, Hezbollah or the IRA? In that regard, will the Minister consider the adequacy of the offence of glorification of terrorism, which has so many let-outs that such groups are adept at exploiting and needs to be tightened up? Will he do that as a consequence of this episode?
Dan Jarvis
The police and the Crown Prosecution Service have a difficult job to do in general terms, and I am determined not to make it more difficult in these circumstances. The hon. and learned Gentleman’s second point is reasonable; I will reflect on it and come back to him.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Every time Members enter this Chamber, they walk through a door that has plaques in memory of Robert Bradford, Airey Neave and Ian Gow, who were murdered by the IRA simply because they served as MPs. This group have, through their music, glorified that kind of terrorism, just as Sinn Féin has done on a regular basis in Northern Ireland, right up to the level of First Minister. To that extent, the group could be called the musical wing of Sinn Féin. Will the Minister assure us that he will encourage the police to investigate this quickly, that the funding formula will no longer allows such groups to obtain funding, and that he will do his best to deny the group any further platform? I suspect that their panicked apology was more about getting visas for their lucrative tour in Canada and America than it was about being sorry for what they have done.
Dan Jarvis
Incitement to violence is completely unacceptable and there is never an excuse for it. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to mention the former Members of this House who lost their life serving their constituents and our country. I underline again the Government’s commitment and determination to ensure that all of us in this place, and all who serve in public life, can do so safely and securely. He spoke about the investigation. As I have said, that is on the way, but I take and understand his point about speed. He will understand that I have already responded to the point about funding. The Secretary of State will look at that—as will other Departments, I am sure.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the fact that Members of this House who have served their constituents in good faith have lost their life in so doing. That is utterly vile. We all have a responsibility to ensure that it does not happen again. That is the body of work of the defending democracy taskforce. I will ensure that it means we are best placed to address the threats that we all know about.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding, as a new MP, is that there is a long-standing convention by which a Member who intends to refer to another Member during proceedings—particularly in a critical or contentious manner—should inform that Member in advance. That courtesy gives the Member concerned the opportunity to be present and, if necessary, to respond. Earlier, reference was made to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) without prior notice. I seek your guidance on whether that is in keeping with the expected standards of conduct in the Chamber.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for advance notice of his point of order. Had he been in the Chamber at the time, he would have heard me make exactly that point. It is a courtesy of this House that Members referring to others should give advance notice.
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Visit
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the inward visit of Prime Minister Mustafa.
Yesterday, at the invitation of the Government, the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister, Dr Mohammad Mustafa, visited the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Mustafa was accompanied by Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Varsen Aghabekian and Minister of Health Dr Maged Abu Ramadan. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary both held meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa yesterday, and I was delighted to meet him again this morning. This visit reflects the UK’s steadfast support for the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people at this critical juncture in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
During the visit, we reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to advancing a two-state solution as the only pathway to achieving just and lasting peace in the middle east, where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, dignity and security. We are clear that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right of self-determination, including to independent statehood. The Government are committed to strengthening our bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority. The PA are the only legitimate governing entity in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and it is important that Gaza and the west bank are reunified under their authority. The UK is clear that the PA must have a central role in the next phase in Gaza. There can be no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza. We have been clear: Hamas must immediately release the hostages and relinquish control of Gaza. Israelis must be able to live in security next to their Palestinian neighbours, and 7 October must never be repeated.
The Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Mustafa signed a landmark memorandum of understanding to enhance the bilateral partnership between our two Governments. The memorandum of understanding established a new framework to guide and enhance the strategic partnership, and high-level dialogue across areas of mutual interest and benefit, including economic development and institutional reform. As part of our meetings with Prime Minister Mustafa, we discussed the gravity of the situation in Gaza, the west bank and East Jerusalem. We condemned the appalling suffering of civilians in Gaza and agreed on the urgent need for a return to a ceasefire in Gaza with the release of hostages and unblocking of aid. Aid workers need protection. Only diplomacy, not more bloodshed, will achieve long-term peace.
We also shared our alarm at the heightened tension in the west bank. We reiterated our clear condemnation of Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law and harm the prospect of a future Palestinian state. We called for an end to settlement expansion and settler violence. We are also clear that Israel must release frozen Palestinian Authority funds.
Prime Minister Mustafa outlined the essential reforms that the Palestinian Authority are currently undertaking. We fully support the implementation of those much-needed reforms, including through providing technical assistance. The reforms will strengthen financial sustainability and economic development, enhance the transparency and efficiency of governance and service delivery, and promote peaceful co-existence with neighbouring countries. As part of our MOU, the Palestinian Authority underlined their commitment to delivering their reform agenda in full as a matter of priority. As part of the visit, we also announced a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It will be directed at humanitarian relief, support for Palestinian economic development and strengthening Palestinian Authority governance and reform.
As the Foreign Secretary made clear, we will not give up on the two-state solution, with a Palestinian state and Israel living side by side in peace, dignity and security. The visit is a significant step in strengthening our relationship with the Palestinian Authority—a key partner for peace in the middle east—at this critical moment. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Government’s MOU fails to stand up to credible scrutiny, as it fails to outline in any way how it will help to achieve a meaningful end to the conflict. The MOU says that the PA are the “only legitimate governing entity” across the west bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza and that the UK Government want to see the PA running all three. There clearly cannot be any future for Hamas—we completely agree with that—but how will the Minister and the Government bring this about without a strategy for the removal of the terrorist Hamas regime in Gaza? I have asked this question many times from the Dispatch Box, but the Government simply have no answers.
There is a commitment in the MOU that the Palestinian Authority will hold presidential and parliamentary elections in “the shortest feasible timeframe”. What is that timeframe? Who is dictating that timetable? What mechanisms are being put in place for elections, and has this been supported by Arab partners and neighbours who are signatories to the Cairo plan to rebuild Gaza? Does the Minister believe that the Palestinian Authority, in their current form, are capable of holding free and fair elections? If not, is it the Government’s intention to provide election assistance? How would the Government rule out Hamas being able to run in those elections? There is nothing explicit in the MOU about a plan to ensure that terrorist infrastructure in Gaza is dismantled once and for all, which is inexplicable. What dialogue has taken place with key middle eastern allies since the Cairo plan for Gaza was published?
On the question of recognition of a Palestinian state, the Government’s approach is incoherent, and the MOU provides no clarity on the long-term intentions, conditions or timing of this happening. Does the Minister agree that we are not at the point of recognition, and that recognition cannot be the start of the process?
There is no mention anywhere in the MOU of efforts to build upon the Abraham accords as a way of achieving regional stability, despite the accords providing the framework to support and finance a new future for Palestine and support a two-state solution. Were efforts to expand the accords discussed with the Palestinian Authority leadership yesterday?
On the economic front, the MOU talks about boosting trade, but what kind of increases are we looking at in value terms, given all the instability in the region? In which sectors are the Government now pursuing trade, and will this involve the UK Government spending money on trade promotion measures?
Why is there no mention of welfare reform in PA-controlled territory, which we know is in dire need of urgent attention? Meanwhile, the reference to education is extremely vague and unsatisfactory. It needs to be much clearer and set proper parameters, so that there are clear plans for educating and upskilling a whole generation who have been poorly served by their political leaders for too long. Can the Minister confirm whether he held discussions with the PA about the urgent need for them to do everything in their powers to banish antisemitism from Palestinian school textbooks? Can he provide any detail on the opaque commitment to
“education, scientific and cultural exchanges”?
What form will those take?
Can the Minister clarify what exactly the £101 million he announced yesterday will go towards? Which organisations will be entrusted with the money and whether UNRWA—the United Nations Relief and Works Agency—will receive any of it? What specific programmes will it fund? The entire document contains only a brief mention of the need to tackle corruption, which is inadequate. What is his assessment of the current corruption levels and the PA leadership’s efforts to deal with it? What is his definition of progress?
The section on security co-operation also needs unpacking and more accountability. Exactly how will security co-operation be enhanced, and which “global challenges and threats” does the Minister envisage jointly countering with the Palestinian Authority?
The MOU also states:
“The Participants commit to action to uphold the rights of women and minority groups and prevent the targeting of individuals in these categories.”
Does the Minister believe that these rights are being sufficiently upheld in the west bank at present? Indeed, the question of full civil liberties, including freedom of expression and media freedom, needs serious attention. The PA have their work cut out to prove their credibility.
There is a section on climate change in the MOU. Can the Minister tell us exactly what is the best practice he is seeking to learn from the Palestinian Authority when it comes to tackling climate change? On the current conflict, what have this Government done since the House last met on this issue to support international efforts to secure the release of those poor hostages who remain in such cruel captivity in Gaza?
Finally, I turn to Iran. If we are serious about sustainable peace, we must address the root causes of this terrible suffering. We still have no clarity from the Government about how they see the UK working with the US Administration, so I will give the Minister another opportunity to answer that question. Will he furnish us with the Government’s official response on the legal attempt here in the UK to challenge the proscription of Hamas?
Mr Falconer
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked many questions. Let me be clear: the British Government see the Palestinian Authority as a vital partner, and they are a vital partner that must go through reform. The new Prime Minister has shown leadership on that reform agenda and has made progress on a range of issues. The right hon. Lady raises a number of important issues. One is the content of textbooks, an issue on which we have discussions with the Palestinian Authority and which I have discussed with other parties who have strong views, understandably, on the importance of ensuring that both communities are raised with a belief in co-existence rather than hatred.
There are a range of other very important reform questions that are at issue. One of them, on which the Prime Minister has shown real leadership, is the so-called “pay to slay” arrangements. Progress has been made on that, and we must encourage the Palestinian Authority in those reform efforts. The memorandum of understanding is intended to provide a framework to upgrade that co-operation, because the Palestinian Authority are the vital partner for peace.
The right hon. Lady rightly asked what we will do to ensure that Hamas leave the Gaza strip and do not play a governance role. One of the most important things we can do is ensure that there is a serious and credible alternative to Hamas, and that must be the Palestinian Authority, which is what our efforts are aimed at.
The right hon. Lady asked two important questions about the UK Government’s position in relation to Iran. We welcome the talks between the United States of America and Iran. I was in Oman after the first stage of the talks and the Foreign Secretary has been there recently. We are talking to all parties and we want to see a diplomatic solution to the nuclear weapon threat that Iran poses not just to the region but to the world. We hope that these talks will prove successful.
The right hon. Lady asked, reasonably, about the allocation of the £101 million. I am not in a position to give a full breakdown of exactly where the money will go, though I will provide the House with that breakdown. I would anticipate that funding is directed to UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority directly, but once we have full programmatic details, we will return to the House with that breakdown. We are talking to partners about those allocations and I am happy to come back in writing on some of the more detailed questions.
Lastly, we support the Abraham accords. I was very pleased, while the right hon. Lady was there, to sign the UK up to an agreement with Bahrain and the US which includes explicit reference to the Abraham accords. We are supporting the Abraham accords not just in our words but in our actions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
At the meeting last night between the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Palestinian Prime Minister and his delegation, it was clear that they were very encouraged by the discussions they had had with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and rightly so, because the memorandum of understanding shows serious thinking about the long-term future of Israel and Palestine and leadership towards peace. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is the time to take the next serious step, which is to finally recognise the state of Palestine? The best time to do that might be alongside the French in New York in June.
Mr Falconer
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and her courteous treatment of the Palestinian Prime Minister last night. The question of recognition is raised repeatedly in this House. Our position remains the same: we do wish to recognise a Palestinian state, and we wish to do so as a contribution to a two-state solution. We will make the judgment about when the best moment is to try to make the fullest possible contribution.
As I said to the Palestinian Prime Minister this morning, our responsibility is for the reality of the situation on the ground—the practical viability of a Palestinian state. Of course, other states have taken a different position from the UK Government and chosen to recognise a Palestinian state. That has not called it into existence. Our job in the British Government is to make a practical contribution to a two-state solution, and that is how we intend to approach this issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I was glad to see the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary meet the Palestinian Authority’s Prime Minister Mustafa and reaffirm this country’s support for a two-state solution. A Palestinian state as part of a wider two-state solution remains the only path to long-term peace and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Liberal Democrats have called for the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. I ask the Minister this question most weeks and will ask it again, and I hope the position will change one week: following yesterday’s meeting, will the Government now take this vital step and commit to working with international partners such as France on issuing a joint recognition statement?
Now is the time for a restoration of the ceasefire, the release of the hostages and a return to the political process. This Government have pledged a £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including for humanitarian relief. That is welcome, yet for more than 50 days Israel has blocked aid from entering Gaza and shuttered border crossing points. As a result, the food stocks of the UN World Food Programme, which previously reached half of Gaza’s population, have entirely run out. The risk of starvation, disease and death is very real, even as 116,000 tonnes of food aid languishes at border checkpoints. In a joint statement with French and German counterparts, the Foreign Secretary called this “intolerable”, and rightly so, but what are the Government doing to end the blockade and ensure that aid can flow into Gaza?
The International Court of Justice has opened hearings on Israel’s responsibility to facilitate humanitarian relief in Gaza. Will the Government commit to abiding by the court’s judgment? Two weeks ago, the Government said that they continue to consider the ICJ’s opinion on the OPTs. Can the Minister update the House on when we can finally expect the Government’s response?
The Government have also reaffirmed their condemnation of violent west bank settler activity, but what concrete steps are being taken to pressure Israel to act on illegal settlements? Finally, will the Government now consider sanctions on those Israeli Ministers, such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, who encourage settler violence?
Mr Falconer
I have set out the position on recognition in a previous answer, and I am afraid that I will have to test the hon. Lady’s patience because on sanctions I will also set out the position, which is very familiar: we do not comment on sanctions in advance, as to do so might impact their effectiveness. I can confirm, however, that we have raised these issues, including the blockade of aid. As she has identified, we issued a statement with our European partners last week, and the Foreign Secretary raised this with his counterpart on 15 April.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I welcome the work that special envoy Sir Michael Barber will be doing in the Palestinian Authority. When I was working in Pakistan as a diplomat, I saw the excellent work they were doing in building the public sector. Does the Minister agree, however, that that work will be futile if Israel continues to undermine the PA by taking steps towards the annexation of the west bank, and what steps are the Government taking to ensure that this does not happen?
Mr Falconer
I join my hon. Friend in what he says about Sir Michael Barber. We were both in Pakistan at a similar time and both saw the excellent work he did on girls’ education there, and I welcome his vital role in relation to the Palestinian Authority. I have been clear, as has the Foreign Secretary, about our position on settlements. They are illegal under international law and we oppose completely any annexation of the west bank.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary rightly said in his statement yesterday that Hamas have no future in any of the possible ways forward for Palestine and for Gaza. That is a statement of the obvious, but what is the Government’s strategy for Palestine? In particular, given that the Minister avoided the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), what discussions has he had with the Americans, because it seems to me that the Trump plan for Gaza, in particular, is very different from any conceivable plan that the UK Government might have?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman, one of my predecessors, asks what our plan for Palestine is. Our support to the Palestinian Authority is an important element of our work in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They must be at the centre of the efforts to ensure that there can be a future for both Palestine and Israel that involves two safe and secure states side by side. We of course speak regularly to our US counterparts across the whole range of issues in my area—in many areas we may diverge, but we continue to have a very close relationship and discuss these matters closely.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) mentioned, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee met the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister yesterday. He was steadfast in his comments to us on his advocacy for peace for the people in Gaza, in the west bank and the occupied territories and in Israel. Those of us on the Labour side of the House stood on a manifesto that stated:
“Palestinian statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. It is not in the gift of any neighbour and is also essential to the long-term security of Israel.”
The Minister has been asked this question before, but the time to recognise the state of Palestine is long overdue; the time is now. When will the UK finally recognise the state of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is committed to these issues. I know that she has travelled to the region recently and has a long history of advocacy, as do so many in this House. As I said in my previous answer, the role of the British Government must be to try and practically bring about the safety and security that two states can provide, and we will consider recognition in that context.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
As has been mentioned by colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee, yesterday we met the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. He outlined to us their plans for the running of Gaza once the conflict is over. However, the Palestinian Authority are also in desperate need of long-overdue reform. Hamas’s rule of Gaza has been an absolute disaster for the Gazan people, but the future of Gaza cannot be for the Palestinian Authority to run Gaza in the same fashion in which they have been running the west bank. What guarantees do the Government have that the PA are going to undertake those reforms to their governance, to the corruption issues, and to the rule of law that are desperately needed so that the people of Gaza have a better future?
Mr Falconer
A central element of our discussions with the Palestinian Prime Minister is that reform agenda. The Palestinian Prime Minister is relatively new in his position and, as I said to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), he has made some important commitments and important practical changes, and we must support the Palestinian Authority to reform in order to best serve the Palestinian people.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
May I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his statement today and commend him and the Foreign Secretary for securing this landmark memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Government? Following my meeting yesterday with Prime Minister Mustafa, can the Minister tell this House how the MOU and the £101 million for the Occupied Palestinian Territories will allow the Palestinian Authority to reform and provide crucial public services to the Palestinian people?
Mr Falconer
It was a sign of the Palestinian Authority’s commitment to some of these practical questions of service delivery that their Health Minister travelled with the Prime Minister for discussions. The MOU provides a framework through which we can have that reform discussion, including strategic dialogues on a whole range of questions such as the important education questions that the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised earlier.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
For how long does the Minister think he will be able to recognise a Palestinian state that retains sufficient economically viable land to actually be a goer?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important question about the economic viability of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and what any future state of Palestine would rely on for its economy. There clearly are very important questions to be considered about energy, water and the areas themselves. Clearly, many of these issues have been considered as final-status determination issues envisaged for the end of a two-state solution conference. We are doing everything we can to try and support the most practical measures possible to enable the Palestinians to live the most dignified lives that they can.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
May I place on record my thanks to the Minister for all the work that he and the Secretary of State are doing on the MOU, which is very welcome?
On the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I appreciate that we stood on that manifesto, and rightly so, but things have since changed. The Government’s position was that we would continue recognition as part of the peace process, but Israel has been blocking aid to Gaza for 50 days now, people are starting to die of starvation, settler violence is increasing in the west bank and we now have an MOU, so is this not the right time to review our position? Will the Minister at least commit to going away and reviewing the decision and give the Palestinians the state recognition that they are way overdue?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is very committed to these issues, and raises them with me here and elsewhere. I will not restate the position, but I will once again confirm from the Dispatch Box our commitment to our manifesto and that we consider recognition an inalienable right of the Palestinian people. However, it must be part of the practical steps taken to bring the violence to an end and a peaceful resolution to the region.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Given that the horrific attacks of 7 October were perpetrated by Hamas, that hostages still remain in captivity in Gaza, that those attacks were carried out with the support and participation of many Gazans, and that there were senior Palestinian Authority diplomats who openly celebrated those attacks, does the Minister not think that unilaterally recognising Palestinian statehood at this moment would constitute a reward for terrorism, rather than the fruit of peaceful negotiation?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Lady refers to the conditions of the hostages. Last night, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), I attended a presentation by Eli Sharabi, who has British family members and was taken by Hamas on 7 October and held in the most unimaginably cruel conditions. He was released, only to discover that the British passports that were held by his family as a source of protection were not enough to save them, and were not enough to prevent the killing of his brother 300 metres from him in a tunnel. The whole House remains focused on the hostages who remain in unknown conditions, probably deep underground. Anyone who had anything to do with that can have no role in the future of Gaza. It is, in part, out of our determination that Hamas must leave the strip that our support for the Palestinian Authority is so important.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the significant strengthening of ties between the UK and the Palestinian Authority, not just in trade and extra funding from the UK, but because, as the Foreign Secretary said last night,
“The UK is committed to urgently advancing Palestinian statehood as a key part of a two-state solution.”
It was my pleasure last night to meet not just Prime Minister Mustafa but Basel Adra, the director of the Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land”, who made clear that recognition is his central demand too. Does the Minister therefore agree with me that President Macron was right when he said last month that
“We must move towards recognition, and we will do so in the coming months”?
Mr Falconer
I welcome my hon. Friend’s engagement and commitment to these issues. I will not rehearse the position that I have set out already on recognition.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Two weeks ago, I had the privilege to speak on behalf of the UK Parliament at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, where over 1,200 MPs from 188 countries passed a resolution supporting a two-state solution. No one voted against it. There was plenty of notice of the UK not recognising a nation state. Last night, I asked the Palestinian Prime Minister what difference it would make if the UK recognised a Palestinian state, and he replied that
“it would be a paradigm change, a new platform. It all starts with that recognition.”
Given the crucial meetings between the UK Prime Minister and the Palestinian Prime Minister as equals, what practical impediment stands in the way of now recognising Palestine as a nation state? I hear repeatedly that we are looking for a practical solution, so will the Minister explain that to the House?
Mr Falconer
Owing to time constraints, I will not rehearse the vital questions about security and governance that will clearly need to underpin a two-state solution in which both states are able to live in peace, security and co-operation. Those final-status determinations have long been vexed. While we are committed to the inalienable right of the Palestinians to a state as part of a two-state solution, let us not pretend that there are not vexed issues at the centre of what a Palestinian state would look like. That is one reason why so much diplomacy has been focused on these issues over the years.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement and thank him for bringing an extensive range of expertise to his role. Does he agree with me that it is only right for a British Government Minister to ask searching questions of both the PA and the Israeli Government? Will he reassure me that he will continue to ask questions about accountability for the killing of humanitarian workers who are trying to perform their duties?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and for his dedication to these issues. Clearly, there has been an absolutely tragic loss of life among aid workers who are delivering vital services in Gaza. We all remember that a year ago a tragic incident killed seven aid workers from the World Central Kitchen, including James Henderson, John Chapman and James Kirby, three British nationals who remain in our thoughts. It has been more than a year and we expect an update on the investigation by the Israeli military advocate general. We want to see full justice and accountability for British nationals affected by violence, including in relation to the strike in March on a UN building, in which a British national was seriously injured. Over the course of this devastating conflict, more than 400 aid workers have been killed. Our demands are driven by nothing other than a desire to protect the lives of humanitarian workers and demand accountability for those who are killed.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
If our Prime Minister can meet the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, and if the United Kingdom Government can enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Government of the Palestinian Authority, what barriers can remain to the United Kingdom recognising the state of Palestine as a matter of logic?
Mr Falconer
I gently suggest to the right hon. Member that that logic does not wholly follow. There are complex final-status determination issues that would underpin any recognition. No two-state solution will be straightforward without significant negotiation, diplomacy and agreement on both sides. As I have set out, recognition remains our goal, but let us not pretend that it is a straightforward decision without complexity.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
In his remarks yesterday, the Palestinian Prime Minister quite rightly reminded MPs of the UK’s historic, moral and legal obligations to the Palestinian people. The importance of our actions to uphold international law today cannot be underestimated, so I must ask the Minister why the UK is still reluctant to sanction Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians? Why are the Government deepening our trade ties with Israel, as the International Court of Justice warns countries not to assist or aid illegal occupation? Finally, I ask the Minister to listen to the growing calls in this Chamber and announce when the Government will finally recognise the state of Palestine.
Mr Falconer
Our position is clear on international humanitarian law and on the importance of accountability. I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by again going through the points about recognition.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
In 2014, I was one of 39 Conservatives who voted in this House for recognition of Palestine. Since then, Governments have come and gone, and thousands of lives on both sides have been lost. The Minister said a few minutes ago that he could not go into the full details, but I am sure it would be helpful—if not today, in the very near future—to Members from across the House for him to provide a detailed analysis of what needs to change before recognition can take place.
Mr Falconer
I am confident that I will be back in this House to talk about the details of recognition soon.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
As another Member of this House who voted in 2014 to recognise the state of Palestine in a motion that this House passed, I will say that progress on this matter is long overdue. I hope the Minister has heard loud and clear the message from many of us that continuing to delay that is problematic.
The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) might be surprised that I agree with him: there is a concern about what will be left of the state of Palestine. Despite the existence of theogenic technology, Israeli forces are now burning to the ground the agricultural fields in northern Gaza in apparent pursuit of the tunnels that Hamas are using for their terrorist attacks. We know that nearly 4,000 children in Gaza have been diagnosed as suffering from acute malnutrition. We all desperately want to see aid resuming to Palestine, because we know that there is no future for any state if people are starving to death. Will the Minister update us on the practical details he discussed last night with the Palestinian Authority about how we will get food back into Gaza and get movement in this process?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend raises important questions about the viability of the Palestinian state. The Occupied Palestinian Territories must not be reduced either geographically or by forced displacement, and I am happy to reiterate that point at the Dispatch Box. There is clearly an urgent crisis. The World Food Programme has said that it has now run out of food in the Gaza strip. The single most important measure that can be taken to address that crisis is an end to the blockade of aid into the Gaza strip, and that is what we continue to call for.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Can I invite the Minister to bring a greater sense of urgency to the situation? There are children starving to death in Gaza and dying for lack of medicines. There is no water and hardly any power going in. The hospitals are not functioning. That is all a disaster made by the deliberate action of the Israel Defence Forces. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that the blockade ends and that food, medicine and all the necessities for life go in? Those people who are dying of starvation can see food over the fence in Israel, but they are being deliberately starved to death.
Mr Falconer
As I said in my previous answer, we are clear that the single most significant contribution that can be taken on that problem is ending the blockade of Gaza. We have been clear with the Israeli Government at the highest levels, including on 15 April, in the meeting between the Foreign Secretary and his Israeli equivalent, that that blockade must be lifted. On the longer-term questions of health and some of the other basic social services, I will say that of course we discussed those issues with the Palestinian Authority and relevant Ministers over the past two days. As the right hon. Gentleman says, this is very urgent, and the World Food Programme has been clear. That is why we made the statement over the weekend.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It was sobering yesterday listening to Dr Mustafa, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, not least as he stressed the UK Government’s leadership role and the importance of the recognition of the state of Palestine. Bearing in mind that leadership role and the fact that 147 jurisdictions already recognise that state, will the Minister explain to the House today the reasons for the impediment to that recognition? It is really important that we hear that, because we are here to hold the Government to account.
Mr Falconer
Some 147 states have recognised a Palestinian state, yet no Palestinian state is fully functioning. That underlines the importance of taking the practical measures that will be absolutely vital not only to support Palestinian life, but to ensure that two states can co-exist peacefully, side by side. Many Members have referred to some of the practical impediments, whether it is the removal of Hamas from the Gaza strip or the economic challenges that face the Palestinian territories in both the west bank and Gaza. Let me be clear. An extremely violent conflict continues. Without a ceasefire, it is hard to imagine the creation of a state. I am sure that we will continue to discuss the merits of recognition, but let us not pretend that there are not serious practical considerations to bear in mind before the practical establishment of a Palestinian state is possible. The British Government are focused on changing the actual facts on the ground. That is the approach that we will take.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Other hon. and right hon. Members have talked about what might be left in Palestine, but I will ask about who might be left. Some 20% of the 55,000 pregnant women there—that is 11,000 pregnant women—are so malnourished that their pregnancies are now high risk. That really undermines the future of Palestine’s population. What assurance can the Minister give us that the £101 million will be directed to those people who really need it?
Mr Falconer
As I have said already, once we have fully allocated the funding, we will return to the House to outline how it has been prioritised.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I was pleased to see that the Foreign Secretary, along with France and Germany, strongly condemned the use of humanitarian aid as a political tool. The Minister will know very well that the only way to bring peace and stability to the region is by working together with our network of allies. Bearing that in mind, what conversations has he had with our European and international allies about the Palestinian-led planning of recovery and reconstruction in Gaza, as outlined in yesterday’s excellent memorandum of understanding?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks important questions. The Foreign Secretary and I, and the whole ministerial team, are engaged with our international partners. We have made a number of statements with European partners; with the Qataris on Sunday, when the Foreign Secretary travelled to Qatar; and in Oman, to which the Foreign Secretary and I travelled recently. We are engaged with many other important partners in the region, including Egypt, Israel and many others.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
We have heard Members across the House ask about recognition and sanctions. Yesterday, I joined a private briefing organised by the Palestinian NGO Network, Medical Aid for Palestinians, Oxfam International, Save the Children, the Norwegian Refugee Council and the Association of International Development Agencies. The message I took away, which is burned into my brain, was that, on the ground, food, water and medicines—the essential of life—have all run out, as the Minister said. Baby milk and the water needed to make it are not available. Would the UK Government’s response be the same if the people who were starved, and denied water and medicine, were in Ukraine, God forbid, and if Russia was the perpetrator?
Mr Falconer
The UK seeks to play its full role in every humanitarian crisis. We have conducted important conferences on Sudan, and have attended to issues in Ukraine and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We act wherever we can to try to avert humanitarian suffering.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, in particular the announcement of £101 million for humanitarian aid and the signing of the memorandum of understanding. The Minister has reconfirmed his commitment to a two-state solution. However, in order to have a two-state solution, we need to recognise both states. What criteria are being used to assess when the time is right to recognise Palestine as a state? If the Minister is not able to provide a detailed response today, I am happy to receive one in writing.
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. There is no end of detail to discuss in relation to recognition, and I am sure that we will return to this House to discuss it further. Of course, when we talk of a two-state solution, we envisage two recognised states living peacefully together, providing for their joint safety and security. That is implicit in our long-standing support for a two-state solution.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
In his statement, the Minister said that there could be no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza. I support that, but there can be no future for Gaza unless the killing and destruction ends. That is why, in September last year, it was welcome that the Government suspended 29 arms export licences, following concern that there was a risk that they could be used by the Israelis to break international law in Gaza. However, a further 34 export licences to Israel were granted between September and December last year—more than were originally blocked. Can the Minister explain that decision, and provide the latest number of arms licences to Israel that have been approved?
Mr Falconer
In September, we set out the basis on which we chose to suspend arms licences, and that basis remains. There is not a full restriction on providing licences; many licences are provided either for dual-use goods, or for goods that could not possibly be used for the activities that have caused concern. For example, licences would be issued for body armour used by non-governmental organisation workers in Gaza. There are also items for the legitimate defence of Israel, such as components that could enable its missile defence system to defend it against Iranian drones. I do not have the exact number of licences; it tends to change relatively regularly, given the nature of the flow between the two countries.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I too welcome the MOU and the funding we will provide to the Palestinian Authority. When I went to Jerusalem last year with other Members, we talked to the NGO community—an absolutely vital community in both Israel and Palestine, working for democracy and human rights. On 5 May, the Knesset is planning to vote on another law that will clamp down on the activities of NGOs working to help build a two-state solution. The law will impose an 80% tax on donations from foreign state entities, including the United Kingdom, and ban access to courts for NGOs. What discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in Israel to ensure that our state funding can go to towards building that two-state solution with both Israeli and Palestinian NGOs?
Mr Falconer
We support efforts by both Israeli and Palestinian civil society actors to build links across communities, and I know that many in this House have engaged with organisations of that kind. We are aware of the draft legislation in the Knesset, and we are engaging with colleagues in Israel on these questions.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Today, the International Court of Justice heard that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza under the world’s watchful eye. All of us are witnesses to the most horrific crimes against humanity, which are being carried out in plain sight. A million children have been cut off from the basic necessities for survival for well over a month. They are at risk of starvation. I repeat those words: a million children are at risk of starving to death. I fear that once this is over and done with, and all is said and done, we will make mere memorials to mark the most horrific war crimes of our time. This is a tragedy that the world has the power to stop but is refusing to. What more can the Government do to ensure that the civilian population of Gaza, including a million children, are not starved to death, and why is it not being done?
Mr Falconer
The Government are in no doubt about the severity of the humanitarian situation in Gaza. That is why last week, we made statements—both with our allies and alone—about the politicisation of humanitarian aid and the urgent situation that the UN agencies are reporting. More than 90% of Gaza’s population has been displaced, and many have been displaced repeatedly. Many Members of this House have heard harrowing tales of residents of the Gaza strip simply trying to survive, returning to their home only to find it totally destroyed, or trying to find medical assistance as hospitals across the strip go out of operation. The Government are in no doubt about the severity of the situation, and we raise it with the emphasis that the hon. Gentleman would expect.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend on all the work he is doing—I know that a huge amount is going on behind the scenes—and particularly on the memorandum of understanding and the additional funding. When I hosted a meeting of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group last night, it was quite clear how grateful Prime Minister Mustafa was for the stance that the UK was taking, and that he saw it as part of a sequence of steps towards recognition. Yes, he wanted that as soon as possible, but he recognised the steps that needed to be taken, because of the difficult international context, to ensure that recognition would make a difference. However, who among our other allies, either the E4 or the Five Eyes—except the US, obviously—has provided a similar sort of MOU that can be built on?
Mr Falconer
I will have to revert to my hon. Friend on whether others have a memorandum of understanding. The European Union and others have done important work with the Palestinian Authority, but I was very grateful for the words of the Palestinian Prime Minister last night in Parliament. He has particularly recognised the importance of the UK’s work on the reform agenda and on many other things, for which I am very grateful.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
More than 15,000 children have been murdered, more than 15,000 women have been murdered, and more than 15,000 innocent men have been murdered. The Minister used the word “contribution” when making reference to a two-state solution. I ask him whether the contribution of all those who have been murdered—the blood that has been spilled—is not sufficient for Palestine to be recognised as a state.
Mr Falconer
As I said in my last answer, we are incredibly conscious of the suffering in Gaza. We want to see a ceasefire, we want a political process, and we want two states living securely side by side, and all our diplomatic efforts in relation to this question are focused on that.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
In his meeting with MPs, the Palestinian Prime Minister was clear that Israel will change course only if there is real action from states. He stressed that, in line with the International Court of Justice ruling, states have a legal responsibility to impose sanctions—including ending all trade in settlement goods—and to cease any aid or assistance that sustains Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. Those measures are backed by a significant number of MPs across this House. When will the Government finally impose meaningful sanctions in order to hold Israel accountable and apply the pressure needed to stop it trampling all over international law without any consequences? Rightly, the Government did that for Russia; wrongly, they will not do it for Israel.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but I would gently correct him; as he knows, this Government have taken steps since we became the Government, including sanctions. He also knows that we do not comment on sanctions in advance of issuing them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is a good man and his answers indicate just that, so I read with interest the release on the Government website regarding the visit. I saw the language referring to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Does the Minister not agree that Government language must be considered and unbiased? While we welcome dialogue and we hope for peace, to achieve that we cannot and must not roll over and use narratives that are not helpful and useful. We must be careful that the Government do not sow division and distrust with our Israeli allies.
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The term Occupied Palestinian Territories has long been the language of the British Government under multiple different Governments, and it reflects our legal view of the position.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to securing a peaceful future for the region, but that future feels far away for the families of the hostages still held by Hamas. As the Minister mentioned, yesterday he and I heard from Eli Sharabi, who talked about the horrors of his experience and how he lost absolutely everything. He is working tirelessly to secure the release of all hostages, including Avinatan Or, who has British links. Does the Minister agree that the first step in securing the peaceful future we all want to see is the immediate release of all the hostages?
Mr Falconer
I do, and I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend, who has been a tireless supporter of hostage families, including Emily Damari, her mother Mandy and, of course, Avinatan Or, who is an Israeli citizen with a British mother. He is very much in my thoughts, as are all of those left in tunnels for phase 2. They are awaiting a ceasefire that cannot come urgently enough. I join my hon. Friend in calling for the immediate release of all hostages.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Palestinian Authority are key to a two-state solution and should be the basis of the viable Palestinian state we all want to see. I welcome the Minister’s focus on practical steps to build up the Palestinian Authority. I think those are a lot more important than statements that might be interpreted as a little performative. Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s work with the PA to improve the situation on the ground in the west bank, including tackling the recent increase in Iranian-backed terrorism there and the expansion of Israeli settlements, both of which represent major practical barriers to a two-state solution?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend raises important points, and he has a long history of engagement on these issues. The security challenges in the west bank are important and he is right to raise them. I have set out our position on settlements clearly already from the Dispatch Box, and I reiterate that. We are talking to the Palestinian Authority about those practical challenges and the importance of being able to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Palestinian security forces to prevent violent disturbances within the areas they control. It is vital that settlements are restrained and that the terrible increase in settlement activity is reduced. It is vital, too, that Israel enables the Palestinian Authority to function effectively, which includes paying salaries, having electricity and all the other basic fundamentals that a nation state would require.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It was a real honour to join the meeting with Prime Minister Mustafa in Parliament yesterday. I welcome the Minister’s hard work in the signing of the MOU. I desperately want peace for Palestinians and for Israelis, and I was touched by Prime Minister Mustafa’s gracious remarks that the way forward has to be peace for all, dignity for all and justice for all. Does the Minister agree that while we work through the short-term practical considerations of recognising the state of Palestine, we have to keep our eyes on that long-term prize of peace, dignity and justice, and that a state of Palestine is a vital part of that?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is right. Those are the principles for long-term peace for both parties, and that is what we will need to work towards.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
The memorandum of understanding is significant, and the message to the Minister about the recognition of the state of Palestine is equally significant. Member after Member has raised the famine in Gaza and its implications. We are seeing pictures of children who, as a result of malnutrition, are not surviving the hospital treatment they are getting. Historically, our country has been faced with this situation before, and we have overridden blockades. We have not allowed other countries to veto humanitarian aid. Are we not near that stage now? We cannot allow Israel to veto the delivery of aid. Should we not be looking with our partners at the logistics we have on the ground in that region to deliver the aid by sea and by air, whatever statements Israel makes?
Mr Falconer
With and without our partners, we have looked at a range of mechanisms whereby aid might be brought into Gaza, but the truth is that without effective deconfliction mechanisms, aid workers are at real risk, as we have seen in recent months and weeks. There is also a question of scale. There have been airdrops and sea movements of aid into Gaza, but nothing can equal the scale required other than lifting the blockade, and that is what have been focusing on.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
After 570 days, 59 hostages remain. Does the Minister agree that their unconditional release is a key to the ceasefire? What did Prime Minister Mustafa have to say about that yesterday?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his doughty advocacy in this regard. Prime Minister Mustafa told me that he wanted hostages to be released, and I am sure my hon. Friend will have seen some of the other commentary from the Palestinian Authority on these questions. This is critical: the hostages must be released as soon as possible, and I know the whole House continues to share that view.
Maternity Units (Requirement for Bereavement Suite)
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require new maternity units to have a bereavement suite; and for connected purposes.
For anyone experiencing the loss of a baby, that is already one of the most difficult times in their life. It is made more difficult when they experience it in a hospital maternity ward, surrounded by mothers and families celebrating new life. No number of new facilities can take the pain away, but parents whose local hospital has a dedicated bereavement suite away from the main labour ward can process that pain in privacy and peace.
I am often inspired by my constituents in Kettering, and today I am especially proud to introduce this Bill, inspired by the Twinkling Stars Appeal, which campaigned for a new maternity bereavement suite at Kettering general hospital. I pay tribute to the Northamptonshire Health Charity, which has dedicated so much time and care to this appeal, and also to Sands, which works to make sure that anyone affected by pregnancy or baby loss has the care and support that they need. I also want to recognise the work that the NHS is already doing. Day in and day out, staff at Kettering general hospital help people who are going through one of the most difficult experiences that anyone can imagine. They continue to do that despite years of underfunding and understaffing, which is a testament to our hospital staff. Finally, I want to thank all the families who have been involved in this campaign, and anyone who has donated, helped out at a fundraising event, sold masks during the pandemic to raise money, or even done a skydive.
The Rockingham wing, which is the maternity ward of Kettering general, is where I was born as a premature baby, eight weeks early. It is where my mum fought for her life after a complicated and traumatic birth, which was made even more difficult as she was surrounded by happy, healthy mothers and their babies. There are many people in Kettering whose lives, like mine, started in the Rockingham wing, so it was very alarming to hear in 2023 that it was crumbling because of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. I am pleased to say that the RAAC is now being mitigated, and a two-storey extension will be built behind the existing maternity unit to help the team to improve the care that they deliver each year to about 3,000 families and their babies. This will be particularly important in Northamptonshire, where we have a growing population and many new families moving into the area.
On a recent visit to Kettering general, I walked the grounds of the new maternity ward. I saw plans for the new bereavement suite and, thanks to the campaign by the Northamptonshire Health Charity and the efforts of local people, I saw the place where it will be built. Before the appeal, families in Kettering who had lost a baby, either during pregnancy, during the birth itself or through compassionate induction, stayed in a room within the labour suite where mothers could be close to their babies but not next to them, and where partners walked through the maternity ward to reach them, surrounded by the sounds of new life and delighted parents, making a heartbreaking experience even harder.
Kettering general hospital cares for up to 100 families a year who lose a baby. They will now be cared for in a suite that has a private bereavement room, with en suite facilities and a cold cot for precious time with their baby. It will have a dedicated family room with a kitchenette, a sofa bed, a peaceful private space for families to gather to support each other, and a quiet office space for bereavement midwives, where sensitive conversations can be conducted with care and privacy.
At Northampton hospital, where some of these facilities were already in place, the Daisy suite appeal aims to create somewhere for follow-up care with specialist bereavement nurses that is not on the maternity ward, so that when bereaved parents who have experienced unique trauma return to the hospital, they will not have to walk back through the same maternity ward again, which could trigger painful memories. A bereavement midwife at Northampton hospital wrote to me in support of the campaign, stating:
“Coming to hospital to give birth to a baby who is known to have died or will die is unimaginable. The grief and devastation can never be fully understood as each circumstance will be different. What we can do as a hospital is try our very best not to add to these feelings and make such an awful situation even worse by not providing a supportive and understanding environment. We want them all to feel supported, heard and truly cared for.”
She explained that her team are currently based in the maternity ward, but are not easily accessible for families to drop in for support and are difficult to find for staff members who are looking for support themselves. A bereavement suite would allow them to see more families, allow parents to return after discharge and spend more precious time with their baby, and provide a separate space where families do not come face-to-face with other pregnant women and new-born babies while going through such a heartbreaking time.
These campaigns are based on real-life experiences. The changes being made to our maternity units in hospitals in Northamptonshire are the result of what families have noticed after experiencing bereavement themselves. They want to make a positive difference for future parents. I cannot even begin to express the admiration I have for parents who are taking their pain and channelling it into making things better for those who come after them. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Some of the parents who contacted me mentioned the importance of “quiet care” when going through a time like this. They told me that every parent who is going through the worst time of their lives should have the opportunity to receive care in private.
When I spoke to the Northamptonshire Health Charity, it highlighted the importance of hearing families’ voices in this conversation and spoke about how dedicating time and experience to the campaign can have a healing impact for some of the families who have been involved. It is really important that parent consultation is right at the heart of the Bill. The Government are building an NHS fit for the future, and a big part of that is listening to service users and taking on board their feedback. I believe that this is particularly important in spaces such as bereavement suites, where changes that might feel small, such as the feel of the space or the access to the room, can make a huge difference to parents and families. In Northamptonshire, bereaved parents have met nurses and walked through the maternity ward, pointing out where changes can be made to better support parents in future.
Currently in the UK, 13 families a day lose their baby before, during or shortly after birth. That is around 4,500 babies a year, so this issue is bigger than Kettering or Northamptonshire. When I was researching bereavement suites for the Bill, I looked on the JustGiving website and found it full of appeals from every corner of the country for funding for new facilities, specialist counselling and trained midwives for bereavement services. A collaboration of charities working to support people affected by the death of a baby have developed the national bereavement care pathway to improve the quality and consistency of bereavement care received by parents after pregnancy loss or the death of a baby.
As of 2024, every NHS trust in England has signed up to the national bereavement care pathway, but we know there is still work to do. Not all hospitals are currently able to provide a properly equipped or suitable bereavement room; some are in the middle of the labour ward, and some are not sound-proofed. The Twinkling Stars suite at Kettering general hospital is a perfect example of how when we welcome contributions from families and parents with experience, we spot things we did not know we needed.
At the moment, it is families, communities and charities who are raising money so that parents can face such a difficult time with a little more privacy and comfort. Nobody can take away the pain of losing a baby, but we can ensure that in that pain, families are met with compassion, dignity and privacy, and that begins with a bereavement suite in every newly built maternity ward.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Rosie Wrighting, Jen Craft, Dr Marie Tidball, Michelle Welsh, Mr Richard Holden, John Cooper, Lee Barron, Mike Reader and Charlie Dewhirst present the Bill.
Rosie Wrighting accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 May, and to be printed (Bill 226).
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 73 / Noes: 255 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 101 / Noes: 258 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 95 / Noes: 257 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 85 / Noes: 238 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 18—Consequential amendments to the Social Security Fraud Act 2001.
Government new clause 19—Devolved benefits.
Government new clause 20—Powers of Scottish Ministers.
New clause 1—Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance—
“The Secretary of State may not exercise any of the powers of recovery under this Act in relation to a person who has received an overpayment of Carer’s Allowance until such time as—
(a) the Secretary of State has commissioned an independent review of the overpayment of Carer’s Allowance;
(b) the review has concluded its inquiry and submitted a report containing recommendations to the Secretary of State;
(c) the Secretary of State has laid the report of the independent review before Parliament; and
(d) the Secretary of State has implemented the recommendations of the independent review.”
This new clause would delay any payments being taken from people who the Government may think owe repayments on Carer’s Allowance until the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.
New clause 2—Impact of Act on people facing financial exclusion—
“(1) The independent person appointed under section 64(1) of this Act must carry out an assessment of the impact of this Act on the number of people facing financial exclusion.
(2) The independent person must, after 12 months of the passing of the Act—
(a) prepare a report on the review, and
(b) submit the report to the Minister.
(3) On receiving a report the Minister must—
(a) publish it, and
(b) lay a copy before Parliament.”
This new clause would look into the impact of the Act on people facing financial exclusion.
New clause 3—Audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments—
“(1) An independent audit of algorithmic systems used in the assessment, detection or recovery of Carer’s Allowance overpayments must be conducted at least once every six months.
(2) Any audit under subsection (1) must be conducted by persons with relevant expertise in data science, ethics and social policy who have no direct affiliation with—
(a) the Department for Work and Pensions, or
(b) any person or body involved in the development or operation of the algorithmic systems under review.
(3) An audit conducted under this section must consider—
(a) the accuracy of the algorithmic systems in identifying overpayments, and
(b) the fairness of the systems’ design, application and operation, including any disproportionate impact on particular groups.
(4) After every audit a report on its findings must be—
(a) published;
(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of publication; and
(c) made publicly available in an accessible format.
(5) If any audit identifies significant inaccuracies, unfairness or biases in any algorithmic systems, the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the publication of the report outlining these findings, present an action plan to Parliament which outlines the steps which the Government intends to take to address the identified issues.”
This new clause would provide for an audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments.
New clause 4—Inclusion of systems within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard—
“(1) For the purposes of this section, “system” means—
(a) algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems; and
(b) artificial intelligence, including machine learning;
provided that they are used in fulfilling the purposes of this Act.
(2) Where at any time after the passage of this Act, the use of any system is—
(a) commenced;
(b) amended; or
(c) discontinued;
the Minister must, as soon as reasonably practicable, accordingly include information about the system in the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.”
This new clause would require the use of algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems, and artificial intelligence, including machine learning, to be included within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.
New clause 5—Duty to consider domestic abuse risk to account holders—
“(1) Before any direct deduction order under Schedule 5 is made, the Secretary of State has a duty to consider its effect on any person who—
(a) is a victim of domestic abuse, or
(b) the Minister reasonably believes to be at risk of domestic abuse.
(2) In this section “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”
New clause 6—Review of whistle blowing processes in relation to public sector fraud—
“(1) Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of whistle blowing processes in relation to fraud in the public sector.
(2) A review conducted under this section must consider—
(a) the appropriateness and efficacy of existing whistle blowing processes;
(b) barriers to reporting fraud and reasons for under reporting of fraud; and
(c) recommendations for change.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing—
(a) the findings and conclusions of the review, and
(b) a timetable for the delivery of any recommendations for change within six months of the completion of the review.”
New clause 7—Overpayments made as a result of official error—
“(1) Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “The” substitute “Subject to subsection (1A), the”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The amount referred to in subsection (1) shall not include any overpayment that arose in consequence of an official error where the claimant or a person acting on the claimant’s behalf or any other person to whom the payment is made could not, at the time of receipt of the payment or of any notice relating to that payment, reasonably have been expected to realise that it was an overpayment.””
This new clause would provide that, where universal credit overpayments have been caused by official error, they can only be recovered where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.
New clause 8—Offence of fraud against a public authority—
“(1) A person who-
(a) commits,
(b) assists or conspires in the committal of, or
(c) encourages the committal of,
fraud against a public authority commits an offence.
(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.”
New clause 9—Application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to investigations conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce regulations for the purpose of applying certain powers of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, subject to such modifications as the order may specify, to investigations of offences conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions.
(2) The powers to be applied must include–
(a) the power of arrest;
(b) any other such powers that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Regulations made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.”
New clause 10—Liability orders—
“(1) Where a person–
(a) has been found guilty of an offence under section 1 or section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006, or the offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud,
(b) that offence relates to fraud committed against a public authority, and
(c) has not paid the required penalties or not made the required repayments,
the Secretary of State must apply to a magistrates’ court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff for an order (“a liability order”) against the liable person.
(2) Where the Secretary of State applies for a liability order, the magistrates’ court or (as the case may be) sheriff shall make the order if satisfied that the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid.
(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to England and Wales—
(a) prescribing the procedure to be followed in dealing with an application by the Secretary of State for a liability order;
(b) prescribing the form and contents of a liability order; and
(c) providing that where a magistrates’ court has made a liability order, the person against whom it is made shall, during such time as the amount in respect of which the order was made remains wholly or partly unpaid, be under a duty to supply relevant information to the Secretary of State.
(4) Where a liability order has been made against a person ("the liable person"), the Secretary of State may use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods) to recover the amount in respect of which the order was made, to the extent that it remains unpaid.”
New clause 11—Publication of results of pilot schemes—
“Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish the results of any pilot schemes run with banks to test the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 2.”
New clause 12—Report on cost implications for banks—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the expected cost implications of the provisions of this Act for banks.”
New clause 13—Annual reporting of amounts recovered—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report detailing the amount of money which has been recovered under the provisions of this Act.
(2) A first report must be published no later than 12 months after the passing of this Act with subsequent reports published at intervals of no more than 12 months.”
New clause 14—Impact of Act on vulnerable customers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on vulnerable customers.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “vulnerable customers” means someone who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care.”
New clause 15—Publication of an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy.
(2) An Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy published under this section must set out–
(a) how the Government intends to use automated technologies or artificial intelligence to tackle fraud against public authorities and the making of erroneous payments by public authorities, and
(b) a series of safeguards to provide for human oversight of decision making that meet the aims set out in subsection (3);
(c) how rights of appeal will be protected;
(d) a framework for privacy and data sharing.
(3) The aims of the safeguards in subsection (2)(b) are—
(a) to ensure that grounds for decision making can only be reasonable if they are the result of a process in which there has been meaningful human involvement by a human of adequate expertise to scrutinise any insights or recommendations made by automated systems,
(b) to make clear that grounds cannot be reasonable if they are the result of an entirely automated process, and
(c) to ensure that any information notice issued is accompanied by a statement—
(i) setting out the reasonable grounds for suspicion that have been relied on, and
(ii) confirming that the conclusion has been formed on the basis of human involvement.”
New clause 21—Offence of encouraging or assisting others to commit fraud—
“(1) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 111A (dishonest representation for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1G) insert—
“(1H) A person commits an offence if they—
(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or
(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.
(1I) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.
(1J) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.”
(3) In section 112 (false representations for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1F) insert—
“(1G) A person commits an offence if they—
(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or
(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.
(1H) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.
(1I) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.””
New clause 22—Impact of Act on people with protected characteristics—
“The Secretary of State must, prior to making regulations under section 103 to bring into force any provision of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on people with protected characteristics who are in receipt of social security benefits.”
This new clause would ensure any impact of the Bill on people with protected characteristics in receipt of social security benefits was examined prior to the Act’s implementation.
New clause 23—Report on public sector fraud during COVID-19 pandemic—
“(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report evaluating the extent of public sector fraud that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.
(2) The report must include—
(a) an account of fraudulent or erroneous payments made by or on behalf of public authorities, including but not limited to the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England,
(b) a review of how public procurement practices in place between March 2020 and December 2021, including—
(i) the use of high priority and expedited contracting for suppliers, and
(ii) the role of political appointments and personal connections in procurement decisions,
may have contributed to fraud against public authorities,
(c) the cost to the public purse of fraud against public authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, and
(d) an assessment of the adequacy of Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities.
(3) Where the report finds or concludes that there were—
(a) failings in Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities, or
(b) any action or inaction by the Government which enabled fraud against public authorities,
the Minister must make a statement to the House of Commons acknowledging these findings and setting out actions planned to ensure any failings are not repeated.”
Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out “10” and insert “28.”
Government amendments 23 and 24.
Amendment 16, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.
Amendment 13, page 3, line 33, after “notice” insert
“or of the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a)”.
Amendment 80, page 3, line 34, leave out “7” and insert “28”.
Amendment 17, page 3, line 36, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.
Amendment 18, page 3, line 38, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.
Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, after “notice” insert
“, including by extending the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) where satisfied that the person is reasonably unable to comply with the requirement to provide the information within the time required by the notice”.
Amendment 19, page 4, line 3, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.
Amendment 81, page 4, line 10, at end insert—
“(7) Where a person has applied for a review of an information notice, the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) is to be treated as beginning on the day after which the outcome of the review is notified to the person to whom the information notice was given.”
Government amendments 25 to 29.
Amendment 1, in clause 64, page 34, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.
(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), “the relevant committee” means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”
This amendment would provide for Parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the “Independent person”.
Government amendments 30, 31, 76, 75, 32 and 33.
Amendment 2, page 40, line 36, leave out clause 74.
This amendment removes the requirement for Banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts.
Amendment 3, in clause 75, page 41, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.
(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), “the relevant committee” means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”
This amendment would provide for Parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the “Independent person”.
Government amendments 34 to 43.
Amendment 8, in clause 89, page 55, line 6, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 14 and insert—
“(a) the liable person agrees, or
(b) there has been a final determination by a court or tribunal that it is necessary and proportionate to exercise a power under Schedule 3ZA.”
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State can only exercise powers to recover amounts from a person where the person agrees or where a court or tribunal has determined that such recovery is necessary and proportionate.
Amendment 10, page 56, line 16, leave out clause 91.
Government amendments 79, 78, 77, 74, 73 and 44.
Amendment 4, in clause 103, page 63, line 29, leave out from start to “following” in line 32 and insert—
“Subject to subsections (1A) and (2), this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations appoint.
(1A) No part of this Act may come into force until the recommendations of a report commissioned under section [Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance] have been implemented.
(2) Subject to subsection (1A), the”
This amendment which would delay the implementation of the whole Act until the findings of the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.
Amendment 20, page 64, line 1, at end insert—
“(3A) Before bringing into force any of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with banks as to the costs which will be incurred by banks upon application of the provisions of Part 1.
(3B) Where consultation finds that the expected costs to banks are at a disproportionate level, the Secretary of State may not bring into force the provisions which are expected to result in such disproportionate costs.”
Government amendments 72 and 45.
Amendment 5, page 73, line 6, leave out schedule 3.
This amendment is related to Amendment 2 and removes the requirement for Banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts.
Amendment 11, in schedule 3, page 73, line 25, leave out from “accounts” to the end of line 31 and insert—
“which belong to a person who the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed, is committing or intends to commit a DWP offence.”
This amendment would limit the exercise of an eligibility verification notice to cases where the welfare recipient is suspected of wrongdoing.
Amendment 22, page 84, line 12, at end insert “(d) housing benefit.”
Amendment 6, page 84, leave out line 12
This amendment would remove pension credit from being a “relevant benefit” for the purposes of the Act.
Amendment 71, page 84, line 13, leave out from “to” to end of line 17 and insert—
“remove types of benefit from the definition of”.
This amendment would mean that benefits could not be added to the list of “relevant benefits” by regulations.
Amendment 7, page 84, leave out lines 13 to 17.
This amendment ensure that the bill can only be used in relation to benefits listed in the Bill.
Amendment 21, page 84, line 25, after “money” insert
“or such an account which is held by a person appointed to receive benefits on behalf of another person.”
Government amendments 46 to 67.
Amendment 9, in schedule 5, page 98, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 99.
This amendment would remove the requirement for banks to provide information to the Secretary of State for the purposes of making a direct deduction order.
Government amendments 68 and 69.
Amendment 12, page 111, line 18, leave out schedule 6.
Government amendment 70.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is my pleasure to bring this Bill back to the House. I start by thanking all Members who have made contributions so far, and extend a special thanks to Members of the Bill Committee, some of whom are present today, for their detailed scrutiny.
This Government have an ambitious plan for change. To deliver everything we want to achieve, we must spend taxpayers’ money wisely, which is why we committed in our manifesto not to tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in our public services. The Bill delivers on that commitment. It is part of the biggest crackdown on fraud against the public purse in a generation. Nothing less will do, given the appalling position we inherited.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Does the Minister recognise that the Government’s own assessment of the effectiveness of the Bill is that it will recover a tiny 1.8% of losses?
Andrew Western
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we lose a total of £55 billion a year to fraud across the public sector; the Bill will recover £1.5 billion. However, it is part of broader measures—certainly on the Department for Work and Pensions side of the Bill —to save £9.6 billion across the forecast period. By the very nature of the changes that we are making with the Public Sector Fraud Authority, we are designing them to be scalable. As the PSFA becomes more familiar with the work it is undertaking, we think that it will be able to save a significant amount more.
As I was saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, with benefit fraud alone costing £7.4 billion in 2023-24, this is a major problem that is getting worse, not better. We cannot afford to ignore it, and we certainly do not accept it. Fraud against the public sector is not a victimless crime. Our public services, everyone who depends on them, and the taxpayers who fund them, all suffer. And they are increasingly suffering at the hands of fraudsters who use ever more sophisticated techniques to steal money meant for the public good.
The private sector has evolved and adapted its tools and tactics to respond, but, as the scale of the losses that I have just outlined make clear, the same cannot yet be said for the public sector. With this Bill, we will put that right. There will be new powers for the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate and deal with public sector fraud outside the tax and social security systems, and new powers for the DWP to modernise its response to fraud and error in the benefit system.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, this Bill is tough and it is fair. It is tough on the dodgy business people who try to defraud our public services and it is tough on the criminal gangs and individuals who cheat the benefit system. It is fair to claimants who make genuine mistakes, by helping us to spot and prevent errors earlier. And it is fair to taxpayers, who deserve to know that every single pound of their hard-earned money is being spent wisely.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Human Rights Act 1998 was one of the best pieces of legislation ever passed by a Labour Government. Can the Minister assure the House that this Bill in no way contravenes the secrecy part of the 1998 Act?
Andrew Western
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance and, indeed, that all of our legal obligations have been satisfied as part of the consideration of this Bill. The imperative thing for me as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions is that we are supporting those who need the social security safety net, not the fraudsters who pick holes in it.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
One concern that we have is the change in the way that people conduct benefit fraud. Through the use of key buzzwords, they help people to navigate the system so that they are able to take out of it what is not theirs. Does he think that there is scope in the Bill, particularly in some of the new clauses, to include specific legislation to prevent people from using words and buzzwords, or from teaching other people how to cheat the benefit system?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman is correct that we have a problem with so-called “sickfluencers”, but as we will hear in the debate more broadly, the Government do have existing powers through the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007 to take action in those areas if necessary. He is right to suggest that we should be doing more, and I encourage Conservative Members to reflect on what they did in this space during their period in power. He will be reassured to know that I have commissioned work within the Department to look at what further we can do, but in legislative terms—[Interruption.] I do believe that we have somebody crossing the Floor, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Just for the record, in case Hansard did not pick that up, that was Jenny the dog crossing the Floor, not a Member of Parliament.
Andrew Western
I am sure the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) is grateful to you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, even if I am not, as Jenny would always be most welcome on this side of the House.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that we do have the legislation required to act.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister said that powers exist, but, plainly, they are not working, because we know that “sickfluencers” are doing their deeds and people are responding to them, particularly in the mental health sphere, where many of the claims are made. Indeed, we know that officials, or those acting on behalf of officials, are looking out for buzzwords, because, if there is a buzzword in there somewhere, they can bank the case and move on to the next one. Therefore, something plainly needs to be done to stop this. Will he look again at the Opposition’s new clauses 8 and 21, which would ensure that “sickfluencers” are targeted specifically, and say what, in the Government’s amended terms, they would do to deal with this particular group that are contributing significantly to the failure identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) in relation to the amount of money that we are able to claim back from the huge sum that is lost to fraud every year?
Andrew Western
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that more needs to be done; what we differ on is the need for specific legislation in that regard. Where we are falling down at present is in the scale of the activity we are undertaking. We could be doing significantly more at the moment, but as I said in response to the previous intervention, I have commissioned work to ensure that that happens. We already routinely contact social media companies to ask them to take down specific posts that could help people to commit fraud against the welfare system. I am very happy to consider practical points, but I am convinced that we have the legislative weaponry required to take the necessary action to deal with people who are encouraging others to commit fraud, both online and elsewhere.
Government amendments 23, 24, 39 and 40 bring into scope the kind of information necessary for fraud investigations and enable the PSFA and DWP to compel certain types of special procedure material, including banking records or records of employment, in line with the policy intent. Requesting this type of information is not new for DWP and occurs under its existing powers. The amendments ensure that the PSFA and DWP can compel this information to support fraud investigations, while also ensuring that important exemptions are in place, such as those for excluded material and journalistic material.
Government amendments 30 and 31 seek to address two separate issues in respect of clause 67. Government amendment 30 includes a provision in the Bill so that the powers granted to the PSFA under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—or PACE—by clause 7 of the Bill are exempt from the application of clause 67(5). This will ensure that the clause does not interfere with existing PACE provisions in relation to legal professional privilege, enabling the Bill’s PACE measures to function as intended.
Government amendment 31 removes subsection (6) in clause 67, which currently overrides existing self-incrimination protections on the PSFA’s information-gathering powers and PACE powers. This allows the common law principle of the privilege against self-incrimination to apply in the usual way—under the information-gathering powers—and ensures that the proposed PACE powers align with established PACE practices. The amendments ensure that clause 67 provides essential safeguards for the PSFA powers in the Bill related to the processing of information.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I am sure the Minister will accept that there is growing concern about issues of automated decision making, artificial intelligence and algorithms. While wanting to ensure that we get the best results, is the Minister able to commit to the transparency we need when it comes to AI and algorithms in relation to the Bill to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are not unfairly hit?
Andrew Western
The hon. Member will be pleased to know that I can give him that assurance and that we comply with all the Government’s required standards around the publication of such information.
Government amendments 25 and 26 relate to clause 9, which amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to extend the Independent Office for Police Conduct director general’s functions to include oversight of public sector fraud investigators, enabling them to consider PSFA’s use of PACE powers and associated investigations. Clause 9 also enables the Minister for the Cabinet Office to issue regulations conferring functions on the director general in relation to these investigations. Section 105 of the Police Reform Act 2002 sets out requirements for such regulations made under that Act.
However, section 105 only applies to regulations made by a Secretary of State. As the Cabinet Office has no Secretary of State, this section would not include the regulations that the Minister for the Cabinet Office can make under clause 9. Government amendment 26 corrects that technicality so that section 105 also applies to that Minister. In addition, Government amendment 25 simply removes reference to part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 within clause 9(1), as the Bill will refer to the Act more widely, rather than just part 2.
Government amendments 48 and 72 provide a clear legislative framework for how the DWP and the PSFA will handle and transfer seized evidence to the most appropriate law enforcement agency, including the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office. The amendments will ensure that evidence is handled by the organisation best equipped to deal with the specific nature of the alleged crime, fostering inter-agency collaboration and reducing delays to investigations.
Dr Murrison
The Minister is presumably keen to determine how much money is lost to fraud in Scotland, and I imagine he will require the Scottish Government to report back to the UK Government on their progress in clamping down on benefit fraud, but the same should apply in the rest of the country. That, of course, is the purpose of new clause 13, which would require an annual report on the amount of money recovered through the processes that he has outlined. Will he accept new clause 13? Will he also assure me on the point about the Scottish Government’s reporting of fraud?
Andrew Western
I assure the right hon. Member on his point with regard to the Scottish Government. However, I will resist new clause 13 because the publication of the DWP’s annual accounts will provide sufficient information about our performance on fraud and error.
Government amendment 42 specifies that the functions of the independent person who can be appointed by the Secretary of State in clause 87 do not apply to devolved benefits unless those are delivered by the Secretary of State under agency agreement. Government amendments 60 and 67 will amend the time required for compliance with a production order served in Scotland. That is to match normal conventions in Scotland. Government amendment 43 ensures that the new debt recovery powers taken by the Secretary of State under the Bill apply only to devolved benefits, while the Secretary of State recovers devolved debts under agency agreements.
Government new clause 18 and Government amendment 33 are consequential amendments to the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 and ensure that the powers of Scottish Ministers under the 2001 Act are unchanged by the Bill. Government amendments 36, 37 and 38 seek to clarify exemptions in the DWP’s information-gathering powers to deliver the intended policy outcome.
A key safeguard in the new DWP information-gathering powers is the exclusion of personal information about users of particular types of free services, such as advocacy and advice services that offer crisis support, for example when someone is fleeing domestic abuse. The intent of the safeguard is to ensure that nobody is deterred from seeking the support they need when they need it. However, the current drafting of that exemption in the Bill as “not for profit” is too broad. That excludes certain information that is very likely to be relevant to a DWP fraud investigation. For example, it prevents the Department from compelling information from housing associations, such as an individual’s address or tenancy, which can be instrumental in proving or disproving a suspicion of fraud.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The independent person is required to produce an annual report on the use of the new powers, which, as the Minister has just laid out, are quite extensive. However, there is no requirement for the DWP to adopt the report’s recommendations. In cases where it does not accept the recommendations, will the Government consider committing to at least explaining why they have reached that conclusion?
Matt Western
I would be very happy to report to the House on the reasons why we would not do that. I am sure the hon. Lady will allow me to write to her separately to set out how I intend for us to do that. It seems to be a reasonable request.
Returning to my original point, the current drafting would mean that DWP can compel information of that kind from private landlords or estate agents, but not from housing associations. There is an inequity there that we are seeking to address with the amendments, clarifying the drafting and continuing to protect the personal information of service users of crisis support or advocacy services.
The Bill also brings forward new information-gathering powers that govern how DWP-authorised officers can compel information to support an investigation into fraud. It also sets out where information must not be compelled—for example, to protect the long-standing principle of legal professional privilege. Separately, the Bill brings forward powers of entry, search and seizure for DWP-authorised investigators, those tasked with investigating the most serious cases of fraud. It does that by bringing those authorised investigators under the remit of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in England and Wales, and by creating similar powers in Scotland for DWP-authorised investigators. That ensures that those investigators are governed by a similar legal framework to other law enforcement bodies that are granted access to use those types of powers.
Government amendment 41 seeks to ensure that the exemptions to information that DWP-authorised officers can compel are not applicable to authorised investigators when using powers of entry, search and seizure. Government amendment 45 mirrors that provision for the PSFA. Those amendments will support effective fraud investigation, as without access, crucial evidence might remain out of reach, slowing down our response to fraud. Those exemptions are important, but the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which applies in England and Wales, already provides such restrictions and safeguards by only enabling that information to be compelled with the approval of the courts, coupled with similar conventions that apply for Scotland. The amendment ensures that there is no duplication. The powers in the Bill remain in line with existing conventions, as set out in PACE, and correctly reflect the norms of the Scottish legal system.
Turning to Government amendments 61 to 66, paragraph 10 of schedule 3ZD currently refers to definitions within PACE in relation to special procedure material, confidential professional material, excluded material and items subject to legal privilege.
Government amendments 63 and 51 set out specific definitions to avoid linking provisions that relate solely to Scotland with existing legislation that applies to England and Wales. This also ensures that legal privilege and “items subject to legal privilege” references contained in the schedule are correctly defined for Scotland. Government amendments 61, 62, 64, 65 and 66 are consequential to amendment 63.
Government amendments 47 and 48 ensure that the powers for the DWP under PACE taken by the Bill in schedule 4 are aligned with those of the police and other Government Departments, such as HMRC, and provide a clear legal framework for what evidence can be seized and how it should be handled. Government amendments 47 and 48 mean that DWP-authorised investigators, such as the police, can seize items that are reasonably believed to be evidence of an offence, not just DWP-related offences, when undertaking entry, search and seizure activities in England and Wales. This will mean that potential evidence of any other offence, if discovered in the course of a search, can be preserved and may be seized where it is considered necessary to prevent it from being destroyed or moved. The amendments ensure that the law is clear on how it must be handled and transferred to the most appropriate law enforcement agency in England and Wales. Government amendments 49, 50 and 59 make similar provisions for authorised investigators in Scotland to those I have just described for England and Wales.
Government amendments 57 and 58 clarify how authorised investigators can prevent access to seized evidence from any offence if it may prejudice criminal proceedings in Scotland, by amending the definition of “offence” in schedule 3ZD inserted by schedule 4 of this Act. This mirrors the same provisions that are already in the Bill as it applies to England and Wales.
Government amendments 53, 54, 55 and 56 are all minor and technical amendments to correct inconsistencies in terminology. Government amendment 34 is a minor and technical amendment to provide the correct reference to powers in the Social Security Administration Act 1992, to ensure that the powers in Scotland align with those in England and Wales. Government amendment 52 amends the period of time in which a warrant must be exercised to Scotland from three months to one month. This corrects the Bill to ensure that it is consistent with the usual practice in Scotland.
Government amendment 70 ensures that the court has the power to order a person, having been disqualified, to provide their NI or EU driving licence, as is already the case for those holding a GB licence, under the new debt recovery powers. The Bill as drafted would allow a DWP debtor who evades payment and holds an NI or EU licence to be disqualified from driving. However, it inadvertently limits the court’s ability to order that person to produce their licence unless it was issued in Great Britain, undermining the power and causing administrative difficulties for the court and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Government amendment 70 corrects this and ensures parity between GB, NI and EU driving licences under the powers in schedule 6.
Government amendments 73, 74, 77, 78 and 79 ensure that the application and limitation period in clause 99 follows the policy intention that the PSFA can investigate fraud and recover debt in England and Wales. Government amendment 44 also ensures that the DWP’s debt recovery powers in this Bill are not limited in Scotland to the usual five-year time limits in the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. This makes it clear that the longer 20-year recovery period in Scotland applies to such provisions introduced or amended by this Bill. As I have set out, the intent behind these amendments is to ensure the delivery of the intended policy intent or to ensure the correct territorial application of the Bill.
David Davis
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I hope he will forgive me for waiting till what appears to be the end of his list. When the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) asked him about the application of the Human Rights Act in this context, he said that the Bill did not breach it, in effect. My advice is a little different, and I waited to hear about his amendments to see whether anything in them changed that. My advice is that suspicionless financial surveillance could breach article 8, which covers the right to privacy, and article 14 on the prohibition of discrimination. Will the Minister make his legal advice on this available to the House? This is incredibly important and it is central to the major criticism of this Bill.
Andrew Western
I have already made clear that I am satisfied with the advice I have received. We will make available all the information we are required to make available, but the right hon. Member will appreciate that I am not able to give an undertaking to release all legal advice at this stage. What I can say to him is that I am very confident that there is no breach of article 8 in particular. That has been explored at length as we have gone through the process.
I welcome the ongoing engagement with industry and key stakeholders. We have made a significant effort to engage all interested parties and listen to their views. That feedback has been important in shaping our approach to the Bill to date and will continue to be so as it moves to the other place.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I echo the Minister’s comments about the work of the Bill Committee. We had a constructive few weeks getting into the nitty-gritty.
I have no doubt that the House will agree that fraud is unacceptable, whether against individuals, organisations or the state. The money taken does not belong to those responsible. When it comes to defrauding the Government, money is taken from every single taxpayer. At the same time, however, errors do unfortunately happen. They might be made accidentally by the claimant or by the Department. Although there is no ill intention, errors can still be costly to the taxpayer, and that impacts some of the most vulnerable people in our country.
The question, then, is how best to tackle fraud and error in the welfare state and the public sector. Although we welcome many of the principles behind the Bill—much of which builds on the work of the Conservatives before the general election, as I am sure will be mentioned many times this afternoon—we are concerned that it has been rushed through. On one hand, there are gaps where the legislation is not tough enough. It is not a strong deterrent to make potential fraudsters think again, and it does not sufficiently safeguard public money. On the other hand, parts of the Bill have not been sufficiently prepared, and are incredibly vague and unclear on their implications for those involved and on whether the benefit justifies the cost.
This issue must be considered in the context of a sickness benefit bill that is forecast to hit nearly £1 billion by the end of the decade—even after the Government’s questionable welfare reforms—which is vastly more than we spend on defence, and more than we spend on schools and policing. We have tabled a number of amendments to address those points.
New clauses 21 and 8 seek to tackle the rise in so-called sickfluencers on social media, such as those on TikTok and YouTube who post videos showing people how they might be able to make fraudulent claims for benefits, including the personal independence payment, which requires not medical evidence but self-assessment. As we have heard, the advice offered includes specific buzzwords, template claims and guidance on passing questions at interview stage to inflate the value of claims fraudulently. We do not want to target people who provide genuine advice and guidance to people about how the welfare system and public authorities work, but that is very different from providing assistance and encouragement to commit fraud, which is not acceptable.
We recognise the vital work of not-for-profit organisations such as Citizens Advice—which works right across the country, including in South Hams and Plymouth in my constituency—and groups such as Improving Lives Plymouth. They do much to support those seeking to claim what they are entitled to. However, online sickfluencers must be tackled.
In Committee, the Minister queried our new clause and asked why it provided only for a seven-year prison sentence when similar offences carry a 10-year sentence. We have addressed that in new clauses 21 and 8, which, as the Minister will see, propose a 10-year sentence to bring them into line with similar offences.
Dr Luke Evans
In their response to my question about sickfluencers, the Government said that relevant legislation is already in place. If that is the case, how many convictions have there been under that legislation? We could infer from that number whether or not the system is working and what we need to do. My suspicion is that we need these measures to be able to hold people to account.
Rebecca Smith
I echo my hon. Friend’s concern that the existing powers are not being used enough. I ask the Minister to give us further information on how those powers are being used and an assurance that they will be used further should our new clauses be unsuccessful.
We believe that creating a specific offence to target such online fraud would send the clear message to sickfluencers that what they are doing is not only morally wrong but illegal—something that clear gives them no alternative than to realise that they will be caught. If the Government continue to oppose our amendments because they believe the powers already exist to tackle such crime, I would be grateful if the Minister set out, at the very least, how the Government will ensure that that legislation is used to the fullest, particularly with regard to the DWP, given that Government amendments 75 and 76 refer to the PFSA specifically. We are keen to see how those powers can be used fully used as the deterrent we need to tackle DWP claims. I want to know that, after today’s debate and vote, sickfluencers will be left in no doubt that the full weight of the law will be used against them, as they actively defraud the state.
Our new clause 9 is on powers of arrest. We welcome measures in the Bill—first announced by the previous Government—to give DWP investigators greater powers to aid with their investigations, such as search and seizure, and there must be appropriate safeguards around that. This will bring benefit fraud investigations into line with tax fraud investigations in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is very welcome, but we want to go further and address other shortfalls in the DWP powers. New clause 9 would add the power of arrest to the powers given to DWP investigators and resolve the seemingly illogical current position: the Government want to give DWP investigators the power to enter and search a premises, seize, retain and dispose of material, obtain sensible material and use reasonable force, but not to arrest someone if the evidence shows that it is necessary.
In Committee, the Minister highlighted that the police would be able to carry out the arrest function on behalf of the DWP should it ever be necessary, but we question whether that is a sustainable position and believe that our new clause would ensure we do not place an additional burden on the police. This is not without precedent and would bring the DWP into line with the approach taken to serious and organised crime across Government, such as at HMRC and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
Our new clause 10 is on liability orders, because we are concerned about the seizure of assets. We want to ensure that the DWP does everything it can to recover funds fraudulently claimed, even when that money is no longer sitting in a bank account. It cannot be right that someone can use that money to buy expensive cars, flat-screen TVs or other luxury assets, which the state cannot then recover from them. Our new clause 10 would give the Secretary of State powers to apply to the courts to seize assets where someone has been found guilty of fraud and the funds have not been recovered in order to repay the state. In a similar vein to our sickfluencers new clause, we believe these additions are needed to send the strongest message to those who are knowingly defrauding the system that they will be caught and will have to pay.
New clause 10 does not just give powers to seize assets to the Secretary of State; it says that she must use them. The DWP has said that it can already do this, but we know through written parliamentary questions that those powers have not been used in the last five years, albeit the DWP could make use of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We believe there must be an explicit expectation that assets will be seized, and we need new clause 10 to ensure this is achieved.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is great to hear that the hon. Member’s party is committed to taking tougher action against benefit fraud after 14 years of failing in office. Does she also welcome longer sentences for fraud in other areas of Government such as covid corruption, including for those Tory donors who committed the crime?
Rebecca Smith
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but that is not what we are debating; it is certainly not part of my speech.
Our new clauses 11, 12 and 20 are on the impact on banks. We have concerns about the lack of detail in the Bill when it comes to the eligibility verification mechanism and the requirements that will be put on banks and other financial institutions. We do not have the statutory code of conduct. We do not know what it will cost banks. We do not know the results of any pilot schemes, and we do not know whether the amount recovered will be more than what it costs to administer. Madam Deputy Speaker, had you been in our Committee, you would know that the code of conduct was probably the thing most frequently commented on, and the Ministers did a huge amount to reassure us that it was forthcoming—
Rebecca Smith
And cheesecake as well—I did not want to say it from the Front Bench, but I have now. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have to look back at Hansard, but I will never look at a cheesecake in the same way.
The code of conduct was regularly raised in Committee, and we got assurances continually from the Ministers, but we still lack that detail. We have therefore tabled a number of amendments to get clarity, including to require the Government to publish their statutory code of conduct, information on the testing completed to date and an impact assessment on the cost implication of the Bill for banks, as well as an amendment to allow banks to challenge the expansion of these powers if the costs that would be incurred exceed a pre-agreed amount. We know that banks and financial institutions want to help tackle fraud, but measures must be proportionate and not unduly burdensome, or they risk diverting resources from tackling other types of financial crime to meet these requirements. We cannot simply assume that the banks and financial institutions will do what is right; we need to give them an incentive to do it, too.
Our amendments 16, 17, 18 and 19 refer to the need for a first-tier tribunal. The Bill takes significant powers for the Secretary of State, giving them the power to review decisions that they, the Cabinet Office or the Public Sector Fraud Authority made. Amendments 16 to 19 change the appeal body from the Minister for the Cabinet Office to the first tier tribunal, ensuring that there is not just independent oversight but an effective independent channel of appeal against information notices that does not just lead back to the organisation that issued the notice.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the next speaker, may I make it clear that I will come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson immediately afterwards?
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I welcome the return of this Bill to the House. I was happy to speak on it on Second Reading, when I welcomed the Government’s crackdown on fraud, because every pound lost to fraudulent claims is a pound that could be spent on the vital public services on which my constituents in Clwyd North rely. It is extremely good to see the recognition of the issue, and the action taken in response to the £7.1 million of fraud and error payments in 2022-23 in Wales alone—that figure is up by £600,000 on the previous year.
The fine-tuning of this Bill is important, and that fine-tuning is done through the Government amendments, which speak to the correct application under devolution settlements, policy intent, the application and limitation of part 3, and the consequential amendments proposed to parent Acts. I was glad to be a member of the Public Bill Committee that considered the Bill in more detail, and I throw my weight behind the comments made about how the Bill Committee progressed, and how helpful that was to Committee members. The explanations and expansions by the Ministers served us well and have brought us to where we are today.
I spoke on Second Reading about the distinction between intentional fraud and accidental individual error, and I am pleased that Government amendments speak to reservations relating to that, and to proportionality. Crucial safeguards will be strengthened to ensure that no one is pushed into undue financial hardship because of debt recovery. Those safeguards include strict affordability checks on recovery payments, and checks on vulnerabilities.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I take the hon. Lady’s point about the need to strengthen safeguards, but passing the Bill would mean that we would be extending the powers of the Department for Work and Pensions before we had the opportunity to look at the independent review of the carer’s allowance overpayments scandal and see what reform of the Department was necessary. Does she share that concern?
Gill German
The Bill will protect vulnerabilities where we see them and it is very much a Bill of last resort. It is aimed at people who are not engaging with the DWP on fraud and error cases. Now that carers are aware of the problems that have occurred in the system, we hope that they engage, so I do not believe that the Bill will impact them in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Indeed, the Bill will protect claimants by enabling early dialogue, which will stop errors sooner and prevent debt building up through genuine mistakes; I initially had a reservation on that point.
It is clearer than ever that the measures are powers of last resort for those who have refused to engage and are able to pay—it is important to emphasise that point. The measures put DWP powers in line with those that already exist for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Child Maintenance Service, and put the importance of the public money spent by those bodies on an equal footing.
The behaviour change that is expected to come as a wider benefit of the Bill is welcome. The Bill encourages debtors to negotiate a repayment plan ahead of using the measures of last resort. Importantly, as has been said, it deters organised fraudsters and those looking to become involved in fraud by ensuring that it is not framed as a victimless crime. It is anything but, because it robs us all of vital money for public services. We are not willing to shrug our shoulders at that, as the Conservative party did at the rising tide of fraud during the covid pandemic and beyond. We must all reinforce the narrative that benefit fraud is not a victimless crime, and our tackling it through the Bill is long overdue.
Throughout the passage of the Bill—in Committee and now on Report—I have been reassured that those who have genuine difficulty navigating the social security system have nothing to fear from the Bill. Indeed, it will raise awareness of the importance of early dialogue. However, I still have concerns about the complexity of the system and how it is administered, as I voiced at Second Reading, but that is for another day. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I will continue to focus on that, as well as having regular dialogue on the subject with my constituents.
To conclude, I welcome the Bill and the fine tuning that has come about through Government amendments passed in Committee. I was pleased to serve on my first Public Bill Committee, and thank the Chairs, Ministers and all involved for its smooth running. I am happy to support the Government amendments put to the House today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I start by assuring the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) that my office has talked me out of mentioning the Waitrose cheesecake that was a hot topic throughout Committee. On a more serious note, I would like to explore the challenges in the Bill. As we have heard, fraud can only be a bad thing, as it robs the public purse, but we need to ensure that our approach is proportionate, and that is where the rub is for us, as Liberal Democrats.
First, I want to focus on the covid crisis. We all lived through that, and some of us were in hot seats. I was leader of Torbay council at the time, so it felt as if I was in the eye of the storm for some of those challenges. I am afraid to say that for many of us in this Chamber, it feels as if the Conservatives were asleep at the wheel, given the level of fraud that we saw taking place during the pandemic. The fact that £10 billion-worth of fraud occurred around personal protective equipment is shocking. Some £16 billion of fraud occurred around support for businesses. While it was extremely important that we supported businesses appropriately, the safeguards were extremely limited. One businessman in Torbay said to me that it was as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got handfuls of £50 notes, filled carrier bags across the town centre, and said to the criminal element, “Come and help yourselves.” The reality is that the money could and should have been put to good use. In my constituency, Torbay hospital is crying out for investment. We have a sewage scandal, and the Environment Agency could be supported in tackling that issue. We also have the cost of living crisis; we could support people in ensuring warmer homes. All that money could help with those things.
A colleague and good friend has already alluded to the carer’s allowance crisis, and the real challenge that it poses. More than 136,000 people—the population of the Torbay unitary authority area—are affected by it. There is some £250 million of cost on those people. We Liberal Democrats fear that the powers in the Bill could make things even tougher for those who have challenges to do with the carer’s allowance.
Members do not have to take it from me that the benefits system is broken; the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have said that it is. If there is such agreement in Government that the benefits system is broken, why are we adding to this edifice? It is built on a foundation of sand, yet we are looking to pile more responsibilities on to it, without looking for the true, positive culture change in the DWP that we need.
Colleagues have alluded to the areas of debate around the Bill. I will touch on a few major concerns that we Liberal Democrats have. The opportunity that the Bill presents for Orwellian levels of mass surveillance of those who get means-tested benefits causes me grave concern.
David Davis
The hon. Gentleman has got to a point on which I wholeheartedly agree with him. Something like 9.8 million people will fall directly under the reach of this Bill; if we include their carers, landlords and a variety of other people, it is more than 10 million people. I would think that the number of fraudsters in that number is very small, but not vanishingly small, so we will put probably more than 9 million people under unnecessary surveillance. He is right to call that Orwellian.
Steve Darling
I concur strongly with the right hon. Gentleman.
Also of core concern to us is the lowering of the bar for being able to take money out of people’s bank accounts, and the opportunity to withdraw driving licences from offenders. However, as colleagues have said, the best practice document is missing. That was alluded to on a number of occasions. It is difficult to understand the true nature of this Bill if we do not know what that guidance will look like.
We also have real challenges around Henry VIII powers. Elements of the Bill should be written into it, but are not, so there are real issues there. We welcome the independent reviewer of the Bill, but the Secretary of State will be able to appoint their own independent reviewer; we do not welcome the Secretary of State effectively marking their own homework by making the appointment themselves.
Big Brother Watch, Age UK and a multitude of other charities have highlighted concerns about the Bill, such as the breakdown in trust that it could cause and the risk of amplifying the challenges faced by people with disabilities. It could also impact on some of the most vulnerable people in our society, such as those with learning disabilities. That causes us great concern; Liberal Democrats would like to see a real culture change. In our manifesto, we talked about co-design, which involves working with people who are benefits claimants and people with disabilities to make sure that the system is a better fit and more fit for purpose. As far as we are concerned, taking a more relational approach, rather than an adversarial one, is the way forward.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendments 10, 11 and 12, which stand in my name. I would like to start, though, by placing on record my thanks to the Minister for Transformation, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), including for his willingness to engage in a discussion on the terms of this Bill. It has been extremely helpful, so I wanted to place that on record.
I also make it clear that my amendments do not in any way seek to undo or frustrate the Government’s legitimate aim of recovering public money from fraudsters and criminals. We absolutely need to do that to ensure that criminal behaviour does not undermine the benefits, legitimacy or standing of our welfare system. The Bill rightly seeks to tackle organised crime and online fraud, but worryingly it also ushers in dangerous new powers compelling banks to trawl through financial information.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I support his amendments. The fact is that millions of innocent people whose behaviour has attracted no suspicion at all will be subject to intrusion into their bank accounts. Is it not odd that there is also access to bank accounts for the £40 billion of tax unpaid by tax avoiders, but that power is rarely used? In the last year for which I have seen figures, 300,000 people were suspected of tax avoidance, but only 1,000 had their banks investigated. Is it not the case that this legislation appears to treat wealthy tax avoiders differently from the poor?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. It is the very poorest in our society who will be most affected by this legislation. Banks will be able to trawl through financial information even when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing—that is the key point in this debate. The very poorest, including disabled people on PIP, older people on pension credit, carers and those on universal credit, will effectively have fewer rights to privacy than everyone else. I am also deeply concerned about the slippery slope of compelling banks to act as an arm of the state.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for tabling his amendments. We have the finest legal system in the world, and one of its principles is the presumption of innocence. As drafted, the Bill undermines that fundamental principle, which will raise stress and anxiety and undermine vulnerable people in our society. Does the hon. Member agree that that is the current position with the Bill?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Yes, and I am going to address that point shortly.
It is not the purpose of banks to act as an arm of the state, and compelling them to do so sets a very dangerous precedent that we in this House need to be aware of. We also know that organised crime groups, which are responsible for more than £7 billion of large-scale fraud, will evade detection by spreading funds across multiple accounts, beyond the reach of the algorithmic scanning that will be used to flag overpayments. It will be welfare recipients who are caught up in the net of bank surveillance, regardless of whether they are suspected of fraudulent activity.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his eminently reasonable and common-sense approach to this debate and on amendment 11. Does it seem to him, as it seems to me, that this legislation takes place in a wider context? Along with the proposed tightening of eligibility for personal independence payment, it moves us towards a hostile environment for benefit claimants, particularly disabled benefit claimants. We will end up treating them as suspects automatically. Does he agree that it was right for us to oppose this measure when the Conservatives wanted to do it? I tabled an early-day motion, signed by nearly 50 MPs, to that effect. We have to oppose this measure now. The best way to resolve it is by the Government accepting his eminently reasonable—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. That was a very long intervention. Perhaps we would be better off going back to Neil Duncan-Jordan.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will cover the connection between this piece of legislation and the Green Paper shortly.
Neil Coyle
Will the outcome for the individual disabled people my hon. Friend is concerned about—the vast majority of whom commit no fraud—be any different if these measures are implemented? They will not be affected, because they are not committing any crime.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
As I have tried to explain, the Bill introduces fundamental changes to the nature of our welfare system and its use.
David Davis
I am a signatory to amendment 11. In answer to the point that has just been made to the hon. Gentleman, if the banks use algorithms, they will have an error rate of at least 1%. That means 10,000 or more innocent people will be dragged through the system by this proposal.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
The right hon. Member brings me to my next point, which is the risk of a Horizon-style scandal on a massive scale, given the sheer volume of accounts that will be scanned. That is glaringly obvious. These new powers also strip those who receive state support of that fundamental principle of British law, the presumption of innocence, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) said earlier.
Amendment 11 would ensure that the Government can tackle fraudsters, but would limit the use of an eligibility verification notice to cases where a welfare recipient is suspected of wrongdoing and not merely of error. That proportionate and necessary safeguard would prevent the corruption of our welfare system, which will turn it from a safety net—meant to offer dignity and support to those in need—into a punitive system, where accessing help comes at the cost of someone’s privacy and civil liberties.
The Bill grants the Department draconian powers to apply to a court to have people stripped of their driving licence if they have an outstanding debt, whether for overpayment, fraud or error. Amendments 10 and 12 would remove that power from the Bill. There are fairer and more effective ways to enforce the law. Analysis of the Bill has shown that where assessment deems that a financial deduction would cause hardship, the debtor can face losing their licence. That is not justice in my view, but a penalty for being poor.
I have heard the claims that this measure will be a last resort when the debtor has failed to engage over a period, but that overlooks the fact that non-engagement can be a symptom of hardship rather than wrongdoing. Many welfare recipients, including those with mental health conditions and caring responsibilities, find it difficult to navigate the complex bureaucracy of our social security system, and may be unfairly deemed not to have engaged with the DWP.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is important and necessary to have better legislation to look after people. I doubt that anyone in the Chamber has not been confronted by a constituent who has made an inadvertent mistake. Given the complexity of the paperwork and the reams of questions, it is beyond the ability of most people to respond. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, and that of many others, that if the system continues to be so complicated, it will inadvertently drive people into a position for which they are not responsible?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I agree. I think that the complexity of our system lends itself to errors on the part of individuals who find it extremely difficult to navigate. In Committee, several witnesses explained that people avoid repayment for a variety of reasons, including not knowing where to get help, simply being overwhelmed by the whole process, or facing multiple debts. I hope that the Minister will provide further reassurance on that specific point relating to amendments 10 and 12.
All these challenges will only be made worse if the Government proceed with the planned cuts in disability benefits outlined in the recent Green Paper, which will affect more than 3 million families. The last Government stripped our welfare state to the bone during 14 years of deep cuts—disabled people are already far more likely to be in destitution and to rely on food banks—but spying on millions of people or piling cuts on to a failed system will not repair our welfare model. The Government must pause for thought, meet representatives of disability organisations, and build a fairer system with their consent and confidence. Our welfare state needs to provide support for those who need it, and the change that we promised as a Government must lead to a more compassionate and caring society—one that enables rather than penalises. These are the values that make us different from the last Government, and we should not forget that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It would be helpful if Members tried to confine their speeches to five minutes or so, but I do not propose to introduce a formal time limit yet.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I wish to speak in support of new clause 11, entitled “Publication of results of pilot schemes”. Make no mistake: this Bill allows for a massive expansion of state powers. It will permit mass financial surveillance of the public. It is a massive overreach by the state, so of course it requires close scrutiny. It requires the publication of those results, and then they must be analysed.
Let me put this in context. Before the covid years, fraud and error across the tax and benefit system were at an all-time low. Then, in 2020, after a state-imposed lockdown—another massive state intervention—unprecedented financial support was set up for millions of people, in a rush of panic, with the full support of Members on both sides of the House. I exclude myself from that, but very few Members opposed the arrangement, and it opened up all sorts of new vulnerabilities in the system.
This support was set up only because of a blanket stay-at-home mandate from the state. It was the state that opened up those fraud vulnerabilities, and it was the state that saw, as a result of those impositions, many millions more people claiming universal credit. Let me give the House the figures. In March 2020, 3 million people were receiving universal credit. By November that year 5.8 million were receiving it, and in January 2025 the number was 7.5 million. Just as the heavy-handed state intervention of lockdown left the public paying a very high price, I am concerned that the Bill, another heavy-handed state intervention, will also leave the public paying a very high price. As Big Brother Watch states, the Bill will introduce
“an unprecedented system of mass financial surveillance; create a second-tier justice system for people on the poverty line; undermine the presumption of innocence; result in serious mistakes risking the freedoms and funds of our country’s elderly, disabled and poor; and turn Britain’s once-fair welfare system into a digital surveillance system.”
I have said it before and I will say it again, lockdown was an experiment inflicted on the British people without their consent and that experiment failed. The Bill will be another such experiment on the British public.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
Sometimes in these debates, we are trying to influence those on the Front Bench; to be honest, on this legislation, I have given up on that. I just want to get on the record, for my constituents, why I am concerned about this piece of legislation and why I support amendment 11.
We have all prefaced our speeches by saying that we all want to tackle fraud. To follow on from the speech by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), in that process during covid, I think I was the first MP to raise the issue of the massive fraud that was going on with bank loans. When I wrote to the then Chancellor and to various Ministers, I received responses that had almost been dictated by the banks, saying that all the security measures had been put in place and that it was being administered effectively; we then discovered that it was, I think, £13 billion, although we recovered an element of that, so I am very wary about ensuring that public expenditure avoids the levels of fraud that we saw during that time.
I am concerned about this Bill, which takes huge steps constitutionally, legally and on civil liberties. Others have made similar points. Our tradition is that someone is innocent until proven guilty—that has been the legal principle from Magna Carta onwards. The investigation powers are usually triggered by some element of suspicion. This legislation rides roughshod over that long 1,000-year tradition.
On privacy, whatever assurances we are given about the Bill’s compliance with human rights legislation— I have my doubts—it introduces, for the first time that I have seen in this country on an issue like this, mass surveillance.
David Davis
The right hon. Gentleman goes right to the point I tried to make with the Minister. There are 25 NGOs supporting amendment 11. It is almost certain that if we go down this route, it will end up in court. I think the Government will lose on article 8, on the question of individual privacy.
John McDonnell
Following the right hon. Gentleman’s track record on issues like this—he has been proved right on virtually every occasion—I agree. In addition to the mass surveillance, the extent of the information that can be sought and interpreted from the Bill is extremely wide-ranging and open to challenge.
What has annoyed me is that we are now introducing legislation in advance of what we were promised by way of codes of conduct and operation. We have no idea how this will work out in practice without those codes. Members may recall that the codes set out detail on how the system would operate at every level, with the information seeking, investigatory powers and so on. We do not have those, but we are being told not to worry, because the other place will receive them—well, that is not our responsibility as MPs. Our responsibility is to deal with the matter here.
We also do not know how the “independent persons”, as they are described in the legislation, are to be appointed or how they are going to operate. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) raised the question of how their reports and recommendations will then be implemented. There is also the question of whom they will be accountable to and whether there is any accountability for those independent persons to this House.
Time and again, when we have introduced legislation like this in the past that has short-circuited the traditional protective constitutional and legal mechanisms, it has led to debacles and miscarriages. I warn Ministers that that is exactly what we are facing here. Reference has been made to issues with regard to the use of computers, models and algorithms. We seem to have learned nothing from where we have made those errors.
As I also raised on Second Reading, what is happening here is discriminatory. We are choosing a class of people—largely working-class people—who are claiming benefits, and we are targeting them. If there is a class of people we should be targeting who have a record of fraud and of claiming things that they should not, well, here we are. As the expenses scandal demonstrated, if there is one group of people we should be examining more closely, it is Members of Parliament.
I want to talk very briefly about the impact of these measures from a constituency point of view. As an MP for 28 years and a councillor for over 12 years—40 years in total—I have met lots of people who do not claim benefits to which they are entitled. They are often older people, but there are others as well. Why do they not claim? In my experience, it is because of the stigma attached to claiming benefits. With this Bill, we are adding a bit more stigma, which will act as a disincentive to those who genuinely qualify for benefits and should be coming forward. It is that terror of making an error, that fear of risking being penalised for claiming a benefit they may not be entitled to—or of being paid too much. There is a real fear among my constituents about such miscarriages.
Most of the constituents who come to our constituency surgeries have tried everything else by the time they get to us. They are the ones with the most chaotic lives. And they are the ones who get sanctioned time and again, not because of any deliberate act, but often because they have mental health issues, or because something in their life, prevents them from attending that interview, or from applying for enough jobs in time. What will happen to them? They will be dragged into this system again. At the moment, they come to us—this is largely the case in my constituency—because most of the advice agencies have been closed down thanks to the cuts that have taken place, and they come to us in desperation. This Bill will make people even more desperate. It will deter people who qualify for benefits from claiming, and it will cause real hardship and impose severe penalties on those who least deserve it. That is why I think this is a poor piece of legislation, and it will not be long before we are back here again to amend it, to restore some elements of civil liberties and protection for the poorest in our society.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I shall impose, with immediate effect, a four-minute time limit.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
When it comes to public money, everyone accepts the importance of preventing fraud; there is no dispute about that. The mere thought that our benefit system could be exploited loosens the cement holding our welfare system together. However, if we look back in history, there has been a track record of fraud recovery measures not delivering what was hoped. This measure will also probably never save the £1.5 billion that is expected of it, so I ask: will the alleged rewards of this legislation ever match the scale of the imposition on our civil liberties, and are we really going after the right targets?
We all want to catch deliberate and professional fraudsters, but they are precisely the people who are astute enough to change tactics, set up separate bank accounts, and avoid suspicion. Instead, it will be the innocent and the accidental claimants who fall into the trap. The implicit assumption is that we should trust in the DWP as a completely error-free organisation across the entirety of its massive operation. But the DWP does make mistakes. It makes mistakes all the time. And even when it knows that it has made a mistake, and it has been told so, it is very capable of making the same mistake all over again.
In my constituency of Horsham, Anthony and his husband were accused of providing misinformation to the DWP and were overpaid £10,000 as a result. Anthony protested without success. After a long fight the case went to appeal. The tribunal wasted no time deciding in his favour—it was an open and shut case. But then, earlier this year, Anthony and his husband were migrated over to universal credit. After confirming all details were correct, the DWP overpaid them again, and then sought to claw the money back over the following months. The DWP’s mistake, but Anthony pays the penalty.
The DWP has its rules, but real life does not run in straight lines. Real life is messy. How can we possibly rely on the DWP to mark its own homework when we know that there are just four fraud advisers per regional office to handle cases flagged by frontline staff?
Yes, there are some checks and balances within this legislation, but what is really needed is a profound cultural change within the DWP, and that is much harder to achieve. The common experience of people who have to deal with the DWP on a daily basis is that they feel that it is always looking to catch them out. Years and years of inflammatory rhetoric under a succession of Conservative Governments have convinced people to regard the DWP as their enemy, not their friend. If anything, the Bill digs that hole a little deeper.
What concerns me most about the Bill is its extreme overconfidence. It assumes that Government agencies always get things right and that individual citizens are to be automatically treated as objects of suspicion. In Committee, the Government were resistant to any amendments except their own, so I very much hope that they will reconsider today and accept the Liberal Democrat amendments.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I rise to speak against amendments 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, and new clauses 12 and 15.
Fraud in the benefit system affects us all. It costs us as a country almost £1 million an hour. It takes money from the most vulnerable in society and undermines the legitimacy of and public support for our social security system. However, many of the amendments proposed simply do not recognise the vital need for this legislation. Some, such as amendments 2 and 9, would hamstring the Bill by preventing us gathering key information. Others, such as amendments 8, 5 and 6, would limit the effectiveness of the Bill and make its powers more difficult to use. Others, such as amendments 4 and new clauses 12 and 15, would seek to delay its effects.
These amendments, however differently proposed, all suffer from the same pathology: they fail to take fraud seriously. We have heard a number of speeches today from opponents of the Bill, but we are yet to hear from them any serious practical suggestions about how we might tackle fraud. These opponents say that they are concerned to protect the vulnerable, but I say gently that they can offer no proposals on how to prevent the fraud that is stealing from the neediest in our society.
Many Members are coming from a genuine place of concern about how to strike the right balance between protecting the public purse on the one hand and the privacy and rights of claimants on the other. I think the Bill gets the balance right. The powers it provides are proportionate.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
I have limited time, so I will make progress.
The powers the Bill provides are proportionate, measured and ringed with safeguards. It is a mark of this that, as we heard from the Secretary of State on Second Reading, the Information Commissioner has stated that the Bill as currently drafted has addressed their previously stated concerns.
As well as being proportionate, the powers are necessary to fight the ever-more sophisticated frauds that we are facing. Over the past decade, financial institutions have extensively overhauled their use of technology and data and their approaches to the evolving fraud threat, yet the Government have not. It is illuminating, but perhaps not surprising, that while social security fraud has risen dramatically post covid, fraud volumes and losses in the financial services sector, including credit card fraud, have fallen according to UK Finance. The public sector has paid a steep price for not modernising its anti-fraud approach and failing to adopt industry best practices. It is a gap that this Bill seeks to address.
Most of all, the measures in the Bill are crucial for protecting the vulnerable and safeguarding the legitimacy of the system itself. Our social security system rests on public consent and a belief that money is fairly spent. Fraud and error chips away at this social contract, and it takes money from those who need it most. The public in Hendon and across the country expect us to take action. There is nothing progressive whatsoever about permitting fraud. The only people who benefit are the criminals who exploit our system and those who wish to undermine its role as a cornerstone of a civilised and fair society.
For the sake of the most vulnerable, the taxpayer, fairness and the system itself, I hope the House will join me in supporting the Bill and voting down those amendments.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
There continue to be many problems with the Bill, but I recognise that the Minister and his team have had extensive conversations with the Scottish Government and made a number of amendments as a result. I welcome the communication between the two Governments and urge the Minister to ensure that the DWP team have extensive conversations in advance of the coming welfare Bill so that it will not need so many Government amendments on Report for how it interacts with Scottish legislation and Scottish systems.
I turn to new clause 1 on carer’s allowance. It would be completely fair to wait until a review has been done—there needs to be a significant look into that—as clawing back money from people without seeing the results of that review would be incredibly problematic. I am therefore happy to support the new clause.
On sickfluencers, I am concerned that although the shadow Minister has tried to draft new clause 21 to exclude people giving advice, it might unintentionally catch some of those people. On that basis, I am not keen to support it as I would be worried about people who offer genuine advice being caught up in that. However, I understand that she attempted to draft it carefully to try to avoid that.
I would be more than happy to support amendment 11 —the SNP will support it—on the suspicion of wrongdoing. I am thinking in particular about the speech made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I was not going to mention the propensity of former MPs to claim things fraudulently, but in looking at who actually costs the taxpayer significant amounts of money, if the Government were to say, “We know that people who hold millions of pounds in offshore trust funds often dodge tax, so we are going to survey all their bank accounts,” I imagine that there would be some sort of uprising, particularly from some wealthier people we are aware of. But because the Government are saying, “It’s cool; it’s just poor people who will be impacted,” we are all expected to assume that this surveillance is fine. It is not fine; it is an absolute imposition on people’s lives. As many have said, it is treating everybody as though they are fraudsters.
Let us look at the amount of money set to be saved. The Government will save less money annually than the DWP makes in overpayments. Rather than imposing on so many people’s civil liberties, surely cracking down on DWP official error overpayments, which would save more money, would be a better place to begin. It is absolutely daft.
I completely agree with new clause 7, tabled by my colleagues the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), particularly in relation to the reasonable expectation that people could understand that they had been overpaid. A constituent contacted me recently because they had a letter telling them that they are to be migrated to universal credit. They are terrified that they will be deported because the word “migrated” was used in that letter. They do not understand the language used by the DWP. Given that universal credit is so complicated to calculate, so many people could not reasonably have been expected to understand that they were being overpaid. The DWP should take that into account before looking at mass surveillance.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Bill addresses the serious issue of fraud and error in our public services. I welcome the Government’s continuation of the work of the previous Government to protect taxpayers’ money and uphold the integrity of our welfare system. The amendments proposed by the official Opposition would not undermine the Bill; they would enhance it. Our amendments would preserve the fundamental principles of fairness and proportionality while strengthening the tools at our disposal to tackle wrongdoing.
In that spirit, I rise to speak in support of new clauses 8 and 21. New clause 8 is a measured and necessary proposal that would simply bring the Department for Work and Pensions in line with other Government bodies, such as HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service, which already have the power to issue arrest warrants for cases of serious fraud against the state. Why should it lack those enforcement capabilities when the crimes that it deals with are just as serious?
The taxpayer enters into a social contract with the state—a contract based on trust, responsibility and accountability. My constituents pay their taxes and quite rightly expect that those who cheat, lie or exploit the system will face the consequences. We in this House are the guardians of that social contract. If the public believe that we are turning a blind eye to fraud or failing to act decisively, that trust begins to erode and the social contract will be put at risk. Illegal actions must have legal consequences. In supporting new clause 8, the Government could send a clear and unequivocal message: fraud and deceit have no place in our society.
Turning to new clause 21, it has recently been highlighted that individuals are using social media to promote ways of defrauding the system, including through the Motability scheme. That is deeply troubling. Although Ministers have previously responded positively to my questions on that, the current version of the Bill does not go far enough. Unless the Government support our amendments, they will fail to take the concrete steps needed to address that evolving form of deceit.
This House has an opportunity today to work across party lines to further strengthen the Bill and reaffirm our commitment to protecting the social contract between the Government and those governed. Let us act with unity and resolve to reduce fraud, restore public trust and ensure that our systems work for those who truly need them and not for those who seek to abuse them.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Under the previous Conservative Government, fraudsters got away with claiming billions of pounds of covid support funds, as an eyewatering £39.8 billion went uncollected due to tax evasion and other criminal activity. While vulnerable members of our society have seen their benefits cut and our public services are in need of investment, it is not right that public spending has been misplaced into the pockets of fraudsters. I am therefore grateful for many of the measures in the Bill that will work to reduce instances of fraud. However, I have concerns about some of the broader measures regarding the powers the legislation would give the Department for Work and Pensions and the potentially intrusive impact that could have on the civil liberties of citizens.
I speak in support of new clause 23, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), which would require a report to Parliament within six months on the causes and cost of public sector fraud during the covid-19 pandemic. The report would include an account of any fraudulent payments and a review of procurement practices during covid, including contracting for suppliers and the role of political appointments and personal connections in procurement decisions, as well as an assessment of the adequacy of Government oversight to prevent fraud against public authorities. Much of that work has already been undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee—I am a member, as I was in the previous Parliament—and it would be worthwhile for the Minister to take a look at some of our reporting on those topics.
If failings are found, the new clause would require an outline of corrective actions, including a statement to this House to acknowledge the findings and to set out actions planned to ensure that any failings are not repeated. With public trust in politics at alarmingly low levels, we must take all possible steps to ensure integrity and the highest possible standards in governance. The cronyism, rule breaking and sleaze scandals of the last Conservative Government did huge damage to public trust in politics and politicians in this country. The new clause would lead to an increase of accountability and I urge the Minister to accept it.
Even though I am glad to see the Government introduce measures that would crack down on instances of fraud, I have grave concerns about some of the broader measures in this legislation that would lead to an unacceptable increase in intrusion on individual privacy. That is why I speak in favour of amendment 2, which would revoke clause 74 and remove the requirement for banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts. Some measures in the Bill raise significant concerns regarding the privacy of individuals, and I have heard from constituents who are alarmed at some of the powers that could be introduced with this legislation. I believe that fraud must be rooted out and that more should be done to prevent fraud from happening in the first place. However, clause 74 is an unnecessary and invasive step that I urge the Government to refrain from taking.
I have heard from people who are concerned about the powers granted in the Bill because it enables the Government to have direct access to individuals’ bank accounts and even enables the DWP to withdraw funds or revoke driving licences. That concern is particularly serious when it comes to vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, disabled people and those living in poverty, who could face devastating consequences as a result of wrongful penalties.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to cracking down on fraud. There were clear failures by the previous Conservative Government during the covid pandemic, which we saw highlighted in the PPE procurement scandal and the bypassing of the usual procurement rules via the VIP lane. It is essential that proper rules are in place to ensure that public spending is carried out in an effective, efficient and transparent way, and I am glad to support new clause 23, which would strengthen transparency and accountability on this issue. However, grave concerns about the intrusive powers that this legislation could introduce have been expressed across the House today, particularly those that allow the Government to require banks and other financial institutions to share client data, and as such, I urge the Minister to accept amendment 2 to revoke clause 74.
Siân Berry
There is a lot I could say, but I will mainly just commend to Members my new clause 7, which would remove official error from the most punitive measures in the second part of the Bill. I spoke against the whole suite of intrusive legislation in the second part of the Bill on Second Reading, and Green MPs still oppose it now. I was pleased to serve on the Public Bill Committee, and I will be supporting a number of other amendments that I also backed there, alongside the hon. Members from both sides of the House who proposed them. On Second Reading and in Committee I described how the Bill treats already stigmatised benefit claimants as suspects, not citizens, through blanket intrusion and surveillance. It is absolutely wrong that this legislation should go through in this form. I think the first part works, but the second part is absolutely out of order.
New clause 7, tabled in my name, is about fair play. It would bring a test for the recovery of universal credit overpayments caused by official error into line with regulation 100(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, so that they could be recovered only where the claimant could have reasonably been expected to realise that there was an overpayment. Let us be in no doubt, mistakes by the DWP can have huge financial and psychological impacts on people who are receiving benefits, and the risk of harm is particularly acute with official error overpayments, which individuals have no way of anticipating. I point out that new clause 7 is equivalent to an amendment proposed by Labour Front Benchers during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act back in 2012, when the Government first started to recover universal credit overpayments.
Turning to a few of the other important amendments before the House today, I restate my support for amendments 2 and 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). These seek simply to remove the totally indefensible bank spying powers. I express my support for amendments 10 and 12, in the name of the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), which rightly seek to do away with the driving disqualification powers, which I have previously opposed. I also put on record my support for amendment 11, also in the name of the hon. Member for Poole, which rightly limits the banks’ spying powers to cases with existing suspicion of wrongdoing. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) has taken forward amendments 8 and 9, which I tabled in Committee. My Green party colleagues and I will also be voting for new clause 1, in the name of the hon. Member for Torbay, on carer’s allowance and lessons learned.
It matters when we treat people who need a safety net as suspects. It matters when Governments invade privacy with a blanket intrusion that affects older people, disabled people and other minorities in a disproportionate way. And it matters that the powers proposed today extend to impoverishing citizens and punishing them for our own Department’s mistakes. Treating people with humanity and due process should be the default setting, not these intrusive new blanket laws, and I hope that Parliament will ask Ministers to dial up the competence, dial down the stigma and think again.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Over the past few months, it has been one thing after another for the vulnerable, the sick and disabled people. The recently announced cuts to welfare will affect 6% of the population in Wales, according to Policy in Practice, punishing the sick and disabled. This Bill adds to that punishment by increasing state financial surveillance of welfare recipients. It is full of intrusive measures, from granting access to three months of bank statements, to allowing direct deductions from bank accounts without court orders and providing police with powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to enter and search a property. That is not just my opinion: numerous charities and organisations from Age UK to the Child Poverty Action Group support Big Brother Watch’s recommendation to oppose eligibility verification powers under clause 74, for example.
Similar powers were proposed by the previous Conservative Government and considered a potential breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act. Labour MPs at that time were among critics of those powers. It is disappointing to see so few Labour MPs here today, but I thank those who have once again spoken up. I am glad to see amendments, including amendments 8 and 9 tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and amendment 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), that seek to address such concerns, including by limiting or removing powers to compel banks to provide sensitive financial information.
Even the thought of this provision is causing real anxiety and distress, such as for my constituent Simon Mead and his family. Mr Mead’s daughter, who receives PIP due to the long-term effects of brain cancer as a child, and his son, who suffers from psychosis and schizophrenia, are extremely worried about the Government accessing their private financial decisions. It is already affecting their day-to-day life and decisions. When I wrote to the Government outlining Mr Mead’s concerns before the Bill was published, I was told that the Bill is
“not designed to cause distress or to undertake covert surveillance of disabled people, or any benefit claimant”.
Well, that is obviously not the case, is it?
Combined with restricting winter fuel payments, the refusal to abolish the two-child cap and the sweeping welfare cuts, many vulnerable and disabled people genuinely feel that they are being disproportionately targeted. This is a reality that the Labour Government must accept and address. The Bill further stigmatises people who we are supposed to protect—those who are entitled to state support—who are already suffering following recent UK Government decisions. As Members of Parliament, it is our job to better people’s lives and ensure that everyone in our community feels supported. We are here to serve and to serve all our constituents, which includes the vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled and the infirm. We are not here to cause further distress and hardship. We need to ensure that constituents have access to the help and services they need. Sadly, this Bill does the opposite.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. We come to the Front Benches and first the shadow Minister.
Rebecca Smith
With the leave of the House, I will make a few additional comments. This is the perfect opportunity to respond to some of the points made about Conservative amendments and new clauses.
The hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) was on a short time limit and was not able to take any interventions, but I want to speak to the points he made on including our new clauses—for example, new clause 12. He rattled off the other amendment numbers quickly, so I hope he will forgive me if I did not hear them all, but I believe that new clauses 12 and 15 were included. His implication was that the new clauses we tabled would delay the Bill being put into law. That would not be the case, because each of them is worded for after the Act comes into force. The new clauses would be additional safeguards on the cost implications for banks, annual reporting and the publication of an antifraud and error technology strategy that would make the Bill even better, rather than essentially being wrecking amendments. Regardless of the other amendments included in the hon. Member’s list, ours are certainly not in that vein.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said that she was slightly unhappy about new clause 21 because those who genuinely help benefit claimants get what they are entitled to may inadvertently be caught by it. That is not our intention. We want only those who push people towards committing fraud to be caught. Citizens Advice and Improving Lives Plymouth, for example, which help people claim what they are entitled to, would not be caught by the new clause, because they would be involved in error only if a mistake were made, rather than through fraud. I appreciate what she said, but that was not our intention. The wording of our new clause covers that.
Concern was raised in Committee about the extent of bank account searches. In our view, other bank accounts used by those who commit fraud would not be checked under the Bill, so we probably need to go further to ensure that fraud is properly tackled. To be more light-hearted for a moment, if I may, anybody reading the report of the debate will see plenty of references to cheesecake, and I think I should explain why. Concern was raised in Committee about the fact that, under the Bill, an account’s individual transactions could be assessed and judged, so everybody would feel terrible if they bought a cheesecake from Waitrose—other shops are available—and that would be a problem in future. If anybody was wondering why we were talking about cheesecake, it related to concern about transactions being checked. At the time, the Minister kindly reassured us that the Bill would not provide for individual transactions to be checked; it would deal just with benefit payments and whether someone has capital that they should not have while claiming benefits. I hope that that is helpful.
Andrew Western
With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. In the time I have, I will try to respond to some of the points raised. I have listened closely to the concerns set out by Members from across the House, and I will of course ensure that they are taken forward as the Bill progresses to the other place, but today I will resist all non-Government amendments. I will make initial comments in response to several Members, before turning specifically to the nature of the amendments and new clauses.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), and the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), said that the Bill builds on the previous Administration’s work to tackle fraud and error. I have to say, I think that is a fairly generous interpretation of that work, not least because, as far as I can see, the previous Government introduced absolutely no powers for the Public Sector Fraud Authority to tackle fraud across the public sector, and, moreover, nothing on debt recovery. The only evidence we can find of any new powers the previous Government sought to introduce is in the eligibility verification space. I accept that they sought to do that, but they did so in a rather botched fashion, which was subject to significant criticism, and with none of the safeguards and oversight in place. We have now built those into the Bill. I absolutely agree with the Opposition spokesperson that the Government cannot be complacent in tackling fraud—and we will not be—but I say gently that, having allowed fraud and error in the welfare system to spiral to £9.7 billion at the time of the last election, the same cannot be said of the previous Government.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), spoke of a broken welfare system. I do not want to be drawn into a debate on that, but a broken approach to tackling benefit fraud and error is certainly part of any problem that the Department faces.
Kirsty Blackman
Can the Minister reassure us that no action will be taken to stop social security payments until the human investigation has happened?
Andrew Western
I am happy to provide that assurance; the hon. Member has stolen my next line. I can say categorically that this is a data push only. No decisions will be taken as a direct result, other than a decision to look further into an account, and potentially initiate a human investigation, if needed.
I want to say a little more about amendments 10 and 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, which relate to driving licences. He rightly said that welfare recipients may not be able to engage with the Department. For the record, nobody in receipt of benefits or paid through pay-as-you-earn employment will be in scope of the debt recovery powers and therefore of the power to suspend driving licences. Where we do seek to suspend someone’s driving licence, it is worth remembering that this is after we have made at least four attempts to contact them through our debt management team, and at least four further attempts through our debt enforcement team, and we have established their ability to repay by looking at three months’ bank statements. If, when we seek to deduct from that bank account, an individual has removed the funds that we know they have, it is only then that we would look into the possibility of suspending their driving licence. Even then, because this is very much a last resort power, we would seek to agree a repayment plan with them right up until the end. The court would set repayment terms if a driving licence was suspended. It is also worth saying that it is always a suspended decision, subject to compliance with an affordable repayment plan set by the court. As I say, this is a power of last resort. I hope colleagues are reassured to hear of the many steps before we reach that point and, most importantly of all, to hear that the power does not apply to current benefit recipients or anybody paid through PAYE employment.
The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) mentioned new clause 11 and the publication of pilot scheme results. I would like to clarify for the House that we are not proposing any further pilot schemes as a result of introducing this legislation. Two pilot schemes have already taken place, so we know that our proposals work. We will be adopting a test-and-learn approach so that we can scale things up. The question of whether this mechanism will yield information that is helpful to us in our inquiries was settled by the previous Government.
Esther McVey
Have all the details and all the information from the only pilot schemes that the Government are prepared to run been published in their entirety?
Andrew Western
Information of that nature was published prior to Second Reading and is available to Members.
I turn to the amendments and new clauses that attracted the most attention in today’s debate. New clause 1, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, pertains to the carer’s allowance. I pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across the country. This Government value carers highly, and recognise the vital and valuable contribution they make every day. Like others, I see that in my constituency work, week after week, and I am in awe of all that carers do.
This Government inherited a system in which busy carers, already struggling under a huge weight of responsibility, have been left to repay large sums of overpaid carer’s allowance, sometimes worth thousands of pounds. We need to understand exactly what went wrong, so that we can set out our plan to put this right. That is why we launched an independent review of earnings-related overpayments, and we were delighted that Liz Sayce agreed to lead that review, which will investigate how overpayments of carer’s allowance have occurred, what can best be done to support those who have accrued them, and how to reduce the risk of these problems occurring in future. The independent review is under way and is anticipated to conclude this summer.
But we are not sitting back; we are taking action now. We continue to review and improve our communication with carers to make it as easy as possible for them to tell us when something has changed in their life that could affect their carer’s allowance entitlement. Moreover, this Government introduced the largest ever increase in the earnings limit since carer’s allowance was introduced; the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit increased to £196 from 7 April this year. It is now pegged permanently to 16 hours.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
Clearly, many carers have been affected by overpayments. Overpayment comes as a shock to many who are trying to work in order to bridge the gap between carer’s allowance and their family’s costs, and it has a significant impact on their mental health. Does the Minister share my gratitude to Liz Sayce for the work that she is doing to hopefully provide clarity for the many carers who are trying to juggle unpaid family care and work?
Andrew Western
I absolutely agree. Liz Sayce is doing excellent work, and I look forward to seeing the conclusions of her review in due course.
Turning to new clause 1, as I have said, the independent review that has been commissioned is expected to arrive at its conclusions this summer. It would be irresponsible for me to commit in advance to implementing all recommendations. As the House will understand, the recommendations will need to be given careful consideration when they are provided to the Department. Moreover, I do not believe that the new clause would have the effect intended.
Andrew Western
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, as I am short of time. New clause 1 would prevent recovery of carer’s allowance overpayments via the new recovery powers in this Bill, but the DWP would still be able to recover carer’s allowance overpayments through deductions from benefits or through deductions from PAYE earnings. This would place carers in an unequal position in regard to overpayment recovery, with recovery depending on whether they were in receipt of benefits or in PAYE employment. Even if I believed that that was what the amendment intended, suspending recovery of all carer’s allowance overpayments until the independent review has concluded would be disproport-ionate. There are safeguards and protections for those with overpayments, including appeal rights, affordable repayment plans and, in exceptional circumstances, the option to waive the debt.
I turn to new clause 21, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon, spoke to, and I will refer to new clause 8, which proposes to introduce a new offence of fraud against a public authority. In my view, that is already covered by existing offences, making the amendment duplicative and unnecessary. Fraud is already an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, regardless of whether the fraud is against public authorities or anyone else, is already in existence.
The Government amendments to clause 70 bring together the offences in sections 6 and 7 of the Fraud Act 2006 of
“possessing, making or supplying articles for use in frauds”,
with the offences of “assisting and encouraging” that are found in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. That allows us to tackle the issue that Committee members were concerned about—influencer-style offences, in which a person provides the knowledge needed to commit a fraudulent act through internet videos or manuals.
Andrew Western
I will not. I took an intervention from the hon. Gentleman on this subject earlier, but I am short of time. [Interruption.] Had he stayed for the whole debate, I might have been more willing to do so, but I responded to his earlier invention.
In my view, we simply need to enforce existing law. Similarly, new clause 21 seeks to amend the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to introduce an offence of encouraging or assisting fraud. Again, in my view this is unnecessary, because that is covered by the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked for assurance that we would use the powers that we already have. As I said in response to interventions, I have commissioned work in the Department to look at how we can further use the powers that we have; in my view, historically, we have not taken best advantage of them.
Andrew Western
I am sorry, but I will not.
Turning to new clause 10, we want to ensure that the Government have access to a wide, appropriate and proportionate range of debt recovery powers, so that we have multiple methods of recovering money from those who have the means to pay but refuse to do so. However, new clause 10 is not required, as equivalent action is already provided for through existing legislation for the DWP, and by clause 16 of this Bill for the PSFA. Clause 16 clarifies that the PSFA is able to seek alternative civil recovery through the civil courts. In addition, there are direct deduction orders and deduction from earnings orders in the Bill, which could include liability orders.
I have largely covered amendment 11. In closing, I want to make a few observations about amendments 8 and 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), but spoken to by other Members. In my view, those amendments would reduce the effectiveness of our debt recovery powers as proposed in the Bill, so I cannot agree to them. I recognise the importance of dialogue with customers all the way through the journey of debt recovery. As I set out in response to the concerns about the revocation of driving licences raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, we will seek to engage with people at all stages of the journey. If we identified any vulnerabilities, we would cease recovery, and at all stages we would look to agree an affordable repayment plan.
I hope that I have addressed the majority of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members, and I thank them again for their contributions. I thank the witnesses who gave their time to the Committee, and those who provided written evidence. Finally, I extend my thanks to the Clerks, the House staff and civil servants who have contributed to the passage of the Bill.
For too long, too little effort has been made to get a grip on public sector fraud, resulting in the totally unacceptable levels that we see today. With this Bill, we are taking the powers needed to act and to finally take the fight to the crooks and the con artists, from criminal gangs attacking our welfare system to covid fraudsters who stole from hard-working people in a time of national emergency.
This Bill is critical. It will save us billions of pounds, and it is part of a broader package in the Department to save £9.6 billion for the DWP by 2030. I hope that all Members feel able to support it today.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 17 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Labour Government were elected on a mandate for change—to create more good jobs in every corner of the country, to drive up living standards for working people and to get our vital public services back on their feet. Delivering our plan for change means ensuring that every single pound of taxpayers’ money is wisely spent and goes to those in genuine need. That is what this legislation will help to deliver, with the biggest-ever crackdown on fraud against the public purse.
It is unacceptable that the Conservative Government allowed fraud against the public sector to spiral to £55 billion a year. That includes a staggering £7.4 billion a year of benefit fraud alone. It is unforgiveable that they failed to ensure that the Public Sector Fraud Authority was fit for purpose, or to properly update the DWP’s anti-fraud powers for 14 long years. When we think of all the new ways in which fraudsters and scam artists rip people off, including by using data and technology, that simply beggars belief. Today we say: no more.
Our Bill updates the powers of the Public Sector Fraud Authority so that it can effectively fight fraud across the public sector on behalf of Government Departments and public authorities. It also makes vital upgrades to the DWP’s fraud powers and sets out new powers to investigate fraud, so that for the first time, our serious and organised crime investigators can apply to the court for a warrant to enter and search the premises of suspected fraudsters, and can seize evidence such as computers and phones. There are updated powers to gather information, so that we can compel third parties such as airlines to give us information, and can require it to be delivered electronically, so that we can tackle fraud as quick as possible. Our new eligibility verification measure will enable us to get crucial data from banks and financial institutions to check if people are getting money they are not entitled to, and if they have more savings than the rules allow, or are fraudulently claiming benefits abroad when they should be living in the UK.
The Bill extends financial penalties to people who have fraudulently claimed any type of DWP payment, including grants and loans, not just benefits, and it gives us new powers to get money back from people who can pay but who have repeatedly failed to do so, bringing our powers in line with those of other parts of Government, such as the Child Maintenance Service and HMRC. All this is being done in a fair and proportionate way; the measures are tightly defined in the legislation, and there are strong safeguards and independent oversight, including through annual reports to Parliament and codes of practice, which we will bring forward in Committee in the other place.
I thank the Minister for Transformation and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, for steering the Bill through its Committee and Report stages, supported by excellent civil servants and House of Commons staff. I thank all members of the Public Bill Committee from right across the House for their detailed questions and thoughtful scrutiny of the Bill. They have done this country a good service, because this Bill provides us with the tools we need to tackle modern fraud in the benefit system and across the public sector, helping to save £1.5 billion over the next five years as part of the DWP’s wider action to save a total of £9.6 billion from benefit fraud and error.
People who work hard and play by the rules, and people who depend on our public services and vital benefits, deserve to have trust and faith in the system, and they are rightly angry when they see people abuse it. Our message is clear: if you knowingly defraud the benefit system or cheat our public services, whether you are a large or small company, a criminal gang or an individual, we will find you; we will stop you; and we will get our money back. This Labour Government will restore trust and fairness in the system and ensure that every pound of public money delivers for the British people and our country. I commend this legislation to the House.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Every penny of taxpayers’ money lost to fraud or error is money wasted, so we Conservatives support many of the measures outlined in the Bill, not least those that continue the hard work done by my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions prior to the general election. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that every penny they raise in taxation is spent well. That is fair to taxpayers, who have worked hard to earn that money. When it comes to welfare, at the heart of our system must be the principle that Government support should go only to those for whom it is intended. Every penny that does not undermines the entire system. It erodes public trust and support. That has put support for some of the most vulnerable people in society at risk. That is why, in government, we did the groundwork for the clauses of the Bill that enable banks to help crack down on fraudsters, recognising that while the state should never be able to see what someone spends their money on, it should be able to check whether they are entitled to the money that they are claiming.
The amendments we have tabled to the Bill are constructive, so I am disappointed that the Government have chosen not to support them. Videos from sickfluencers are hard to avoid when searching online about benefits, but rather than helping people to claim something that they may need and should rightly receive, the videos tell people how to game the system. We want taxpayers to get their money back, even if it has already been spent. Why should we tolerate people using social media platforms to help others commit fraud, and to help them cheat the tests that are there to ensure that support goes to those who need it? Why should someone who has committed fraud be able to keep their high-end television or luxury car, just because they spent their ill-gotten gains before the Department got to them? We are clear that both those things should be tackled, but sadly Labour has shown itself to be on the side of the fraudsters.
As I said at the outset, we back the overall purpose of the Bill and much of its content, but I hope that the Secretary of State’s colleagues in the other place will take note of the constructive approach we have taken and the arguments made, particularly those made so articulately by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) today and in Committee. I look forward to seeing the Bill improved before it may become law.
Business without Debate
Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will appoint Paula Sussex CBE to the offices of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England.
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has an important role in holding public service providers to account and achieving justice for complainants. I thank Rebecca Hilsenrath KC, who stepped in as acting ombudsman following Sir Rob Behrens’s departure. She provided leadership and stability for the PHSO, ensuring a continued focus on the experience of its service users, while considering how to maximise the impact of the organisation in improving public services for the long term. On behalf of this House, I praise her for her hard work over the past 12 months, and wish her all the best for her future as the PHSO’s chief executive officer.
Following the formation of a new Parliament, the process of recruiting a new ombudsman was relaunched in January. I thank the House and the recruitment panel, particularly the chair, Liam Laurence Smyth, for their speed in conducting the recruitment; they made a recommendation to the Prime Minister in March. The Government support Paula Sussex’s appointment to the role, as we believe that she has the ability and experience to lead the PHSO, bringing insights from her time in the public and private sectors. In accordance with section 1 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, and section 1 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, I commend Paula Sussex to the House for the role of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in support of this important motion concerning the appointment of the next Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England—collectively known as the ombudsman. That office is one of the cornerstones of accountability in our democracy. It exists to ensure that when individuals are let down by Government Departments or the NHS, their voice is heard, their complaints are fairly investigated and, where appropriate, redress is delivered. In short, the ombudsman plays a vital role in protecting the rights of ordinary citizens, especially the most vulnerable among us. I am sure that, if they have not done so already, Members on all sides of the House will at some point refer constituents to the ombudsman— I certainly have.
This appointment comes at a critical moment. Our public services, particularly the NHS, are under real pressure. Complaints relating to delays, miscommunication and administrative failures are unfortunately becoming more common. In that context, the role of the ombudsman is not just reactive; it must be proactive in identifying systemic failings and recommending improvements to prevent harm before it occurs. We Conservatives have carefully considered the proposed candidate, and believe that she brings a strong track record to the role, a deep understanding of institutional accountability and a proven ability to lead with integrity. It was great to have the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), involved in the selection process.
We must have confidence that the next commissioner can act independently of Government and party politics, guided only by the principle of fairness and the interests of the public.
The effectiveness of this role lies not in its visibility but in its vigilance. The ombudsman must be diligent, thorough and fearless in pursuit of justice, particularly for those who may feel powerless in the face of large institutions. This role is not an easy one. It requires judgment, patience, empathy and a readiness to confront uncomfortable truths. We believe the nominee has those qualities and will serve the public with distinction. We therefore support this motion for the sake of those who rely on these services and for the sake of good government.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I echo the Minister in thanking Rebecca Hilsenrath for the work she has done in stepping into an interim role and fulfilling that job with great distinction. I also thank the Prime Minister and the wider Cabinet Office for the speed with which they responded to the recommendation from the interview panel, which I had the great pleasure of sitting on as the representative of the House, as Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
I want to bring two things to the attention of the House. Paula Sussex underwent a pre-appointment hearing by the Committee last week, and the Committee was very impressed with her. She reports to our Committee; we scrutinise the work of the ombudsman. I recused myself from that role for obvious reasons, but I want to assure the House—and this has been echoed by the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden)—that I am convinced we selected the standout candidate in a very competitive and well-qualified field. I think she will fulfil the job with great distinction, use the data available to drive improvements to public service and, as everybody recognises, represent and champion the interests and concerns of our constituents.
Georgia Gould
I will respond briefly to echo the thanks to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for his role on the panel, which was critical. It is important that this role has cross-party support and that this appointment has the confidence of the House, to ensure that this important role can be fulfilled with rigour and independence, that our citizens always have a voice in public services and that public service providers are accountable to Parliament. I recommend this appointment to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition concerning the future of allotments in Wymondham, signed by 391 residents of South Norfolk. These signatures reflect the strength of feeling in the town about the importance of these much-loved growing spaces. The decision by Anglian Water to end the lease of this land risks tearing up decades of community gardening, friendship and pride. It is clear from the response of local people that this is not just about soil and sheds—it is about the social fabric of Wymondham. It is vital that this issue is brought before the House, so that those in positions of power understand what this land means to those who tend it.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of South Norfolk,
Declares that the allotmenteers of Wymondham are saddened by the ending of the lease of the land by Anglian Water to Wymondham Town Council, which will result in the loss of allotment plots.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Anglian Water to uphold its corporate responsibilities to local people and areas, including the allotmenteers of Wymondham.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003057]
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I rise to present this petition from my constituents to the House of Commons, which was put together by the Wild Goat Conservation Group, particularly David Braithwaite and Gail Brown. It calls for the cull of wild goats on Langholm moor and Newcastleton hill to stop. I want to record my thanks to the more than 4,300 people from across the United Kingdom who have signed a similar online petition on this matter and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for his support.
The petition
“Declares that wild goats have been roaming Langholm Moor and Newcastleton Hill for hundreds of years and play an important part in the biodiversity and natural history of the Scottish Borders… Oxygen Conservation who own the land they roam have”
—callously—
“started to cull this ancient animal without…consideration to the historical and emotional significance they carry for the local community… The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make representations to the Scottish Government on their behalf, to encourage them to stop the cull of wild goats on Langholm Moor and Newcastleton Hill and ensure the survival of this ancient animal in the Scottish Borders by granting them national protected status.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk,
Declares that wild goats have been roaming Langholm Moor and Newcastleton Hill for hundreds of years and play an important part in the biodiversity and natural history of the Scottish Borders; further declares that, despite this, Oxygen Conservation who own the land that they roam have started to cull this ancient animal without any consideration to the historical and emotional significance they carry for the local community; and notes that over 4,300 people have signed a similar petition to the Scottish Parliament on this issue.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make representations to the Scottish Government on their behalf, to encourage them to stop the cull of wild goats on Langholm Moor and Newcastleton Hill and ensure the survival of this ancient animal in the Scottish Borders by granting them national protected status.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003064]
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Acoustic Couch is a fantastic, inclusive community-run grassroots music venue in the heart of Bracknell. Grassroots music venues play a huge role in communities across the country but have faced substantial difficulties in recent years, and I know the Government recognise the need to protect them.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Bracknell and supporters of the Acoustic Couch,
Declares that the Acoustic Couch is a community-run grassroots music venue that contributes richly to the culture and economy of Bracknell; further declares that the current venue which houses the Acoustic Couch is under a carpark that is no longer structurally sound, and will therefore be closed from the end of 2025; notes that Bracknell Forest Council has been working with the Acoustic Couch to identify possible alternative venues, but an affordable and accessible location has yet to be identified; and further declares that grassroots music venues across the country have faced substantial difficulties in recent years, and recognises the need to protect their invaluable contribution to our shared music heritage.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider what support can be made available to secure the future of the Acoustic Couch in Bracknell.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003065]
River Thames: Unauthorised Mooring
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
No issue in my constituency demonstrates more the inertia and failure of the previous political leadership than the problem of overstayed, wrecked and abandoned boats that have been left to proliferate along the banks of the Thames for the last decade. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to bring this issue to the attention of the House and the Minister.
Esher and Walton is a river community. The Thames forms our boundary with London; its waters have brought Vikings to raid Walton and kings to live in Hampton Court, and it is loved by my constituents. We have rowing clubs in Molesey and Walton that generate home-grown Olympians, the Ajax and Viking sea scouts, and wild swimming groups. We have riverside businesses that contribute to our local economy and provide residents and tourists with access to the most famous river in our land. All these activities have been impacted by the sunken, wrecked and abandoned boats, alongside unlicensed overstay boats. They line the entire length of my constituency, from the Dittons through Molesey and down into Walton-on-Thames.
There are wrecked vessels, half sunk and rusting, on the banks opposite Hampton Court Palace, visible to the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit. Next door, there are overstay boats which one constituent described as a “small village”; it is Dickensian. The overstay boats are almost always unregistered. They turn up, moor, and then stay for months, sometimes years. In addition to this impunity, they generate litter and waste. Some boats apparently operate as Airbnbs. Others have erected fences: they have fenced off public land on the towpath, put up “Keep out” and “Private” signs, and intimidated residents. Stretches of land—our riverbank, enjoyed for centuries by my constituents—have become no-go areas characterised by drug use and antisocial behaviour.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for introducing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to hear her thoughts on what she hopes to achieve. I represent a constituency that is equally as nice as hers, and I can well understand the desire to stay and take advantage of the lovely locations on the River Thames. However, the people she describes are taking advantage and preventing others from having enjoyment that is meant for all. Does she agree that we must have regulations in place that allow for reasonable enjoyment, without people taking advantage?
Monica Harding
The hon. Gentleman makes the main point that I want to make today: I will speak about regulations and who is accountable.
One resident told me:
“In the past few years, my neighbours and I have been subjected to constant harassment, including threats of physical harm, theft of property, firing of catapults, fly-tipping, dog fouling and antisocial behaviour.”
That is profoundly unfair on my constituents. Residents who pay their taxes have lost the river as they know it.
Rowing clubs and boat hire and paddle board companies are unable to launch. Residents with boats who want to take them out and moor alongside riverside restaurants and cafés are unable to do so. The Molesey regatta, which has been a fixture of my community since 1867 and in which I declare an interest as an honorary president, has been required to alter the course of its race.
In October, a single clean-up of one stretch of riverbank populated by these boats yielded more than 1 tonne of waste. The Environment Agency has failed to get to grips with the situation over a period of years, meaning that the number of such boats in Elmbridge has risen steadily. At the last count, the tally was approaching 250.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
In Maidenhead, the local authority and generous individuals have taken matters into their own hands and have been able to get rid of many sunken boats along our stretch of the Thames. The EA has regarded owners of land as being responsible, but lots of riverbank owners are not known—we do not know who lots of the mooring owners are—and that causes significant delays and costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Environment Agency to step up and take responsibly? It should be supporting our community, rather than trying to pass on responsibility to unknown landowners.
Monica Harding
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency, the sense of frustration and disappointment with the Environment Agency is palpable. When a highly visible problem goes unaddressed year after year, as it has for a decade, and when a situation is allowed to deteriorate, it creates a deep sense of disappointment and frustration, and it undermines the faith that people have in the Government to deal with the things that affect people’s day-to-day lives.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I recognise the frustrations and problems that my hon. Friend is having getting the relevant supervisory authorities to pay heed. In Brecon, we have a similar issue: the canal might run dry following Welsh Water’s decision to start charging the Canal & River Trust for the water it extracts, yet none of the relevant authorities have responded to our request for a meeting. Does my hon. Friend agree that in instances like that, it would be helpful for the Minister whose Department is implicated to pay attention? They should come to Brecon and help us to find a solution.
Monica Harding
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I would like the Minister to come to Esher and Walton first, although I appreciate his desire for her to visit his constituency as well.
My predecessor in Esher and Walton, a previous Deputy Prime Minister, brought the former Environment Secretary to see the problem for herself. They committed to the permanent removal of these boats, but nothing happened: yet another broken Conservative promise. Either my predecessor was uninterested or he was ineffective. Like many, I had hope that the new Government would bring change. I wrote to the newly appointed Secretary of State and the chief executive of the Environment Agency as soon as I was elected, asking for action. At that point, there were 180 boats. I was pleased with the Minister’s reply, which acknowledged that the EA, as the navigation authority along the non-tidal Thames, was committed to managing the situation and to delivering a detailed action plan laying out clear steps for enforcement. I was assured that EA officials wished to regain the trust of the community.
As a result of that letter, the EA towed away two of the largest and longest staying boats during an enforcement day—hooray! Elmbridge borough council housing department joined the operation and modelled a joined-up approach with the police and the Environment Agency to respond to any homelessness issues. My local council is ready and willing to play its part, but it is frustrated that the EA is not playing its part.
The enforcement success in the autumn should have marked the beginning of renewed energy and action, with a long-term plan to finally get to grips with the problem. Instead, it was followed up with almost nothing, and the situation has since deteriorated.
That is despite months and months of advocacy and regular meetings with the EA, in which I have heard again and again about its intention to clear the boats. It has consistently overpromised and underdelivered.
I was promised a survey of abandoned vessels before comprehensive removals and a long-term strategic enforcement plan as a prelude to making progress in the spring. Well, it is spring now, but both documents were endlessly delayed. Last month, the EA finally produced the survey, but it was presented so confusingly that the council found it almost useless, and I am now told that the EA cannot resource any of it. When the plan came, it was manifestly insufficient.
In today’s letter, the Minister referenced that document—the Thames waterways compliance and enforcement plan for Elmbridge—which I have read. It runs for 10 pages and makes one minor mention of taking action to reduce the number of unauthorised and unregistered boats, which should have been the central focus. As one of its tactical objectives, the plan promises to develop a clear and tactical plan. We have yet another promise, but no plan.
All in all, the document marked a dramatic roll- back of previous ambitions. It has an almost complete lack of measurable targets, metrics and accountability mechanisms. In other words, there is no way to assess the progress of the EA in delivering outcomes against agreed objectives or on key concerns, such as the number of boats removed, the number of registration offences or the rubbish cleared. In fact, at our last meeting, the area manager suggested that the problem had become so big that it was too expensive to fix.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way—rivers have two banks, and we share one of them. I congratulate Spelthorne borough council, the EA and the police on doing such a good job on the Spelthorne side. I offer my support to the hon. Member in her endeavour to make her side of the river better. If we can give any assistance, we will of course do so.
Monica Harding
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour. I would love to work with him, the Environment Agency, our relevant borough councils and the police in order to fix this problem.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in such an important debate. I entirely share her frustrations about progress with these boats. This issue affects many of my constituents not just in Weybridge, but across my constituency. I am sure that she will come on to this point. Given the nature of rivers, does she agree that a positive step forward would be working with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and the Minister to try to get a group together so that rather than pushing the boats on, we can tackle the issue once and for all?
Monica Harding
I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for that point. I have no intention at all of pushing the boats down to his constituency: I want them gone. There can be nothing more powerful for our constituents than us working across parties in order to fix this problem.
The BBC picked up on this story this morning. The EA gave a statement to BBC Radio Surrey in which it claimed to be taking
“firm, lawful and proportionate action”.
That is manifestly not the case: the action is not firm or proportionate. It also said that the current situation highlights the need for a “more sustainable, systemic response” and pledged a “longer-term approach”. This is the same hot air that we have heard for years and years, waffling on about the need for long-term plans while the situation deteriorates.
All in all, this is a sad indictment of the poverty of ambition, application and competence in a body charged by taxpayers with protecting our waterways. Indeed, it is hard to overstate the disappointment of my constituents at the seeming inability of the Environment Agency to deliver results, even against objectives that it or the Secretary of State has set. This is the endless cycle: the most basic promises made to residents, the council or me are jettisoned after months of prevarication; the goals that remain are without measurement or accountability.
I worry from the Minister’s letter to me this afternoon that, regrettably, nothing will change, apart from her very kind ask of the Environment Agency to review its enforcement approach and her commitment to strengthening the EA’s approach. I am keen to hear how she intends to follow up on those points. I was deeply frustrated that much of the letter repeated what I, my residents and the council have being hearing from the EA for months and years: promises of new plans and more joined-up working, and recognition of past disappointments and the need for change. The Environment Agency says that it wants to regain the trust of my constituents. That trust is at rock bottom. What is needed now is far greater oversight—ministerial if necessary —and accountability against specific and deliverable goals.
I recently attended a public meeting with residents of Hurst Park and Molesey on a Friday night that was packed to the rafters with constituents deeply upset and justifiably angry with the situation. The essence of what people call broken Britain is the sense that the public realm is incapable of solving problems, even the most egregious and obvious ones—those that people and businesses see and feel every single day. The Prime Minister and members of the Government have spoken repeatedly about the need to rebuild trust in the state, rebuild its capacity, and show the people that systems can work and achieve things. Something that my residents and I have found particularly frustrating is the difficulty of attaching any accountability at all to anyone at any point, despite failure after failure. A failure to act deprives these people who I am privileged to represent—those who play by the rules and pay for public services—of the land, peace and natural beauty that they have always enjoyed.
I ask the Minister to give this matter her personal attention, and to work with me to solve it as a matter of priority. I would like her to work with me to show the people of Esher and Walton that good politics makes things better. Boats listed by the Environment Agency as wrecked or abandoned can, and should, be cleared immediately. Doing so quickly and forcefully, rather than piecemeal, removes one of the permanent risks of those boats—namely, that a change in river conditions could dislodge vessels and transform them into immediate hazards. Clearing overstayed boats requires taking legal steps, and it is vital that this work is consistently and properly resourced. Taking a start-and-stop approach is not an option, because many enforcement mechanisms unlocked by serving initial notices on boats must be completed within a certain period of time. Letting opportunities disappear sets everything back to square one.
The local police and the local council are ready and eager to help, and have put resources aside to do their part. As such, will the Minister commit personally to driving forward meaningful action on this issue through the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; to providing the necessary energy and resources; and to giving me a point of contact with officials in her department to co-ordinate our work? Will she also commit to meeting me, either in this place or in my constituency—where the problem can be seen and believed—to discuss the progress that we can make together? The problem of overstayed and sunken boats should not be intractable; everyone can see the problem, and the solution is obvious. It is time to show that collectively, we can deliver.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) on securing this important debate, and welcome the contributions from the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) as well. In an Adjournment debate, it is very nice to see cross-party working on an issue of local importance. [Interruption.] I also thank the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds).
David Chadwick
The Minister will have heard the points we have made about the lack of supervisory authorities. Will she write to the Welsh Minister responsible and ask him to look into the case of the Brecon canal?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is very quick on his feet. I call the Minister.
Emma Hardy
Obviously, water is a devolved matter. I do not want to get into an issue for which power is devolved, or I would be instructing a Welsh Minister about what they should or should not be doing. I encourage the hon. Member to write back to the Welsh Minister, and maybe copy in the Secretary of State for Wales. That might be one way forward, rather than a Minister in this place being seen to tell a Minister in a different Government what they should or should not be doing. That would be stretching the confines of this debate, to which I will now return.
We have heard much this evening about the benefits that our rivers and canals bring to so many people in our constituencies—benefits that have been very eloquently articulated by hon. Members. We have heard about the Vikings, about Olympians and about how important waterways are to everyone in our areas. I was pleased to hear about the enforcement success in the autumn, but obviously disappointed to hear that progress has not been what it should have been. I will come on to that issue later.
Our inland waterways are an asset to our country. They are important to our national heritage and provide many public benefits—people live on them, enjoy being by them and use them for leisure and recreation, as well as their historical value. They form an important part of our natural environment by providing green corridors along which biodiversity can flourish, as well as contributing to the growth of local economies, such as through domestic tourism. We have heard quite a lot about that this evening.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton has eloquently spoken of the beauty and tranquillity of the river in her constituency, and it is indeed one of our most majestic rivers as it winds its way along. Our navigation authorities have an important role to play into the future, and I pay tribute to them all as they maintain our waterways for the benefit of all users. I pay tribute to their staff, who deal with many varied situations on a daily basis, sometimes in difficult circumstances. Those authorities will help to ensure that a significant element of our nation’s key infrastructure is resilient to climate change, and they will help us to meet our net zero targets through sustainable transport and energy generation. They will also contribute to water security through flood mitigation measures and water transfers.
The hon. Member has spoken in detail about overstayed boats in Elmbridge and about boats that are illegally moored or derelict, abandoned or sunk. She has drawn particular attention to the adverse impacts that that is having on the use and enjoyment of the river by other waterway users, including those walking along the Thames path. I was concerned to hear accounts of antisocial behaviour and abuse directed at people trying to enjoy the riverways. She has also described her interactions with the Environment Agency as the navigation authority for the non-tidal River Thames and with other local authorities in the area in seeking to find a satisfactory resolution. I was pleased to hear the comments about the willingness of the local council and the police to work together on this issue.
I recognise the seriousness of the issues in Elmbridge and neighbouring constituencies, the understandable strength of feeling locally and the need for co-ordinated action to address them. I assure the hon. Member that the Environment Agency, which I have spoken to, also understands that and is looking to develop specific actions towards resolutions. I note the point she made about it having a deliverable plan and being seen to be taking action.
In fairness, let me mention the wider context in which the Environment Agency is working when it comes to enforcement. Any enforcement has to be within the law and careful and proportionate. It has discretionary landowner powers, not statutory duties, creating limitations for action on private land and where enforcement would cause disproportionate harm.
Dr Ben Spencer
I have had countless meetings with the EA linked with Elmbridge and in trying to deal with this problem, particularly in Desborough cut and Weybridge. Does the Minister think that the EA has sufficient powers in statute to be able to tackle this issue? She just mentioned discretionary powers. Do we need to change the law so that this can be dealt with once and for all?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I am informed by the Environment Agency that it does have the powers, but I want to take that point away and question the EA about that. Is it a question of needing different powers, or are the powers there through the council and perhaps the police working together?
Monica Harding
I have brought up those points with the Environment Agency and the council. They appear to have the statutory powers to act. Whether they have the will and resourcing to do it is the sticking point.
Emma Hardy
I hope to come on to address some of the things that the EA wants to do. Where a boat is a home, especially in cases of potential vulnerability, the Environment Agency needs to work with local housing and safeguarding teams to assess welfare concerns. That is why it is so important—I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments on this—that the council is willing to work together. The question is about whether the powers are available to remove the boat, but if there is a risk of people becoming homeless, the situation becomes more complicated.
Monica Harding
I thank the Minister for giving way again. As I described, when the two largest overstayed boats that had occupants were removed, Elmbridge borough council was there providing support for those people. The police were also there. There was no problem with the manoeuvres that took place on that day.
Emma Hardy
I am really pleased to hear that. I was also pleased when the hon. Lady mentioned that in her speech as an effective example of agencies working together to achieve the same aim. The Environment Agency must use its resources to ensure effective enforcement along the entire 144 mile length of the river—the point has been made about not wanting to move a problem somewhere else—where similar pressures exist, balancing cost and benefit against other priorities. When a removal is necessary, it must be carried out within the safety parameters of the river, and when the river is flowing fast, the removal may be temporarily suspended.
I completely accept the point made this evening that the Environment Agency’s progress in taking appropriate action is not as fast as the hon. Lady would like it to be, but it is none the less positive, and looks to the long term rather than a series of short-term measures. The agency has deployed time, staff resources and financial investment in Elmbridge, although, as I have said, I recognise that it has not done so with the speed that the hon. Lady would like. It has used specialist officers, legal teams and contractors, with more than £150,000 spent in 2024-25 on enforcement operations, ongoing legal action and vessel removals in the Elmbridge area. Several derelict or sunken vessels have been removed between Hampton Court and Shepperton, and legal proceedings continue following a court ruling covering part of the Elmbridge bank downstream of Sunbury Lock, which is being appealed against.
Trespass notices have been issued where necessary, and advice has been given to boaters on registration, conduct and waste responsibilities—the hon. Lady gave some examples of awful behaviour, including littering— and the Environment Agency has also removed boater waste accumulations from agency and local authority land. On 1 April it published a strategic framework for enforcement throughout the 144 mile stretch of the river, and it tells me that it has developed an Elmbridge-specific compliance and enforcement plan that has been shared with local partners for the purpose of their input.
However, in the light of the concerns raised by the hon. Lady and her constituents, and by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), the agency is developing a longer-term land management strategy to reduce reliance on enforcement and create more sustainable outcomes instead. It includes the feasibility of additional lawful mooring agreements for registered boaters, supporting local authority duties for homelessness and housing, and biodiversity enhancements to deter trespass in sensitive areas. The agency will be strengthening collaboration with Elmbridge borough council, Surrey police and community partners on necessary enforcement actions, as well as continuing current enforcement deploy-ments over the coming months. In a wider context, it is certainly true that the legislative landscape surrounding navigation management is complex, and that this is a largely historical legacy. With the changing use of waterways over time, new challenges have emerged in relation to, for instance, residential mooring, and they should be taken into account in the shaping of future regulation and planning.
We heard a helpful suggestion about the possibility of Members forming a group to discuss this matter. If such a group were to be convened and if I were to be invited to join it, I would be happy to attend a meeting to discuss what more can be done in this regard.
I hope I have reassured the Members who have attended this debate that we as a Government greatly value our inland waterways and the work that the navigation authorities do to bring so many benefits to so many people. I hope I have also reassured them that the Environment Agency is determined to ensure that its approach to enforcement is fair and proportionate, and will deliver tangible, lasting outcomes where the impact is most acute.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The statutory instrument was laid before the House on 25 March 2025. I am grateful to be here to debate the draft regulations which, if approved, will make provision for the new procedure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and NHS England must follow when preparing and publishing information standards.
Information standards relate to the processing of health and adult social care information. They provide a common set of requirements that must be followed when health and adult social care providers use, process and share information. They might cover quite technical issues relating to IT systems, or they might relate to how information is collected or managed. They provide the common language or languages through which the systems and organisations of the NHS and adult social care can interact.
For the health and adult social care system to work effectively, data needs to be processed in a transparent and standardised way, using common specifications, so that it can be understood and used by health and care professionals across different settings. Information standards can ensure that information is shared easily and in real time between organisations. That supports the co-ordination and delivery of care, clinical safety, planning and research.
Let me talk briefly about the benefits of this instrument. Information standards are not new; under powers set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, public health and care providers must have regard to information standards. However, low compliance makes it hard to deliver the improvements required across health and adult social care. The Health and Care Act 2022 made provision for information standards to be mandatory, and the regulations set out the process that must be followed in developing and publishing all mandatory information standards. That includes requirements to seek views and/or advice from those with relevant expertise during the development of an information standard, which will ensure that future information standards are able to meet the needs of the system.
The procedures outlined in this instrument are proportionate and transparent. They will ensure that information standards are fit for purpose, kept up to date and reviewed regularly, as needed, and that they keep pace with technical developments and evolving priorities.
In closing, a significant burden is created when information held in one system or organisation is not easily available in another—something I think we have all seen. In the health and care system, such constraints are a significant barrier to achieving the aims of the Government’s health mission. We need to create a modern health and adult social care service, and improvements to interoperability, enabled by the establishment of a robust information standards framework, are an important step towards delivering that. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the Committee to explain why we may well need this SI, but I have some questions. I will not go through the benefits of these changes, but there are some risks, which are a concern for Opposition Members. We will not divide the Committee, but we would be grateful for some comments on those and on how we have got to where we are.
We know that we need to hold NHS bodies and private providers to the same standards on information. We also know that we can capture patient data more consistently across the NHS and private providers, which will greatly improve our understanding of patients’ experiences and the services they use. As the Minister rightly pointed out, the last Government recognised that and put in place the Health and Care Act 2022 to allow information standards to be applied to private providers in health and adult social care that are registered with the Care Quality Commission.
The last Government gathered views on proposals for how procedures should be changed, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on how that process has impacted on this SI and how it links to these procedures. Secondly, as I noted, the regulations relate to information standards applied to private providers registered with the CQC. As we know, the CQC has had some issues with its performance, so what is the Government’s assessment of its capacity to deal with compliance with these regulations?
That leads us into the question of the impending abolition of NHS England. The statutory instrument, and indeed the Health and Care Act, talk about NHS England. How will the legislation we are creating be impacted, given that it looks towards NHS England?
Turning to specific examples of information standards, one important example is accessible and transparent information under the accessible information standard. That was raised by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, which told me before this Committee that making standards such as the AIS mandatory could have a powerful impact on the RNID. Will the Minister take that back to her Department and look at how long it will take to enact these standards, given that the Act was in 2022?
On the AIS, there is also a concern that, as the explanatory memorandum seems to suggest, we would put in place only a forward-thinking approach, rather than a backwards application. There is therefore a question whether things such as the AIS would need to be revised to make them mandatory, which could further delay the accessibility we are looking for.
That leads us on to interoperability, which is a Union question. Paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5 of the explanatory memorandum say that the extent of the regulations will be England and Wales and that the impacts will be felt in England alone. We have people on the border with the likes of Scotland and Wales, so what conversations is the Minister having with her counterparts in those jurisdictions to make sure that data is shared? At the end of the day, people have accidents in different places and seek health in different jurisdictions, and that will have a massive impact.
Finally, there is a question—which often comes up when we discuss NHS data—about what the wider impact looks like when it comes to trade deals and negotiations. That may be beyond the scope of this debate, and I do not expect the Minister to speak on behalf of her Trade colleagues, but it does raise the question of why this measure is being brought in specifically now? Is it just a timing issue, or is there a wider game afoot, in the sense that this issue would be part of, for example, a US trade deal or a closer alliance with the EU? I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on whether such discussions have taken place within the relevant Department.
I am grateful to all the civil servants and to everyone assembled here for taking part in the debate.
Karin Smyth
First, I thank the shadow spokesperson for the Conservative party’s support in bringing forward the regulations. As he rightly said, some of this work continues work done under the last Government and results, as I said in my introductory remarks, from the 2022 Act.
As I also said, standardisation has not been taken up across the system in the way that we would like, and this instrument provides a framework everybody can lean into. To go to the hon. Gentleman’s last question first, that reflects our need to make sure that, for the benefit of patients, clinical safety, patient support and efficiencies in the system, we have a framework that everyone works to and brings their standards into—I will not veer into something more technical that is beyond my ken, on the detail of computer systems. We wanted to make sure that we had that framework in place, and we were keen to bring it forward in an SI that is transparent for the House, so that we can all understand how this proposal is part of the wider Government mission.
As I said, this proposal started off under the last Government, and it has been brought forward now. There was an engagement exercise with stakeholders, and the response was published in November. We therefore need to issue the regulations now, particularly in advance of the Data (Use and Access) Bill. So that is the timing issue. I cannot comment further on trade deals, but that is why we are doing this: to make the system in England work better for all our patients.
To the hon. Gentleman’s point about cross-border issues, I am an MP in Bristol, and I understand those issues. We are looking at our responsibilities for England. We are keen to work with the devolved Administrations on all healthcare and cross-border issues. The Department will continue to talk to them, and I hope they are willing to continue to work with us. If there is anything further to add, I will make sure that it is communicated to the hon. Gentleman.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the CQC, he will be aware that the organisation has undergone a number of difficult issues in the recent past. We have had new leadership in place since before Christmas, and it is keen to provide support on wider issues. Safety, in particular, is in its remit, and the hon. Gentleman, as a practising clinician, will be acutely aware of the need for different systems to be able to talk to each other to highlight issues of safety and so on. We will absolutely ensure that the CQC is working as part of this wider system.
Colleagues and staff at NHS England obviously have concerns about changes, but the need to have data that works across the whole system—that has that interoperability at its core—is a priority for everybody working in it. That is clearly part of what the NHS needs to do, and although some people may move, that is absolutely a priority for the NHS moving forward.
To the hon. Gentleman’s point about the RNID, I had not heard that. Clearly, accessibility for all is important. I am happy to make sure that we get back to him and the RNID on that issue.
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, and I am sure that officials have talked with the RNID. It is absolutely right that he brings that issue to my attention, and I will make sure we get a reply back to him and the RNID on the detail and on the time it will take to enact these standards. I visited the NHS England team up in Leeds, where we spoke about providing wider access—for example, by using the app—and about working with groups such as the RNID to make sure that what we produce is accessible for disabled people. The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, and I will make sure that we get back to him on it.
With that, I will make sure that we check the record, and if there is anything else, we will get back to the hon. Gentleman. Otherwise, I would be grateful if the Committee could support the SI.
Question put and agreed to.
Crime and Policing Bill (Eleventh sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Crime and Policing Bill. I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. As it is warm today, Members may take their jacket off if they wish—I will probably take mine off. Please switch all your electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or, alternatively, pass them to one of the Hansard colleagues in the room. If Members wish to speak, I remind them to bob to catch my eye.
Clause 78
Electronic devices for use in vehicle offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
Good morning, Ms Lewell. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair on this glorious day.
Clause 78 introduces two new criminal offences in relation to electronic devices used in vehicle-related theft. The first will criminalise the possession of such devices, and the second will criminalise the importing, making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply such devices. Both offences require a reasonable suspicion that the device will be used in connection with the theft of a vehicle, theft of anything in a vehicle, or taking a vehicle without authority.
A significant proportion of vehicle theft is driven by serious and organised crime groups, and it costs millions of pounds in social and economic harm each year. Given the high demand for stolen vehicles and vehicle parts, this is an attractive and lucrative area for criminals to profit from. Criminals find ways to overcome security measures, even in the latest vehicle models, by using electronic devices to exploit vulnerabilities in vehicles and new technologies. The Metropolitan Police Service estimates that electronic devices are used in approximately 60% of vehicle thefts in London.
The clause does not define specific electronic devices, but uses a broad definition to cover any electronic device that could be used in vehicle theft. That ensures that the legislation is future-proof for any new devices that may be developed and used by criminals. The offence will be triable either way and, on conviction on indictment, will carry a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.
We have also provided a defence for a person charged with this offence to show that they did not intend or suspect that the relevant article would be used in connection with the theft of a vehicle or anything in a vehicle. The clause also outlines that the court may assume that the defendant possessed the relevant article where it is on any premises at the same time as the defendant, or on premises at which the defendant was the occupier or an habitual user otherwise than as a member of the public. The defendant will have a defence where they can show that they did not know of an article’s presence on the premises or had no control over the article. During proceedings, a court can also assume that the articles in question are intended to be used in vehicle theft. That reflects the fact that the specified articles have few legitimate uses.
Clause 79 supports clause 78 by clarifying the evidential burdens for the new offence, while also inserting it into the list of lifestyle offences in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. That means that, if convicted of this offence, a person’s assets will be considered to have potentially derived from crime and may be subject to confiscation. To have a defence, a defendant will be required to establish the facts that are within their knowledge—such as demonstrating that they run a company that supplies legitimate electronic devices.
Signal repeaters, which have been approved for use by Ofcom, are legal to own and use to boost an otherwise weak mobile phone signal, for example. If a defendant can demonstrate that they did not intend, nor reasonably suspect, that the articles were to be used in vehicle theft, the evidential burden falls back on the prosecution. The prosecution will need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had reasonable grounds to suspect that the article they were importing, making, modifying, supplying, offering to supply or possessing would be used in vehicle theft.
That reverse evidential burden is appropriate given the few legitimate uses associated with the specified articles. It will ensure that law enforcement agencies are able to target those individuals who keep just enough distance from the serious offences being carried out to avoid consequences under existing legislation.
Serious and organised crime has a devastating effect— I am sure we can all agree on that. Clauses 78 and 79 send a clear message about our commitment to tackling vehicle crime and associated serious and organised criminality, and to making it easier for the police to take action. That means more prosecutions and more criminals off our streets, which will help to restore public confidence.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
Clause 78 rightly introduces new offences aimed at preventing the misuse of electronic devices such as signal jammers, signal amplifiers and devices used to access vehicle wiring systems for committing vehicle-related crimes. The offences include the possession, importation, manufacturing, adaptation, supply or offer to supply such devices when there is reasonable suspicion that they will be used in connection with crimes such as vehicle theft, stealing items from a vehicle or taking a vehicle without authority.
The subsections provide a defence for individuals who can prove that they did not intend or suspect that the device would be used for a relevant offence, and they allow a court to presume possession of a device if it is found on premises occupied or habitually used by the accused, unless the accused can demonstrate that they were unaware of its presence or had no control over it.
Clause 79 clarifies the evidential burden in cases under clause 78, which deals with electronic devices used in vehicles. It explains that where a defendant seeks to rely on such a defence—for example, that they did not intend the device to be used in a crime—they must provide enough evidence to raise the issue, and the prosecution must then disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Clauses 78 and 79 are needed to strengthen the legal response to the growing threat of tech-enabled vehicle theft, which has become increasingly sophisticated with the use of electronic devices such as signal jammers and relay attack tools. Clause 78 creates targeted offences around the possession, manufacture and supply of such devices, recognising the role they play in modern vehicle crime. By focusing on intent and suspicion, the clause allows for earlier intervention and prevention even before a theft occurs.
We support the measures, but what consultation was done with law enforcement, manufacturers and cyber-security experts to develop the provisions? Does the Minister expect this designation to lead to more asset confiscation from organised crime groups involved in vehicle theft?
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, as always.
The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the measures in clauses 78 and 79 to give the police and courts more powers to reduce vehicle theft. It is disheartening to see so much car theft in our cities, particularly London. In south-west London, a regular complaint of residents is that the police are not able to do anything about it. The police themselves are struggling. The technology has become an arms race, and these clauses are needed to keep up with thefts that are becoming so much more technologically advanced.
It is depressing that a litany of old-fashioned manual theft prevention measures are now necessary again—people are having to use steering locks and wheel clamps—because the police cannot keep up with the technology that thieves employ. We are very supportive of these measures to give the police the tools they need to crack down on this incredibly distressing form of theft.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
Signal jammers and other electronic devices are a real problem, and one that many of my residents did not realise exist until they were hit. I will never forget knocking on a door one Saturday morning, when the resident opened and said, “Where’s my car gone?” She said, “I’d locked it. It should be here,” but it turned out, again, that her car had been stolen using such a technique. The immediate inconvenience of a theft is significant, but it is not the only consequence. The victim may have to rearrange plans as they no longer have their car, and there are longer-term issues such as increased insurance premiums because of the theft.
Keyless cars, which once seemed super-convenient, are now seen by many as a significant security flaw. I will never forget watching on CCTV after my neighbour’s car was stolen a few years ago using this exact method. The individual walked up to the car, gained entry and drove off, all in 45 seconds. Essex police has said that its stolen vehicles intelligence unit recovered £13.5 million-worth of stolen vehicles and parts in 2024—this is a real issue. I welcome clauses 78 and 79 and the tough new penalties for those who consider it appropriate to commit this crime, which is so disruptive to people’s lives.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I rise to speak in favour of clause 78, which tackles the growing scourge of criminals using high-tech devices to steal from hard-working people, because I know how important this is in my community. For 14 years, between 2010 and 2024, crime in my patch doubled. These thieves no longer need a crowbar; they use laptops, signal boosters and hacking tools to rob families of their vehicles, their livelihoods and their sense of safety. Enough is enough. Clause 78 strikes directly at those parasites by making it an offence not just to steal but to possess, import, manufacture or supply the very devices that make these thefts possible—it cuts off the tools of their horrific trade.
I recently heard from a Hemel resident who, back in December 2023, had his truck broken into and all his work tools stolen. Then, in November 2024, his family’s disability car was also stolen. Later, two of their neighbours’ cars were stolen along with hundreds of pounds-worth of equipment, having been parked side by side in a lay-by by their homes.
This clause sends a message: “If you are gearing up to commit a crime, this country will come down on you like a ton of bricks.” Let us be clear that this is not about targeting legitimate businesses or technology users; it is about targeting criminals, gangs and the shadow economy that thrives on stealing from working people and laughing as they do it. Subsection (3) rightly offers a defence for those acting innocently, but it removes the cloak of plausible deniability that too many criminals have hidden behind for too long.
The people of Hemel Hempstead are fed up. They are tired of waking up to find their cars stolen, they are tired of seeing criminals treated as an inevitable part of life, and they are tired of seeing their vans broken into and their tools stolen. They expect and demand that we act, and act we must. We have to stand up for the delivery driver who loses their van, for the care worker who needs her car to get to her patients, and for every family who fear that they will become a victim of crime. It is not enough simply to chase stolen vehicles after they are gone. We must prevent these thefts from happening in the first place, and we must choke off the supply of tools that fuel this criminality. We must make it clear that there are no easy pickings for those who prey on working people.
I am proud that the Bill does not stop with vehicle crime. It invests in neighbourhood policing, strengthens the fight against organised crime and clamps down on new forms of digital exploitation. It rebuilds the idea that security—real, everyday security—is a right, not a privilege. The Bill is a line in the sand; it says to criminals, “Your time is up,” and it says to our communities, “We hear you and we are on your side.” For Hemel Hempstead, for our towns and cities and for the millions of honest people who deserve better, I urge hon. Members to back clause 78 and the Crime and Policing Bill without hesitation.
Dame Diana Johnson
I welcome the support for the two clauses. We all know the devastation that the theft of a motor vehicle and its contents can cause to our constituents. I want specifically to address the questions posed by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West. As he may recall, vehicle crime was raised in the previous Government’s serious organised crime consultation. After that, conversations with law enforcement, vehicle manufacturers and Ofcom have confirmed that this is a key issue. I know from speaking to car manufacturers that they welcome the legislation.
We are also working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for vehicle crime to reduce vehicle crime through the national vehicle crime working group and the recently established, industry-funded national vehicle crime reduction partnership. The vehicle crime action plan was formed through the national vehicle crime working group and in conjunction with the Home Office, and it includes commitments to work with motor industry representatives to consider crime prevention measures that can be taken to prevent thefts.
The hon. Member for Stockton West also asked about the effect of the clauses on offending. As I indicated, designating the new offence as a lifestyle offence under POCA will support the increased confiscation of the proceeds of vehicle crime, which chimes well with sending a clear message to criminals that enough is enough and that we will come after them.
With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Possession of a SIM farm
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 81 and 82 stand part.
Schedule 10.
Clauses 83 to 85 stand part.
Dame Diana Johnson
This group relates to SIM farms. We know that criminals abuse telecommunications networks, including texts and calls, to target people and defraud victims at a significant scale. We most likely all know of a friend, family member or constituent who has received such a text, or we have even received one ourselves—I certainly have. Such scams prey on the public, particularly those who are vulnerable. They can have a devastating emotional impact and can inflict serious financial harm on victims.
Scam texts are frequently traced back to SIM farms—electronic devices that can hold sometimes hundreds of physical SIM cards, which can be used to send out thousands of scam texts and calls in seconds. They are currently legal for anyone to buy, and it is easy to find suppliers online, making it easy to commit telecoms fraud on a very large scale. Clauses 80 and 81 therefore provide for new offences that criminalise the possession of SIM farms without good reason, and their supply without undertaking adequate due diligence.
Clauses 83 to 85 will also allow the potential extension of the ban to further technologies that may be exploited by criminals to scam the UK public, with any such extension subject to a high level of scrutiny and checks. The new offences will make it difficult for criminals to access and use these devices for the purpose of fraud. They will give the police the necessary tools to disrupt fraudsters, even before they start using SIM farms to commit fraud.
Clause 80 bans the possession of a SIM farm without good reason. A person can possess a SIM farm if they can prove that they have a good reason or lawful authority to do so. The Government have identified several legitimate uses of SIM farms, such as multi-SIM devices used in broadcast and programme-making to facilitate the production and delivery of live and pre-recorded broadcasts.
SIM farms are also used by transport providers to offer wi-fi—I am sure most hon. Members who have to travel frequently will welcome the availability of wi-fi—not only on trains, but on trams, buses, coaches and ferries, as the devices switch between mobile network operators, depending on which has the best reception where the device is located at any particular moment. We have worked closely with stakeholders to develop a defence that will allow such legitimate use to continue uninterrupted, while stopping criminals using SIM farms for criminal activities.
Clause 80 provides examples of what may be a good reason to possess a SIM farm, including the provision of broadcast services, the operation or maintenance of a public transport service and the operation or maintenance of an electronic communications network. The list of good reasons in subsection (3) is not exhaustive and it would be open to a person under investigation for, or charged with, the offence to argue that they have another good reason for possessing a SIM farm.
Matt Vickers
A SIM farm is a system used to manage and operate a large number of SIM cards simultaneously, often using multiple mobile devices or modems controlled by central software. Farms can contain hundreds or even thousands of SIM cards, and they are typically used to send or receive a high volume of messages, calls or mobile data across networks.
While there can be legitimate uses for SIM farms, such as in telecoms testing or large-scale communication platforms, they are commonly associated with illicit and fraudulent activities. One of their most concerning uses is in the spread of spam and phishing texts, where mass messages with links to scams or malware are sent to unsuspecting individuals. They are also frequently used to bypass verification systems by creating large numbers of fake accounts on social media, messaging apps or online services. In other cases, SIM farms are employed in SIM box fraud, a scheme in which international calls are rerouted and disguised as local calls, depriving telecom providers and Governments of revenue and making the original caller harder to trace.
According to research carried out by Ofcom in August 2022, the scale of nuisance and potentially fraudulent communications across UK mobile networks remains alarmingly high. An overwhelming 75% of mobile users reported receiving suspicious texts or calls in just a three-month period, highlighting the widespread nature of the issue. These figures demonstrate the persistent and pervasive threat posed by scam communications, underlining the urgent need for more robust protections and enforcement mechanisms to safeguard the public.
SIM farms pose serious risks to national security and digital infrastructure. Their use can lead to network congestion, overwhelming mobile networks and disrupting legitimate communications. More critically, they are often exploited by organised crime networks to co-ordinate illegal activity as they are cheap, disposable and difficult to trace. That makes it significantly harder for law enforcement to monitor communications or link messages to specific individuals. The previous Conservative Government committed to banning SIM farms as part of their fraud strategy announced in May 2023. They subsequently launched a consultation on how best to implement the ban, although, interestingly, there were only 50 responses, many from businesses or individuals identifying as legitimate SIM farm users who opposed a ban.
In response to the 2023 Home Office consultation on SIM farms, Mobile UK, the trade body representing the UK’s four major mobile network operators, raised concerns that the proposed ban risked being ineffective due to evolving fraud tactics and technological advancements, including the fact that single-SIM devices, rather than SIM farms, are now the most common tools used to send spam SMS messages, according to data from one mobile operator. Mobile UK further warned that the proposed measures would not eliminate large-scale spam or scam messaging, and urged the Government to broaden the definition of SIM farm to include software-based or e-SIM-enabled methods used to achieve the same fraudulent outcomes.
In the Criminal Justice Bill in the 2023-24 Session, the previous Government included provisions to criminalise the possession or supply of devices capable of holding five or more SIM cards, targeting the infrastructure used in large-scale scams. I welcome the Government’s carrying forward the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill to amend the definition of SIM farm and prohibit other electronic devices used to commit fraud via secondary legislation.
Clause 80 introduces the new criminal offence of possessing a SIM farm, reflecting growing concerns about their misuse in fraudulent and criminal activity. The clause makes it an offence for an individual to possess such a system unless they can demonstrate that they have a lawful authority or good reason for doing so. That shifts the burden to the defendant to prove the legitimacy of their possession, aiming to deter misuse while protecting legitimate operations.
The clause also provides examples of what may constitute a good reason, including the use of SIM farms for broadcasting services, public transport operations, communications network maintenance or freight tracking. Those carve-outs are designed to safeguard industries with genuine operational needs for such technology, while still targeting the widespread abuse seen in mass-messaging scams, SIM box fraud and illegitimate telecommunications activity. The clause is a key part of the broader effort to close regulatory gaps and strengthen the legal tools available to tackle modern digital fraud.
Clause 81 makes it a criminal offence to supply a SIM farm to another person. Clause 82 offers a meaningful definition of what constitutes a SIM farm for the purposes of clauses 80 and 81, and provides the Secretary of State with the power to amend the definition by regulation. Schedule 10 provides for powers of entry and other investigatory powers relating to offences involving SIM farms. Clauses 83 to 85 create the offence of possessing a “specified article”; criminalise the supply of such articles, with appropriate exemptions; set out the sanctions; and allow for the Secretary of State to amend the definition of a specific article via amendment to keep the legislation in line with technology and changing criminal behaviours.
Will there be a formal review mechanism to assess the effectiveness and proportionality of these offences, particularly regarding the number of prosecutions under clauses 80 to 85? Given Mobile UK’s concerns that fraudsters are increasingly using single-SIM devices, e-SIMs and apps such as WhatsApp to bypass traditional SMS channels, is the Minister confident that the measures in the Bill and the Government’s current definition of SIM farm are sufficiently future-proof to tackle emerging forms of fraud?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I support the clauses, which outlaw the use of SIM farms and the supply of SIM farms to others.
It is a defence for a person to show that they have “good reason” to use a SIM farm. Examples are given in the Bill, including providing broadcasting services, operating or maintaining a public transport service and tracking freight. I do not suggest that amendments are necessary, but I wonder whether the Minister can help us understand the provisions. What are examples of legitimate use in broadcasting services or tracking freight? These are areas of legitimate commercial activity that lay people are not particularly familiar with. I would be interested to know why a company would want to use multiple SIMs and phone numbers to track freight, for example. It is not meant to be a complex question.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am glad that there is cross-party support for these measures. The clauses were, on the whole, included in the Criminal Justice Bill introduced by the previous Government.
Fighting fraud is a top priority for this Government and tackling it is really important not only for our safer streets mission but for our growth agenda. We want to address the full range of fraud threats that occur. We want to close the systemic enablers that criminals are able to exploit to operate at scale and without detection, such as SIM farms.
The hon. Member for Stockton West is right that such a provision was included in the Criminal Justice Bill, but we have updated the definition of SIM farm to reflect newly emerging use cases. In response to feedback from stakeholders, we are creating an additional offence for the possession and supply of additional technologies, to be specified in the future, with appropriate exceptions to avoid unnecessary restrictions on legitimate businesses and professionals. I hope that goes some way to reassuring the hon. Member about why we are trying to future-proof these clauses. On the issue of review, the provisions will be reviewed two years after commencement.
On the point about legitimate activity, as I said, the list in the Bill is not exhaustive; it gives some indication of legitimate reasons why a business or organisation might have a SIM farm in its possession. Whether a reason is reasonable and stands up to scrutiny will obviously be a matter for the court to decide. The list is not exhaustive, in order to provide flexibility; as I said, this area is changing rapidly. In the coming weeks, months and years there may be new legitimate reasons for businesses to possess a SIM farm to assist them in providing a service or selling something. The clauses are constructed as they are in order to allow that flexibility.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 80 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 81 and 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clauses 83 to 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
Offence of concealing identity at protests
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 86, page 98, line 2, at end insert—
“(3) The defence described in subsection (2) is only applicable if a person has given written notice to a police station nearest to the public place that is in a locality designated under section 87(1).
(4) Where it is not reasonably practicable to deliver written notice under subsection (3), a person must inform a constable within the locality designated under section 87(1).”
This amendment requires a person using an item that conceals their identity in a public place within a designated protest area for reasons related to health, religious observance or work to notify the police in writing or orally.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 87, 88 and 91 stand part.
New clause 34—Meaning of serious disruption to the life of the community—
“(1) Section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 (imposing conditions on public processions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2A), for the words from ‘, the cases’ to the end substitute—
‘(a) the cases in which a public procession in England and Wales may result in serious disruption to the life of the community include, in particular, where it may, by way of physical obstruction, result in—
(i) the prevention of, or a hindrance that is more than minor to, the carrying out of day-to-day activities (including in particular the making of a journey),
(ii) the prevention of, or a delay that is more than minor to, the delivery of a time-sensitive product to consumers of that product, or
(iii) the prevention of, or a disruption that is more than minor to, access to any essential goods or any essential service,
(b) in considering whether a public procession in England and Wales may result in serious disruption to the life of the community, the senior police officer—
(i) must take into account all relevant disruption, and
(ii) may take into account any relevant cumulative disruption, and
(c) “community”, in relation to a public procession in England and Wales, means any group of persons that may be affected by the procession, whether or not all or any of those persons live or work in the vicinity of the procession.’.
(3) In subsection (2B), for ‘subsection (2A)(a)’ substitute ‘subsection (2A) and this subsection—
“access to any essential goods or any essential service” includes, in particular, access to—
(a) the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(b) a system of communication,
(c) a place of worship,
(d) a transport facility,
(e) an educational institution, or
(f) a service relating to health;
“area”, in relation to a public procession or public assembly, means such area as the senior police officer considers appropriate, having regard to the nature and extent of the disruption that may result from the procession or assembly;
“relevant cumulative disruption”, in relation to a public procession in England and Wales, means the cumulative disruption to the life of the community resulting from—
(a) the procession,
(b) any other public procession in England and Wales that was held, is being held or is intended to be held in the same area as the area in which the procession mentioned in paragraph (a) is being held or is intended to be held (whether or not directions have been given under subsection (1) in relation to that other procession), and
(c) any public assembly in England and Wales that was held, is being held or is intended to be held in the same area in which the procession mentioned in paragraph (a) is being held or is intended to be held (whether or not directions have been given under section 14(1A) in relation to that assembly), and it does not matter whether or not the procession mentioned in paragraph (a) and any procession or assembly within paragraph (b) or (c) are organised by the same person, are attended by any of the same persons or are held or are intended to be held at the same time;
“relevant disruption”, in relation to a public procession in England and Wales, means all disruption to the life of the community—
(a) that may result from the procession, or
(b) that may occur regardless of whether the procession is held (including in particular normal traffic congestion);’.
(4) Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 (imposing conditions on public assemblies) is amended as follows.
(5) In subsection (2A), for the words from ‘, the cases’ to the end substitute ‘—
(a) the cases in which a public assembly in England and Wales may result in serious disruption to the life of the community include, in particular, where it may, by way of physical obstruction, result in—
(i) the prevention of, or a hindrance that is more than minor to, the carrying out of day-to-day activities (including in particular the making of a journey),
(ii) the prevention of, or a delay that is more than minor to, the delivery of a time-sensitive product to consumers of that product, or
(iii) the prevention of, or a disruption that is more than minor to, access to any essential goods or any essential service,
(b) in considering whether a public assembly in England and Wales may result in serious disruption to the life of the community, the senior police officer—
(i) must take into account all relevant disruption, and
(ii) may take into account any relevant cumulative disruption, and
(c) “community”, in relation to a public assembly in England and Wales, means any group of persons that may be affected by the assembly, whether or not all or any of those persons live or work in the vicinity of the assembly.’.
(6) In subsection (2B), for ‘subsection (2A)(a)’ substitute ‘subsection (2A) and this subsection—
“access to any essential goods or any essential service” includes, in particular, access to—
(a) the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(b) a system of communication,
(c) a place of worship,
(d) a transport facility,
(e) an educational institution, or
(f) a service relating to health;
“area”, in relation to a public assembly or public procession, means such area as the senior police officer considers appropriate, having regard to the nature and extent of the disruption that may result from the assembly or procession;
“relevant cumulative disruption”, in relation to a public assembly in England and Wales, means the cumulative disruption to the life of the community resulting from—
(a) the assembly,
(b) any other public assembly in England and Wales that was held, is being held or is intended to be held in the same area in which the assembly mentioned in paragraph (a) is being held or is intended to be held (whether or not directions have been given under subsection (1A) in relation to that other assembly), and
(c) any public procession in England and Wales that was held, is being held or is intended to be held in the same area as the area in which the assembly mentioned in paragraph (a) is being held or is intended to be held (whether or not directions have been given under section 12(1) in relation to that procession),
and it does not matter whether or not the assembly mentioned in paragraph (a) and any assembly or procession within paragraph (b) or (c) are organised by the same person, are attended by any of the same persons or are held or are intended to be held at the same time;
“relevant disruption”, in relation to a public assembly in England and Wales, means all disruption to the life of the community—
(a) that may result from the assembly, or
(b) that may occur regardless of whether the assembly is held (including in particular normal traffic congestion).’”
This new clause defines “serious disruption to the life of the community” so as to amend the effects of the Zeigler judgement.
New clause 53—Right to protest—
“(1) The Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In Part II (Processions and Assemblies) before section 11, insert—
‘10A The right to protest
(1) Everyone has the right to engage in peaceful protest, both alone and with others.
(2) Public authorities have a duty to—
(a) respect the right to protest;
(b) protect the right to protest; and
(c) facilitate the right to protest.
(3) A public authority may only interfere with the right to protest, including by placing restrictions upon its exercise, when it is necessary and proportionate to do so to protect national security or public safety, prevent disorder or crime, protect public health or the rights and freedoms of others.
(4) For the purposes of this section “public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.’”
This new clause would introduce an express statutory right to protest, imposing both negative and positive obligations on public authorities whilst recognising that the right to protest may need to be limited to protect other legitimate public interests.
Jack Rankin
Clause 86 will criminalise the act of wearing or otherwise using an item as a face covering that conceals someone’s own identity or that of another person when in an area that the police have designated. A designation can be made only in relation to an area where the police reasonably believe that a protest may take place or is taking place, that the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences, and that a designation would prevent or control the commission of offences. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of one month’s imprisonment, a £1,000 fine, or both.
Current legislation gives police the power to direct people to remove their face coverings in designated areas, as well as to seize face coverings where they reasonably believe people are wearing them wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing their identity. However, individuals can follow the direction of an officer to remove their face covering but then move to a new area and put the face covering back on. With growing frequency we have seen protesters using a face covering to conceal their identity, clearly with the aim of avoiding a conviction for criminal activity in a designated area.
Whether I or any individual hon. Member agrees with each protest is beside the point. The right to protest has long been at the heart of British democracy, but there are legitimate ways to protest and illegitimate ways to protest. In particular, since the onset of large-scale pro-Palestinian demonstrations, the Metropolitan police have made hundreds of arrests in connection with the protests. Those arrests encompass a range of offences, including breaches of Public Order Act conditions, public nuisance, assault of emergency workers and support for proscribed organisations. Notably, during the protest on 18 January 2025, over 70 individuals were arrested after attempting to breach the agreed protest conditions. The Metropolitan police described it as
“the highest number of arrests we have seen, in response to the most significant escalation in criminality.”
The cost of policing the protests is reaching enormous levels. The Standard reported in May last year that the cost in London had reached over £40 million, an average of £6 million a month between October 2023 and March 2024—eyewatering sums of money that I am sure most people and most Members of this House would prefer the police were using to crack down on shoplifting, mobile phone theft and violent crime.
The police put themselves in harm’s way to protect our precious right to protest and keep protesters safe as far as possible. The recent farmers’ protests against proposed inheritance tax reforms were an excellent example of public protest; as of April 2025 there have been no publicly reported arrests by the Metropolitan police in connection with them. The demonstrations, which commenced in November 2024, have been largely peaceful and co-ordinated with the authorities. For instance, on 1 March 2025, the Metropolitan police imposed conditions under the Public Order Act to prevent tractors from entering central London during the protest, a measure that was communicated in advance and adhered to by the organisers.
However, it is a sad reality that disruptive climate activist protests, antisemitic hate marches and far-right riots are increasingly accompanied by crime. Increasingly, cowards at those protests use face coverings and balaclavas to get away with crimes. Balaclavas intimidate the public, make law enforcement more difficult and embolden the wearer to commit crimes. In my view, face coverings have no place at protests in the overwhelming majority of cases. I strongly believe that those wishing to express a sincere, genuine view in a democracy—one they clearly feel strongly about—should be prepared to put their face to their opinions.
With crowds of the kind we are now used to seeing, particularly in London, the police increasingly have to rely on delivering justice after the fact using CCTV, iPhone or bodycam footage. Face coverings frustrate that process. A balaclava, a covid mask or any other type of face covering should not give people a free pass to commit crime. That is why I tabled amendment 51, which would require those wishing to wear a face covering within a designated protest area to register it with police before the event.
My concern with clause 86 is that those who wish to cause a problem will cover their face and make spurious claims. It is clear to most people with some common sense that, as it is currently drafted, with the defence of health, religious or work grounds able to be used, the clause will not have sufficient teeth. Amendment 51 in my name aims to shift the emphasis and prevent malicious actors from circumnavigating the well-intended clause.
A 2024 YouGov poll showed that 61% of the public would like to see a ban on Facebook groups where there is a clear intent to intimidate or to prevent police from identifying someone committing a crime. The public know that face coverings at protests are simply the tool of criminals. Let us give the police the real powers they need to tackle the issue. If people have genuine health, religious or work grounds for wearing a face covering, then working with the police and giving written notice will not be an issue for the law-abiding majority.
Luke Taylor
Can the hon. Gentleman give examples of how this will be enacted? Would the person who has permission to wear a face covering be given notice by the police? Would they be given a permission slip that they will wave above their head when they are taking part in a march, or does he imagine this as a tabard that they wear that allows them to cover their face? Can he give some examples of how he imagines this would be implemented in practical terms?
Jack Rankin
I thank the hon. Member for his constructive question. The problem with this defence is that it will obviously be abused. People who are malicious will claim these things after the fact; my amendment is an attempt to change the emphasis slightly. I appreciate that there will be difficulties with enforcement, but the point is that people should have to do this in advance. People who are malicious will not do so, and will not be given permission, so the police can then take action, as opposed to a crime happening, only for the police to go to the CCTV footage of the moment and find that there is nothing to be done.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Member. I agree with what he started with, but I am curious to know how he thinks this will work in practice. What practicalities do the police have in place, resource-wise and operationally, in order to deal with this? Similarly, how feasible will it be for the police to deliver notice orally, under proposed subsection (4), in the midst of a protest, when they are busy managing the protest and ensuring that it is safe and secure?
Jack Rankin
I appreciate the operational challenges; I would suggest that this would simply be automated online. My aim is to stop whole groups of protesters wearing masks. My view is that police should reject those applications if they are not legitimate, at which point they can treat it collectively as an offence.
I have a broader question for the Minister. I was thinking about when I would consider it legitimate to wear a mask at a protest. The only instance that I could think of—I am not saying that there are not more—is when, outside the Chinese embassy for example, those protesting what is happening in Hong Kong wish to protect themselves from being targeted by the Chinese state. With my amendment, those individuals should be able to declare that to the relevant police forces ahead of the event. I do wonder how we give proper protection to Hong Kong activists such as Tony Chung and Carmen Lau, who have both had threatening letters sent to their neighbours offering 1 million Hong Kong dollars— 100 grand in our currency—for information about them, or for delivering them to the Chinese embassy. Legitimate protest is in the great spirit of democracy and we need to ensure that we defend people exercising that right properly, particularly in this instance, which would be a legitimate use of face coverings.
Luke Taylor
I wish to raise concerns, as I did in my intervention, about the practicalities of the amendment. Although the hon. Member for Windsor did come on to discuss the case of Hong Kong protestors, we have seen an increase in surveillance by the Chinese state and the Hong Kong authorities of overseas protestors, and transnational repression of democracy activists is an increased worry for many of our residents. I worry that the amendment hinders the freedom to protest without worry of identification and family and friends being targeted elsewhere. This is not only about Hong Kong practising transnational repression in our country, but that is a useful example on which to base my objection. Under amendment 51, those seeking to come to a protest and exercise their democratic right would be required to register in advance and have some sort of certificate or permit that would then have to be checked, one by one. I think that puts an additional barrier in the way of exercising our democratic rights. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Matt Vickers
We are all too familiar with those who use protests and the anonymity of face coverings to commit criminal acts and intimidate others. When individuals conceal their identity, whether through masks, scarves or other objects, it becomes much harder for police to identify suspects involved in criminal activity such as violence, vandalism or intimidation. That anonymity can embolden a small number of individuals to commit offences, in the belief that they will not be held accountable. In 2024, masked individuals were reported to have attacked police officers in Rotherham during protests, leading to discussions about banning face coverings at such events. Members might recall that in Birmingham, a group of men wearing balaclavas and waving Palestinian flags stormed a pub, assaulted a patron and caused property damage. That incident was part of wider unrest across the UK, prompting investigations by law enforcement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor has ably set out the purposes and benefits of amendment 51, which seeks to provide a framework requiring those concealing their identity to provide advance notice. We heard during our evidence sessions about the legitimate reasons why people may wish to conceal their identity, and we are also aware of the need to protect the public from those who exploit such concealment to do harm to others. The amendment could provide a great opportunity for law enforcement to assess and monitor situations properly, offering a more flexible and accountable approach to managing exemptions. Does the Minister feel there could be enforcement benefits to having a more flexible power to assess the use of face coverings?
Clause 86 rightly introduces a new offence aimed at individuals concealing their identity while attending public protests in designated areas. It recognises and provides for certain legitimate reasons that a person might have for covering their face, including those related to health, religious observance or occupation. It also rightly sets out obligations on the authorities to ensure public awareness of the rule when it is in effect, as well as the sanctions for those who fail to comply. The clause sends a clear message that protest should be lawful, peaceful and safe. When used appropriately and with the public properly informed, the measure could greatly enhance the safety of both demonstrators and the wider public by discouraging those who intend to use anonymity as a cover for criminal acts.
Clause 87 sets out the powers available to senior police officers to designate a specific locality in England or Wales where the offence of concealing identity at protest will apply. It allows for the designation to be made for up to 24 hours if it is reasonably believed that a protest is happening or is likely to happen in the area, that it may involve criminal activity, and that it is necessary to limit or prevent such offences. The clause further sets out how the designation can be expanded and provides for the British Transport police and Ministry of Defence police to apply similar designations within their jurisdictions. Clause 88 sets out the requirements and procedures around creating such designations.
I would be grateful if the Minister set out what safeguards are in place to ensure that the designation power is not applied disproportionately or used to deter legitimate protests. How will the police ensure that adequate and timely public notice is given to protestors or members of the public who may enter a designated area unknowingly? Will the Minister clarify how long written records of designations and directions would be retained, and whether they would be publicly accessible for scrutiny and accountability? Will there be a requirement for post-event review of designations and use of these powers to assess their proportionality and impact?
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 86 introduces a new criminal offence for a person
“wearing or otherwise using an item that conceals their identity or another person’s identity”
in a public place that has been designated by the police. It is a defence for a person to prove that they wore or used the item for a purpose related to either the health of the person or others, religious observance or the person’s work. Clause 87 provides that
“A constable whose rank is at least that of inspector may designate a locality in England or Wales that is in their police area for a specified period not exceeding 24 hours if they reasonably believe that—
(a) a public assembly, or public procession, which constitutes a protest may take place or is taking place in the locality,
(b) the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences, and
(c) it is expedient, in order to prevent or limit the commission of offences, to designate the locality”.
Earlier we heard evidence—the hon. Members for Windsor and for Sutton and Cheam raised this example—about people, perhaps from the Hong Kong community, protesting against the Chinese authorities, and how this provision could affect those who legitimately want to cover their faces because of the reprisals and repercussions that might be threatened against their families back in Hong Kong. I want to be clear: this measure does not create an offence of concealing identity at every protest. The offence applies only to a protest in a locality designated by the police, and they can designate a locality only where they reasonably believe that
“the protest is likely to involve or has involved the commission of offences,”
and that
“it is expedient, in order to prevent or limit the commission of offences, to designate the locality”.
The majority of protests are peaceful and would not be captured by these clauses. The use of these powers and the management of protests is also an operational decision for the police, and we would expect them to consider the nature of the protest, including those who are likely to be present, before deciding to designate an area using this power. I hope that deals with the point raised about protestors from the Hong Kong community, and of course others.
As I have set out, the constable at the rank of inspector who designates a locality must ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to notify the public that the designation has been made, the offences created under clause 86, the locality and the period for which the designation will be enforced. Clause 88 sets out the procedure for designation, including what must be specified. Clause 91 is the interpretation section for part 9 of the Bill.
In recent years, as a number of Members have said, the police have faced significant challenges in policing large-scale protests. While the majority of those attending these protests are exercising their rights peacefully and within the confines of the law, unfortunately we have seen a minority of individuals behave in a criminal manner while hiding their identity. It is vital that the police are able to identify those who commit criminal offences during the course of these protests, because those who commit criminal offences should face justice for their crimes and because preventing criminality at protests ensures that peaceful protestors and the wider community are protected from harm.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The shadow Minister spoke about an incident that happened in my constituency. I want to assure everybody that the people who committed those criminal offences, which were not part of any protest, were held accountable and sent to prison.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is always good to hear when people are held accountable for their criminal actions and punished accordingly, so I am very pleased to hear that.
I want to explain fully how clause 86 will work. At the moment, the police have existing powers to require individuals to remove disguises in designated localities where criminality is likely, but those powers have not always worked in the way that we all want them to, with individuals complying with directions to remove disguises, but then later putting them back on. In a large protest, it is difficult to prevent that from occurring, which is why the new offence makes it a criminal offence to conceal an identity as soon as the locality has been designated.
I want to make it clear that the police have to take all reasonable steps to notify the public that a designation has been made, including the nature of the offence, the locality to which the designation applies and the period during which the designation will be enforced. A designation must be in writing, except for where that is not reasonably practicable, such as in a live and rapidly moving public order situation, in which case the police can make an oral designation instead and record that in writing as soon as reasonably practicable. The maximum penalty for this offence is one month’s imprisonment or a level 3 fine not exceeding £1,000.
Let me turn to the amendments in this group. Amendment 51 seeks to limit the defences in clause 86 to those who have given written notice to the police or, if not reasonably practicable, oral notice. While I understand the motivation behind the amendment, we believe that clause 86 already provides a sufficient and specific statutory defence for individuals who wear or use identity-concealing items for purposes related to health, religious observance or work. Crucially, this defence is subject to a reverse burden of proof, which means that the individual must prove on the balance of probabilities that their use of such an item was for one of these legitimate purposes. This mechanism already ensures that only those with genuine reasons can rely on the defence without placing an undue burden on the prosecution.
Introducing a requirement to notify the police in writing or orally would add an unnecessary and impractical layer of and risk excluding individuals with legitimate defences simply because they did not, or could not, provide prior notice, and could result in the criminalisation of innocent people on procedural grounds. The current legal framework strikes an appropriate balance between public safety and individual rights. Amendment 51 would undermine that balance without offering meaningful enforcement benefits.
New clause 34 seeks to import directly into the Public Order Act 1986 the provisions of the Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023. The shadow Minister has indicated that the rationale for the new clause is to seek to mitigate the effects of the Supreme Court’s Ziegler judgment in June 2021.
The 2023 regulations amended and clarified the meaning of
“serious disruption to the life of the community”
for the purposes of the police’s powers to imposes conditions on protests under the 1986 Act. They did so by amending the examples of cases that may constitute serious disruption, specifying that the cumulative impact of protests in the same area, and all relevant disruption, may be considered by police, even when it is not protest-related, when they assess the impact of a particular protest for the purpose of imposing conditions. The serious disruption regulations also defined the term “community”. The example of cases that may constitute serious disruption aligned the use of the term with the definition provided in section 34 of the Public Order Act 2023.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ziegler case established that the protection afforded to protesters by articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights extends to circumstances in which the disruption caused by protesters is the intentional obstruction of others. However, the extent of the disruption, and whether it was intentional, are relevant factors in the assessment of proportionality.
Let me take the subjects in turn. First, the shadow Minister will be aware that Liberty successfully challenged the serious disruption regulations in May 2024. This Government disagreed with the High Court’s ruling in that case, particularly in relation to the Court’s finding on consultation. Accordingly, we have appealed the Court’s decision, and await the Court of Appeal’s judgment, which is expected shortly.
Secondly, the provisions in the serious disruption regulations are not discernibly impacted by the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ziegler case. That judgment relates to the reasonable excuse defence, and more recent case law, such as R v. Hallam and Others, has since made clear the limitations of such a defence.
I recognise the positive intention of new clause 34 to ensure that the changes made by the serious disruption regulations remain available to police forces in their policing of protests, but we consider that we cannot seek to address the issue—should there be one—until the Court of Appeal’s judgment is received. In short, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the Court of Appeal’s judgment. In the meantime, the regulations remain in force until the judgment is handed down. It remains open to the Court of Appeal to overturn the High Court’s quashing order, should the judges find in favour of the Government. We will consider our response to the Court of Appeal’s judgment once it is available.
New clause 53 seeks to insert a statutory right to peaceful protest into the Public Order Act 1986, by requiring public authorities to respect, protect and facilitate the right to protest. The rights that it outlines are already firmly established in UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, and public authorities must act in a way that is compatible with a convention right. Introducing a parallel provision risks legal duplication, confusion and inconsistent interpretation, potentially complicating the enforcement of public order. Rather than adding legal clarity, the new clause might create uncertainty without offering any new protections.
I hope that I have been able to persuade Opposition Members that their amendments are not necessary or are premature. I ask that the hon. Member for Windsor withdraws amendment 51.
Jack Rankin
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 87 and 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Possession of pyrotechnic articles at protests
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
During recent protests, the police have observed that protesters are increasingly using flares and fireworks. Although there is existing legislation that prohibits the use of fireworks in public places and the possession of explosives other than for a lawful purpose, it does not consistently cover the mere possession of flares and fireworks during protests. The clause therefore creates a new criminal offence of possession of a pyrotechnic article for those taking part in a protest.
The misuse of pyrotechnic articles has implications regarding public safety. This new measure will enable the police to take the necessary preventive action against such behaviour during protests. It is a defence for a person to show they had a reasonable excuse for having the pyrotechnic article, such as a flare or firework, in their possession at the material time, or, in particular, to show they had it in their possession for use in connection with work.
The offence applies only to those taking part in a protest. It does not capture a person who is taking part in, for example, a cultural or religious event where pyrotechnic articles are customarily used. The maximum penalty for the offence will be a level 3 fine of £1,000. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s support and hope the Committee will agree to the clause standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
War memorials
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
We all understand and accept that war memorials play a vital role in commemorating those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, including those who have no known grave. They offer a place of reflection and should be protected.
In some recent protests, protesters have climbed on war memorials, causing anger and outrage among the public. The new offence will provide greater clarity for policing. In particular, the measure makes it clear that the act of climbing on specified war memorials is unacceptable. It gives police the powers they need to ensure that justice is delivered to those who engage in such disrespectful conduct.
A war memorial is an object that preserves the memory of a war or conflict and those involved in it. It can take any form and be created by anyone at any time. It can be permanent or temporary; it can be a living thing such as a tree; it can a building or a more traditional plaque, monument or sculpture. The offence is intended to ensure that our most significant war memorials are used for their intended purpose of providing remembrance for those who have died and have no grave to be visited, and are not to be disrespected.
Schedule 11 specifies 25 war memorials, including the Royal Artillery memorial and the Cenotaph in London, the Portsmouth naval war memorial, and the Liverpool Cenotaph. The clause includes a power to amend the list of specified war memorials in schedule 11 by regulations.
The penalty for the offence will be a level 3 fine of up to £1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. It is a defence for a person charged with the offence to provide that they had good reason for climbing on the specified war memorial, or had the owner or occupier’s consent to climb on it. That will ensure that activities such as maintenance approved by the owner will not be criminalised. If a war memorial has a base or steps that are designed for individuals to climb, individuals will not be criminalised. On that basis, I commend the clause and schedule 11 to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
The clause introduces a new offence targeted at individuals who climb on designated war memorials without lawful justification. It is designed to protect sites of national remembrance and ensure that they are treated with appropriate respect and dignity. The act of climbing on such memorials, often during protests or large gatherings, can be seen as disrespectful, provocative or even intentionally inflammatory, particularly when shared on social media.
For example, at a pro-Palestinian demonstration in London in 2023, a group of protesters climbed on to the Royal Artillery memorial at Hyde Park Corner, which honours the tens of thousands of Royal Artillery soldiers who died in the first world war. The Metropolitan police described the actions as inflammatory, but noted that at the time no specific law prohibited climbing on war memorials, so no arrests were made.
The introduction of the offence reflects growing public unease about the perceived disrespect towards war memorials during certain protests in recent years. It is right that this measure should be put in place to protect the memory and legacy of those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am pleased with the cross-party support for the measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 90 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 92
Suspension of internet protocol addresses and internet domain names
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
The clause introduces schedule 12, which provides for a new power for law enforcement and certain investigative agencies, such as the National Crime Agency and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, to apply to the court for an order to suspend internet protocol addresses and domain names when they are used to facilitate serious crime.
All too often, criminals use IP addresses and domain names to facilitate crimes such as fraud, the distribution of child sexual abuse material, malware and phishing. Currently, law enforcement agencies do not have the legal power to mandate the suspension of IP addresses and domain names, so in some scenarios the UK public continue to be at risk of falling victim to crime.
Law enforcement agencies currently utilise voluntary arrangements with industry to request the suspension of IP addresses and domains. In the majority of domestic cases, voluntary arrangements are successful, and the Government are clear that they should continue to be the first port of call in the United Kingdom. However, most of the organisations responsible for providing the IP address or domain name are situated in foreign jurisdictions and often require a formal request, such as a court order, before they will take action. The measure will provide for such a court order to be obtained. Domestically, the provision will empower law enforcement agencies to compel the small number of organisations that do not co-operate with voluntary arrangements.
The measure will protect the public by giving law enforcement and certain investigative agencies the tools they need to tackle crimes facilitated by IP addresses and domain names, and to prevent individuals from becoming potential victims. It will ensure that the UK cyber-landscape continues to be one of the safest in the world. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
The clause rightly provides a legal framework for suspending IP addresses and domain names linked to serious crime. This is a valuable measure in the fight against cyber-enabled criminal activity, including fraud, child exploitation and unlicensed online gambling.
By allowing appropriate officers to apply to a judge for a suspension order, the clause ensures that access to digital infrastructure used for criminal purposes can be swiftly and lawfully disrupted. It will be particularly effective in cases where traditional enforcement is difficult because of the borderless nature of online platforms. Crucially, safeguards are built in to ensure that the powers are used only when necessary, and proportionately. The involvement of a judge, strict criteria for suspension, and provisions for variation or appeal ensure a fair balance between enforcement and civil liberties.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful for the Opposition’s support.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 92 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 93
Electronically tracked stolen goods: search without warrant
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 93 amends the Theft Act 1968 to create a new power for the police to enter premises to search for and seize stolen items that have been electronically tracked to the premises, without requiring a warrant from a court if it is not reasonably practicable to obtain one. Clause 94 makes the same change in respect of the service police.
Under the safer streets mission, the Government are determined to crack down on acquisitive and street crimes, antisocial behaviour, and other crimes that make people feel unsafe on our streets. Crimes such as phone theft and snatch theft are deeply invasive and can have a profound impact on those whose possessions are stolen.
Tackling mobile phone theft is a priority for the Government. According to the crime survey for England and Wales, in the year ending March 2024 an estimated 235,000 people had their mobile phone stolen. Around half of stolen phones are taken through snatch thefts or pickpocketing, known as theft from the person offences.
The latest crime survey estimates show that street crime, which includes theft from the person offences and personal robbery, increased by 43%, driven by a significant rise in snatch theft. Data published by the Metropolitan police shows that theft from the person offences involving a mobile phone increased by 30% in London during the year to January 2025. Those figures are extremely concerning.
In recent years, the ability to track valuable items such as phones, bicycles and vehicles has become vastly more sophisticated. If items fitted with GPS or other trackers are stolen, it is now far easier for victims to know where their stolen property is located. However, victims have raised concerns that when they share that information with the police, they are not always able to act. This is extremely frustrating for victims of crime and for the police.
Those who commit the offences are not just petty criminals and opportunists. There is clear evidence of organised criminality and profitability, with stolen devices often being trafficked internationally, particularly to China and Algeria. That is why, at our mobile phone summit on 6 February, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary brought together law enforcement agencies and the mobile phone industry, and secured their commitments to working jointly to tackle mobile phone theft and to breaking the business model of the organised criminal networks that drive it.
Collaborative efforts include significantly boosting data and intelligence sharing to better understand this complex problem, increased police-intensification activities, and ensuring that all parties work together to drive joint solutions. To complement these actions, the legislative reforms in the Bill will enable the police to investigate more swiftly those who conduct mobile phone and other forms of theft. Currently, the police have no general power to enter and search premises solely for the purpose of searching for and seizing stolen property without a warrant. We know that when items can be tracked to specific locations, they are quickly moved on or sold, limiting the window in which the police can act.
Matt Vickers
Clause 93 is hugely important and rightly allows the police to search premises for electronically tracked stolen goods without a warrant, offering a fast and efficient way for the police to recover stolen items before they are further distributed or sold, with the clause defining the authorisation procedures and limitations on the powers.
The clause empowers senior officers at the rank of inspector or above to authorise searches based on reasonable grounds and electronic tracking data. This is particularly useful in cases where obtaining a warrant in time could risk losing crucial evidence or missing the opportunity to seize the stolen goods. It is designed to enable law enforcement to act quickly when there is clear electronic tracking evidence that stolen goods are present on the specified premises. It seems like a common-sense measure that will allow law enforcement to act swiftly in recovering electronically tracked stolen goods, making it a highly effective tool in the fight against crime.
When stolen items are equipped with tracking devices, the ability to bypass the often time-consuming process of obtaining a warrant can be crucial in preventing further harm, such as the sale or distribution of the goods. The clause will ensure that officers can quickly respond to real-time data, reducing the window of opportunity for criminals to move or hide stolen goods.
The clause adopts a narrower approach to these powers than that proposed by the Criminal Justice Bill. I have always been of the view that, wherever possible, we should look to further enable our police officers and law enforcement agencies to tackle crime. Will the Minister comment on the rationale for narrowing the scope of the powers being given to our police by this measure?
Luke Taylor
I broadly back the powers in the clause. However, I have been involved in two cases in which an item was tracked but the tracking was not sufficiently accurate to ascertain the address. I was witness to a neighbour banging on the door of another neighbour’s home, demanding that he be let in to retrieve his phone, which he claimed had been tracked to that address. The police had been called, but they were not able to enter. When the resident came home, it was demonstrated that the phone was not at that address; it was actually five doors down. The individual had dropped the phone while walking home, and another resident had picked it up, brought it home and was looking after it until they could take it to a police station.
That individual had been incredibly agitated. Under these measures, if the police were called and the tracking information showed that the phone was at a particular address, the inaccurate data would have allowed the police to enter the property incorrectly. Are there appropriate safeguards in relation to the accuracy of the location information that is used? What measures are in place to compensate people when errors are made?
The second example is that, when my bike was stolen, I followed its tracker and went to the house where it seemed to be located. I called the police, who attended. The bike was not in the house; the tracker was actually in a van that was parked on the street outside. Again, if entry to the property had been obtained under these measures, there would have been damage and an incorrect entry to a resident’s home.
These powers seem like a good idea. The hon. Member for Stockton West called them common sense, but what seems to be common sense usually omits serious thought. Without an additional step of scrutiny, I do not think tracking information is sufficiently accurate to ensure these powers are used appropriately. I therefore invite the Minister to provide a bit more reassurance that thought will be given to accuracy and that mitigations will be in place to compensate residents when the measures are used incorrectly. We must not put residents and citizens at risk of property damage for reasons beyond their control.
David Burton-Sampson
As I look around the room, we all have our mobiles glued to our hands. They do everything for us now: payments, emails, leisure and, occasionally, phone calls. These devices are massively important to us. We all know the feeling of leaving home without a mobile device—many of us would have to turn round because we cannot live without it.
There has been a significant rise in snatch-and-grab crimes throughout the country, and I know many constituents, friends and colleagues in this place who have been impacted. Given that these devices can be tracked, it is madness that the police are not currently able to go in and recover them. I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about the accuracy of tracking. I do not think it is as big an issue as he makes out, but perhaps it is something for the Minister to consider.
The biggest thing is that knowing the police can enter to recover these items will act as a deterrent. We need to drive down this crime. The prevalence of snatch-and-grabs in this country is simply unacceptable, so I welcome clause 93.
Dame Diana Johnson
I will deal with the questions that have been raised in this short debate. First, the new measure differs from the previous Government’s proposed reform as it provides the police with specific targeted powers to retrieve electronically tagged stolen items that have been tracked to premises using the geolocation data and intelligence, and it will equip the police with tailored powers to act quickly to retrieve items, bringing offenders to justice and providing a swifter resolution for victims. We are also introducing robust safeguards, including the requirement for an officer of at least inspector rank to authorise the use of the powers, so that they are used proportionately and lawfully.
I take very seriously the issue raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about the accuracy of data. With these new powers, as I tried to set out in my opening remarks, the police will need to be satisfied that at least one item of property in question has been electronically tracked to the premises, and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is stolen and on the premises before entry is authorised. We would expect the police to undertake due diligence and, as far as possible, to use additional information or intelligence to ensure that the location is accurate. As I said, any use of the power has to be authorised by at least an inspector.
Luke Taylor
I thank the Minister for giving way, because I think this is a helpful query: will there be any differentiation between last known locations and live tracking? Obviously, tracking devices can be removed and batteries can run out. Will a last known location be considered sufficient evidence of an item’s current location, or will a live location be needed to prove that the item is currently in that position?
Dame Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman raises legitimate questions about how this will work operationally. As I said in my opening remarks, there will be guidance on how this will function.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the possible redress for householders when things perhaps go wrong. There are existing provisions under which individuals may be able to claim compensation where the police have caused damage to property by, for example, forcing entry. Any compensation will obviously depend on the circumstances of each case and will be for the police force to determine, and it is unlikely to be paid if the damage was caused by the police acting lawfully on the evidence and information available to them.
On that basis, I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 93 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95
Access to driver licensing information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 95 deals with access to driver licensing information. It will facilitate automatic access by the police and other law enforcement officers to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency driver information, at the point of need, for all policing and law enforcement purposes.
The police and other law enforcement officers are frequently required to deal with unpredictable circumstances, often operating under significant time pressure, as they strive to protect the public, maintain order and investigate complex criminality. The police have provided compelling operational examples of where they could better deal with the threats and harms faced by individuals if direct access to DVLA driving licence data were provided.
Protecting our communities from the threat of sexual violence, stopping drug gangs preying on the vulnerable, safeguarding people from harassment and stalking, and informing relatives of the death or serious injury of a loved one are duties that our police officers frequently undertake. Unfortunately, those are some of the activities for which police officers cannot make effective use of DVLA driving licence information within the current data access regime.
Matt Vickers
Clause 95 updates and expands police and law enforcement access to driver licence data held by the DVLA. It replaces the existing section 71 of the 2000 Act with a revised framework, adding proposed new sections 71A and 71B. The modernised provision allows authorised individuals including the police, service police and other specified law enforcement bodies to access driver licensing information not just for road traffic offences but for a wider range of policing and law enforcement purposes. The Secretary of State is given power to regulate access, impose conditions and consult relevant bodies before issuing new rules or codes of practice. The clause also introduces oversight measures, such as a statutory code of practice and an annual report to Parliament, ensuring transparency and responsible data use. I welcome the Minister’s comments on the role of facial recognition technology and on the safeguards put in place to ensure the power is not used disproportionately or inappropriately.
Dame Diana Johnson
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Testing of persons in police detention for presence of controlled drugs
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Schedule 13.
Clauses 97 to 100 stand part.
Dame Diana Johnson
These clauses relate to drug testing. There are a number of provisions we wish to introduce. Clauses 96 to 100 and schedule 13 amend existing legislation to expand the powers of the police to drug test people aged 18 or over on arrest, or aged 14 or over on charge, where the offence they have been arrested for or charged with is a “trigger offence” or where a police officer of at least the rank of inspector reasonably suspects that their drug use caused or contributed to their offending.
These clauses expand the police’s powers to drug test in three clear ways: first, by expanding the range of drugs that can be tested for, from specified class A drugs only to any specified controlled drug; secondly, by expanding the list of trigger offences which may automatically trigger a drug test; and thirdly, by expanding the power to take an additional sample for drug testing when the first is unsuitable or insufficient, and up to a maximum of two samples. The clauses also expand the regime for subsequent assessments for misuse of controlled drugs following a positive test result.
As we all appreciate, drugs can have wide-ranging and devastating impacts on individuals and society. Addressing the drug use that is linked to crime is key to the Government’s safer streets mission. The purpose of drug testing on arrest is to reduce reoffending by referring those whose offending is believed to be at least in part caused by drug use into assessment for treatment and support services. The intention is not to further criminalise drug users, although refusing to provide a sample or to attend or stay for an assessment is an offence. Nor does it mean that they will receive treatment instead of a sentence. Drug testing on arrest is a discretionary power, subject to the safeguards included in the existing legislation, the PACE codes of practice and other relevant guidance. How it is implemented and funded is a local decision made by the police and crime commissioner and service providers.
Clause 96 amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to expand the existing police power to drug test in police detention to include any “specified controlled drug” as opposed to just specified class A drugs. The list of controlled drugs will be specified in secondary legislation, subject to the negative procedure. To be specified, drugs must be controlled drugs within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Clause 96 also inserts new schedule 2B into PACE, which provides an updated list of trigger offences for drug testing on arrest. A number of the additions to the list of trigger offences are key to the Government’s safer streets mission, including offences linked to violence against women and girls, knife crime and antisocial behaviour. Some existing trigger offences are removed, such as fraud and vagrancy offences where there is no longer a clear link to drug misuse or those offences are being repealed. The clause also moves the Secretary of State’s power to amend the list of trigger offences in secondary legislation, subject to the draft affirmative procedure, into PACE. Clause 97 amends the Drugs Act 2005 and the Bail Act 1976 to reflect the expansion from class A drugs to “specified controlled drugs” to align with the changes in clause 96.
Clause 98 amends PACE to expand the police’s power to take an additional sample from a person in police detention for the purpose of testing, where the first sample is unsuitable or insufficient, up to a maximum of two samples. It allows the police to take an additional sample where required—for example, where one sample alone is not suitable or sufficient for testing across more than one machine or kit to test for additional, different drugs. Only one additional sample may be taken, and only when the first sample is unsuitable or insufficient. The legislative safeguards that apply to the first sample will continue to apply, such as being reminded that refusal to provide a sample is a criminal offence, having a maximum of two samples taken during the period of detention, and not being tested before having seen a custody officer.
Clause 99 repeals subsections (8A) and (8B) in section 37 of PACE and amends section 38, which currently enable the police to continue to detain an individual for the purpose of taking a sample for drug testing, before or after charge. We have determined that, due to changes in operational procedure and drug testing technology, the power is no longer necessary and so we are removing it.
Finally, clause 100 removes the notification conditions in section 63B of PACE and in the Drugs Act 2005. In 2011, Home Office guidance advised all forces in England and Wales that they did not need to seek additional, individual authorisation from the Secretary of State to conduct drug testing on arrest. These amendments reflect that guidance by removing the notification condition from both PACE and the Drugs Act 2005. They remove an administrative burden on the police, improving efficiency. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
Clause 96 and schedule 13 significantly expand the existing powers of the police to conduct drug testing on individuals in detention. Currently, the police can test only for class A drugs under certain conditions. The clause amends sections 63B and 63C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to enable testing for any specified controlled drug, broadening the scope beyond class A to include class B and C substances. The change allows for testing following arrest for those aged 18 and over, or charge for those aged 14 and over, where the arrest relates to a trigger offence or where a police inspector reasonably suspects that drug misuse contributed to the offence.
The clause also inserts new schedule 2B into PACE to define the list of trigger offences, replacing the outdated schedule 6 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The updated schedule retains many existing offences, particularly theft and drug offences, but removes fraud and vagrancy offences. It adds a range of new offences such as common assault, certain violent crime and public order offences. The Secretary of State is given the power to amend the list of drugs and offences through regulations subject to either the draft affirmative or negative resolution procedures, depending on the nature of the change.
Clause 97 makes related changes to the Drugs Act 2005 to align the drug assessment framework with the new expanded testing regime. Sections 9 and 10 of the 2005 Act, which govern the process for initial and follow-up assessments following a positive drugs test, are amended to refer to specific controlled drugs rather than just class A substances.
David Taylor
I rise to support clause 96, a necessary update to the law that reflects the reality facing many of our communities. Drug misuse comes in many forms and continues to drive crime, harm and deep personal suffering. Hemel Hempstead has a long-standing drug issue going back several decades. Indeed, drugs were a significant cause of the deaths of two members of my own family, my aunt and my cousin, so I am particularly motivated to see the clause enacted to help tackle the causes of drug crime. Currently, police can test detainees only for class A drugs. Clause 96 rightly extends that power to all controlled drugs, including class B and C substances such as cannabis or illegally traded prescription drugs. Those are not harmless. They contribute to the cycles of reoffending, antisocial behaviour and exploitation, and too often go unnoticed in the system.
The clause is not about punishment; it is about awareness and intervention. Testing can be the first step forward towards treatment. It allows the police to respond more effectively and open the door to support for those struggling with addiction issues. With proper safeguards and parliamentary oversight, these changes give our officers the tools they need while protecting people’s rights. Communities, from major cities to towns like mine, will benefit from a smarter and fairer approach. This is about being honest about the harms that drugs cause, about how we help users and how we prevent the crime that drugs cause. I urge Members to support the clause.
Dame Diana Johnson
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead for his speech. He talked about his experience within his family, and how devastating drugs can be to families, individuals and communities. That is why extending the testing regime with these clauses is so important to try to assist those people who have got themselves into problems with drugs and are involved in criminality. They are not excusing that at all, but finding a way of testing and offering that support and help if people are ready to access treatment. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clauses 97 to 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 101
Cautions given to persons having limited leave to enter or remain in UK
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 101 expands the current criteria for foreign national conditional cautions to encompass foreign nationals with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. A foreign national conditional caution requires a foreign national to be removed from the UK as an alternative to prosecution. It will also specify that they may not return within a specified period of time.
Presently, foreign nationals may be given a foreign national conditional caution to secure their removal from the UK if they do not have existing leave to enter or remain here. The clause extends that to apply to foreign nationals with limited leave to be here. The clause will extend the pool of persons to whom a foreign national conditional caution may be given with a view to securing the removal from the United Kingdom of more foreign nationals who commit crime. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
The clause expands the definition of a “relevant foreign offender” in both the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to include individuals who have limited leave to enter or remain in the UK as defined by the Immigration Act 1971. By doing so, it ensures that people with limited immigration status are treated as relevant foreign offenders for the purposes of issuing conditional or diversionary cautions, enabling those cautions to carry immigration-related consequences, such as potential removal from the UK.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 101 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 102
Confiscation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Schedules 14 and 15.
Clause 103 stand part.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 102 introduces schedules 14 and 15 to the Bill, which make the most significant reforms to the confiscation regime in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 since that Act was passed over 20 years ago. The confiscation regime allows courts to place confiscation orders on defendants to repay the benefit gained from criminality and to make it clear to offenders that crime does not pay.
The Government have been aware that confiscation has been in need of reform for some time. In 2018, the Home Office commissioned the Law Commission of England and Wales to review the confiscation regime and make recommendations for reform. The Law Commission’s final report was published in November 2022 and contains 119 recommendations, which have shaped the measures we are introducing in the Bill. Reform is necessary to improve enforcement of confiscation orders and streamline processes by law enforcement and court services, so that the regime operates as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Reform will be achieved by rationalising court processes, creating streamlined confiscation orders, expediting the enforcement of unpaid orders and returning more funds to victims. In particular, the Bill contains a new measure to return funds to victims following an uplift of the amount that is to be paid towards a confiscation order. If a confiscation order is uplifted, money can be redirected towards existing victims to compensate for their outstanding losses. The Home Office has consulted extensively.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members should email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. However, it is very hot this morning, so if you would like to remove your jackets, you are allowed to do so.
Today we begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates; decisions on each amendment and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill are taken when we come to the relevant clause.
The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak to all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, I shall again call the Member who moved the lead amendment. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw it or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendments in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance.
Clause 1
National policy statements: review
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 32, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(3A) After subsection (2), insert—
‘(2A) Any review of a national policy statement in relation to a nationally significant infrastructure project must include consideration of whether the project complies with the Land Use Framework.’”
This amendment would require national policy statements to be in accordance with the proposed Land Use Framework.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to move amendment 32, which stands in my name.
We are pleased that the Government have kept their manifesto commitment to publish the long-awaited consultation on the land use framework—something the Liberal Democrats had long called for. The consultation states:
“Optimising how we use England’s land will be essential to delivering the Government’s Growth mission and the Clean Energy Superpower mission”.
It rightly recognises that a
“strategic approach to land use strategy and planning”
is needed if we are
“to avoid siloed…decision-making and…unintended consequences or unanticipated costs.”
It says that that will also inform decisions
“to guarantee our long-term food security...support development...achieve our targets on nature and climate…and support economic growth.”
Those are good objectives. However, the Secretary of State has repeatedly emphasised that the land use framework is not about telling anyone how to use land; instead, it is about providing the principles, data and tools to empower decision makers. It is right that the land use framework should not become prescriptive, but there is a real chance that it will become an expensive waste of time if it is not bolted into the planning system. To succeed, we need an efficient legal link to planning and spending decisions; otherwise, the land use framework will likely only sit on a shelf.
Part 1 of the Bill rightly recognises the need for more efficient ways to keep national policy statements up to date. In the past, NPSs have fallen behind Government policy, which has led to delay. For example, as Justice Holgate noted in the Drax development consent order challenge, the energy NPS designated in 2011 left important questions about greenhouse gas emissions unanswered because it did not reflect Parliament’s net zero decisions.
To avoid that kind of disconnect and delay, NPSs should have a direct link to the land use framework, as proposed in the amendment. The amendment would help to ensure that the land use framework has a dynamic link to major infrastructure decisions, without becoming too prescriptive. That would help to protect the environment and agriculture by guiding projects away from the most damaging options early in the process. It would also help development by improving certainty up front, reducing the challenge of judicial review were the relationship between NPSs and the land use framework left to the courts to determine.
The land use framework must be aligned with national policy objectives to inform the policies needed to deliver those objectives. Failing to consider the land use framework when reviewing national policy statements would also perpetuate siloed decision making. It would leave the land use framework as toothless and without the necessary weight, undermining public confidence in land use decisions. The amendment would not bind decision makers or prescribe specific land uses but would meet the Government’s stated objective of better informing decisions and supporting the delivery of a shared vision for English land use that balances the need for housing, energy, infrastructure and food security with our statutory climate and nature targets.
In his remarks when he launched the land use framework, the Environment Secretary said that the framework
“will work hand in hand with”
the Government’s
“housing and energy plans…creating a coherent set of policies that work together, rather than against each other.”
Ensuring that national policy statements in these areas consider the land use framework is therefore essential to realising the Government’s objectives of joined-up decision making.
The House of Lords Land Use in England Committee highlighted the issue in its report, which found that the “overarching theme” from witnesses to the Committee was the “lack of integration” between nationally significant infrastructure projects, both
“with other NSIPs (including other projects within same policy area), and with the wider planning system.”
It recommended:
“Energy and other large-scale infrastructure projects should be incorporated into a land use framework.”
An obvious and effective way to do that would be to ensure that any review of the national policy statement complied with the land use framework. Without that, and without the amendment and the institutional and legal levers to create change on the ground, a land use framework would likely just be another strategy on the shelf.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Before I speak to clause 1 stand part and respond to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I put on the record my thanks to the large number of witnesses who gave up their time last week to give evidence to the Committee and inform our deliberations.
Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity that our country needs and the high living standards that working people deserve; that is why it is this Government’s No. 1 mission. The failure to build enough critical infrastructure, from electricity networks and clean energy sources to public transport links and water supplies, has constrained economic growth and undermined our energy security. That is why the Government’s plan for change commits us to fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament.
While nationally significant infrastructure project applications are already being processed 50 days quicker on average than in the last Parliament, achieving that milestone will require the planning regime for NSIPs to fire on all cylinders—yet we know that the system as it stands is too slow and that its performance has deteriorated sharply in recent years. The Government are determined to improve it and to deliver a faster and more consenting process for critical infrastructure that will drive down costs for industry, bill payers and taxpayers.
Key to an effective NSIP regime is ensuring that national policy statements are fit for purpose. To be clear, those statements are the primary policy framework within which the examining authority makes its recommendations to Ministers on individual development consent order applications and against which the relevant Secretary of State is required to determine an application. However, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington just noted, despite their importance many national policy statements are outdated, with some having not been refreshed for over a decade.
Clause 1 addresses that problem by establishing, on enactment, a new requirement for every national policy statement to be subjected to a full review and updated at least every five years. NPSs can be reviewed at any point within that five-year timeframe, at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Additionally, any statement that has currently not been updated for over five years must be brought up to date within two years of the clause’s enactment.
Having taken on board the views of consenting Departments, a wide range of industry stakeholders and the recommendations of the National Infrastructure Commission, we believe that a five-year timeframe strikes the right balance between ensuring that statements are kept up to date, while avoiding rapid change and the consequential uncertainty for the infrastructure sectors that would be caused by a more rapid review timeframe.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Minister may come to this later, but he will also be aware that clause 1 will make provisions for the Secretary of State to update an NPS later than required when there are exceptional circumstances, including laying a statement to Parliament. We will discuss in relation to later clauses our concern about transparency and engagement with the House. Will he outline how the Secretary of State will be able to consult the House, once she has laid that statement, to help to form her view and the Government’s view going forward?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his question, and I look forward to what I know will be constructive debates over the days and weeks to come. He makes a fair point, which I am just coming to, in relation to the clause also providing for the ability to delay a mandatory update when there are exceptional circumstances that the relevant Secretary of State considers make the delay unavoidable.
I stress to the hon. Gentleman that those circumstances must be exceptional. We have in mind an extremely high bar: for example, if Parliament was suspended and could not sit. He will know that in instances where a national policy statement, for example, does not need to undergo a material change, a rapid update can take place on that basis. It does not have to go through consultation or the necessary parliamentary scrutiny requirements. The vision is that this particular part of the clause will be used with an exceptionally high bar, in very limited circumstances. If he wishes, I am happy to provide the Committee with further examples, but I think they will be extremely limited.
In such circumstances, as the shadow Minister said, the Secretary of State must, before the five-year deadline expires, lay a statement before Parliament explaining the reasons for the sought-after extension and when they expect to update the national policy statement, with the delay lasting only as long as the exceptional circumstances exist.
In summary, the changes give Ministers the power to ensure that national policy statements are kept up to date so that they can effectively support the delivery of the critical infrastructure that our country needs and the economic growth that its provision will deliver. I commend the clause to the Committee.
I turn to amendment 32, which, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington set out, seeks to insert a requirement for the land use framework—on which the Government consulted between January and April this year—to be complied with whenever a national policy statement is reviewed. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary because the Secretary of State is already obliged to take into account all relevant material considerations when reviewing national policy statements as a matter of law, under sections 104 and 105 of the Planning Act 2008.
If a future Secretary of State considers the final land use framework to be relevant in the circumstances of the specific national policy statement being reviewed, it must therefore be taken into account. The Secretary of State will, in those circumstances, give the land use framework the weight that they consider appropriate in their planning judgment, but their assessment of relevance cannot and should not be prejudged by writing such a requirement on to the face of the Bill.
The majority of national policy statements are not site or project-specific. For national policy statements that do identify locations as suitable or potentially suitable for a particular development, those locations will already have been the subject of strategic level environmental assessments and appraisals for inclusion in the national policy statement.
When deciding whether to grant development consent for a nationally significant infrastructure project, sections 104 and 105 of the 2008 Act require the Secretary of State to have regard to any matter that they think “both important and relevant” to the decision of whether to grant consent. Once published, the land use framework could be given such weight as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, where they consider it “both important and relevant” to the particular consenting decision that is in front of them.
For those reasons, the Government cannot accept amendment 32, which seeks to introduce an unnecessary layer of regulatory complexity, undermining our ambitions to streamline the NSIP planning system.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I agree very much with the Minister’s point about not introducing excessive complexity. A key issue, though, that this element of the Bill highlights is where there are complex interactions—with legal obligations that are placed on local authorities, for example. I think of my experience with Heathrow airport, where air quality duties are an absolute obligation on the local authority. Parliament can decide to derogate from that, but that does not remove the possibility of the local authority being judicially reviewed, having failed to oppose the Government’s position on a national planning policy statement.
When there are such obligations on other affected public bodies but the decision has been taken from them and is being made instead by Parliament, how will the Government ensure that those public bodies will not find themselves held liable and find that the whole process is effectively derailed—because although parliamentary decisions cannot be judicially reviewed, the involvement of that public body in decisions can be?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point but, if I have understood him, it is a slightly different issue from the one we are considering. I will give him some extra clarity about the land use framework and any other material consideration that would need to be assessed. When looking at a national policy statement, the Secretary of State will have to have regard to such material considerations, be they the land use framework or any others, for the decision to be legally sound.
The reason we cannot accept the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is that it is not necessary to specifically require that, as it would effectively repeat public law decision-making principles on the face of the Bill that would have to be taken into account anyway. For that reason, we cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, so I hope he will withdraw it. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. In our view, the land use framework is a really important document about the sustainability of the development of land in the UK, and simply referring to it as one of a number of documents that must be taken into account does not guarantee that it will be delivered on in the really important national policy statement framework. Our intention is that it should be a requirement that national policy statements are in accordance with the land use framework for those reasons; it should not simply be a background document.
I am bleary-eyed this morning, but I have spotted that there are more Members on the Government side than on the Opposition side, so we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
National policy statements: parliamentary requirements
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 3, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a response to a resolution made by either House or recommendations made by a committee of either House in relation to amendments to national policy statements. The requirement to do so is otherwise removed by 2(a).
Gideon Amos
The justification for the proposal in clause 2 to remove parliamentary requirements for scrutiny and the approval of amendments to national policy statements is that they reflect legislative changes. In our view, that justification is faulty in three respects.
First, it is claimed that since Parliament will have considered the changes, it does not need to scrutinise the resulting amendments to NPSs. However, it is far from certain that national policy statement amendments will reflect new or amended legislation. Let me give an example. In its 2023 review, the Transport Committee was very critical of the draft national networks national policy statement, and said that new planning policies for major road and rail schemes need clarifying against net zero laws. However, the Department for Transport not only failed to accept any of the MPs’ recommendations but put a climate test from the outdated 2015 policy back into the NPS it designated in 2024. Given that the reason for updating the NPS was to update the climate test, that completely compounded the original justification for carrying out the review. There is therefore no certainty that legal decisions will be reflected if my amendment is not accepted.
Secondly, the explanatory notes say that the change will “preserve parliamentary oversight” for amendments to NPSs, but in fact the purpose of the clause is to take away parliamentary oversight of changes to NPSs. It will mean that the Government are no longer required to respond to recommendations of the Select Committee or other MPs. As the Transport Action Network said,
“If we are serious about front-loading, in other words deciding key policies in advance rather than in individual infrastructure decisions, the Planning Act 2008’s failure to enable effective scrutiny of NPSs requires addressing, rather than being made worse.”
Thirdly, although it is suggested that the removal of parliamentary scrutiny is limited, subsection (3)(d) makes it clear than any change of Government policy can be effected by changing an NPS without the oversight of Parliament. The clause—and particularly subsection (3)(d)—destroys the distinction between national policy that has been debated and voted on in Parliament and the rest of Government policy. There is a clear distinction, which is really important, in the NPS regime.
In the case some time ago of Dinsdale Developments Ltd v. Secretary of State for the Environment in 1986, the court accepted an after-dinner speech from the Secretary of State as Government policy. Although I doubt that the Minister speaking over dinner in his family home would be captured and changed into a national policy statement, there is scope for speeches made by Ministers and Secretaries of State to become Government policy. They can be wafted into the national policy statement with no opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise or vote on it, which would undermine the strength of national policy statements.
The Chair
Before I call the shadow Minister, I remind Committee members to indicate if they want to speak. If you want only to intervene, you must keep your interventions short, so make a decision on whether you want to intervene or make a speech.
Paul Holmes
I will adhere to your guidance and orders on this Committee, Mrs Hobhouse. I intend to speak to clause 2 first, and then I will address amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. We welcome the premise of parliamentary scrutiny of the national policy statements, but we understand that although the usual steps for publishing and consulting on material changes—21 days under the legislation—still apply, the Secretary of State is no longer required to respond to feedback from Parliament or its Committees during that process.
That is a step back on the democratic checks and balances that the House has under current legislation. We are concerned about whether the Secretary of State will have increased power to make decisions without that scrutiny. All Ministers, including the two sitting opposite me, try to make good decisions and do their best by the country, but it is unacceptable that the legislation includes a retrograde step whereby Parliament is unable to feed back on changes proposed by the Secretary of State. We see that as a retrograde step for scrutiny.
We have seen in legislation for other Departments a centralising move into the hands of officials and Ministers. What is the benefit of this provision in the Bill? What is the benefit of taking away a very simple and usual step of Parliament being able to give its views on the Secretary of State’s movements and proposals? It does not make a tangible difference to the process. It just seems to be a power grab—that may be unfair on the Minister—or at least a movement of power away from the ability of Parliament to have traditional checks and balances.
Matthew Pennycook
In the interest of focusing the debate on the actual changes that we are making in the clause, when a national policy statement has been reviewed and is to be updated, and involves material changes, all the assessments and consultation that need to take place, including laying the NPS before the House of Commons, will remain in place. We are talking about a specific set of categories of reflective, small changes that, as I will make clear in my remarks later, have already been debated by Parliament in their own terms.
Paul Holmes
I understand that, but the fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State will no longer be required, under the Bill, to respond to feedback from Parliament. That is what the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is trying to sort out with his amendment. We very much support that amendment, because it would require the Secretary of State to provide a response to the House on amendments to national policy statements.
I have no disagreement on the provision of NPSs and what we discussed in the debate on the last clause. What tangible difference does it make to the Bill if Parliament is taken note of by being able to respond, and the Secretary of State is required to respond to that feedback? The Select Committee has a right to issue its views. Why is the Secretary of State no longer required to respond to that feedback from Parliament? To us, it seems slightly undemocratic to remove transparency and the ability of elected Members of this House, of all parties, to be able to scrutinise the movements of the Secretary of State and Ministers in national policy statements. Perhaps the Minister can explain in his comments what tangible difference it makes to his life or that of his Department that the Secretary of State no longer has to respond to feedback from elected Members of this House.
As I said, we agree with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It would encourage greater accountability as part of the process outlined in the Bill and would enhance parliamentary scrutiny over crucial development policies that the Secretary of State has oversight of.
David Simmonds
I rise in support of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister to press the Government on this point. I think the key issue for all of us is what remedy is available where there are concerns about the impact of a decision taken using these new provisions.
In the evidence sessions, there was much mockery of a so-called fish disco at a new nuclear power station. However, the local constituency MP, the local authority or fishing and wildlife organisations would be very concerned about the impact of that development on wildlife, particularly at a location with significant numbers of protected species, some of which are unique in Europe. When the detail of a project emerges and an issue of that nature needs to be addressed, and there is feedback from Parliament, if we have inserted provisions that allow the Secretary of State to say, “I am going to ignore that now,” we lose the opportunity to ensure appropriate remedies and measures to address the impact of that detail, either in planning terms or on the local environment.
I recall a judicial review brought by the local authority where I served as a councillor in respect of a scheme that had been agreed with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State had written to the local authority and said, “This is what it is going to be. This is the process that is going to be followed.” That Secretary of State was then replaced with another, who said, “I am not going to follow it. Although my predecessor wrote to you last year to tell you this is how it was going to be, I am not going to do it.” The local authority said that was clearly unsatisfactory, because of the impact at community level.
The test that was required to be met for a judicial review to succeed was that we had to be able to demonstrate that the Minister was—what the judge said has always stuck in my mind—“out of her mind” when she told Parliament at the Dispatch Box what she was going to do, on the basis that parliamentary sovereignty was so great. If Parliament had approved the Minister’s actions, regardless of whether they were a flagrant breach of an agreement previously entered into with another part of the public sector, provided they had said that at the Dispatch Box and unless we could prove that the Minister had actually been out of their mind at that point, the decision would stand and would not be subject to judicial review. It could not even be considered, because parliamentary sovereignty has such a high test.
I think the shadow Minister is right to raise the need to get this right. We are all talking about the importance of getting infrastructure and major developments through, and we can understand the desire to drive that forward, but we would not wish to find ourselves in a situation where a key point of detail, which has a significant community impact but which emerges only once some of those detailed elements of a major project are in the public domain, cannot be taken account of and is irrelevant or disregarded in the planning process. It is absolutely critical that we have that level of safeguard to ensure that constituents are assured that the concerns that they might perfectly reasonably have will be properly addressed.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I draw your attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I concur with my colleagues. I have concerns about removing the response from Ministers to Parliament. We are told that constituents and residents will be kept at the heart of such decisions—they will have some say in the national planning policy framework through consultation on national infrastructure projects when they are in their area. Indeed, I asked the Prime Minister a question on the topic at PMQs. I was not convinced by his answer.
How can the Government, on the one hand, say that we will keep local people at the heart of those decisions and allow local people to have a say on them, while on the other, in this part of the Bill, remove parliamentary scrutiny? That will fill the British people with dread, that they will not have such a say in some of those infrastructure projects in their area.
Matthew Pennycook
May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Local people in any part of the country affected by a development consent order will still be able to have their say on it. Nothing in the clause affects that arrangement.
Lewis Cocking
My point is, if we remove parliamentary scrutiny, the British people out there watching this will think, “Well, hang on a minute, the Government are saying on the one hand that we will still have a say and feed into that process, but on the other they are removing parliamentary scrutiny from the process, so how do we weigh that up?” When the Bill has been through the full process to Third Reading, how can we and the British people trust that they will still have a say over national infrastructure projects in their area if parliamentary scrutiny is being removed? That is taking with one hand and giving with the other, and it could be perceived that people will not have a say; they might not believe the Government saying that they will have a say. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me be clear. I appreciate the concerns that hon. Members have expressed. I hope that I can provide some reassurance, but I am more than happy to have further exchanges on this point, which is an important one.
The clause introduces a new streamlined procedure for making material policy amendments to national policy statements, where the proposed amendments fall into four categories of changes to be made since the NPPS was last reviewed: reflecting legislative changes or revocations that have already come into force; relevant court decisions that have already been issued; Government policy that has already been published; and changes to other documents referred to in the NPPS.
A good example is our recent changes to the national planning policy framework—consulted on publicly and subject to a significant amount of scrutiny in the House. If a relevant NPPS had to be updated to reflect some of those policy changes, which have already been subject to consultation and scrutiny on their own terms, as I said, that would be a good example of where this reflective procedure might be useful.
The primary aim of the clause is to expedite the Parliamentary process for updating national policy statements. By doing so, it ensures that amendments that have already undergone public and parliamentary scrutiny can be integrated more swiftly into the relevant NPPS. In enabling reflective amendments to be made, the new procedure will support the Government’s growth mission by ensuring that NPPSs are current and relevant, increasing certainty for developers and investors, and streamlining decision making for nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Hon. Members should be assured that, where applicable, the statutory and regulatory prerequisites of an appraisal of sustainability and habitats regulation assessment will continue to apply to amendments that fall within this definition, as will the existing publication and consultation requirements for material changes to a national policy statement. The clause does, however—this is the point of debate that we have just had—disapply the requirements for the Secretary of State to respond to resolutions made by Parliament or its Committees. We believe that change is necessary to enable reflective changes to be made to NPSs in a more timely and proportionate manner.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way in one second, if the hon. Member will allow me, because I think this is some useful context for some of the discussions that have taken place over recent months.
The Government are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and the relevant Select Committee Clerks for engaging with me and my officials on the implications of the new procedure. We have agreed on certain guarantees to ensure that there will still be adequate parliamentary scrutiny when the procedure is used.
As such, I am happy to restate today that, when the Government intend to use the reflective amendment route to update a national policy statement, we will write to the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period. We would hope in all instances that the Select Committee responds in a prompt and timely manner, allowing us to take on board its comments. Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the Committee during that period, in so far as that is practical.
The process retains scope for Parliament to raise matters with the Government in the usual fashion. Should a Select Committee publish a report within the relevant timeframes of the public consultation period—in a sense, that is one of the challenges we are trying to get at here: not all select Committees will respond in the relevant period, therefore elongating the process by which the reflective amendment needs to take place—the Government will obviously take those views into account before the updated statement is laid before the House in the usual manner.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister for reminding us that we are talking about a specific amendment to a specific clause about a specific thing. But the issue that is at stake here was communicated by his complaint that parliamentary process might slow things down. Surely, the whole point of Parliament is to make our laws. I am worried by the implication that Government see Parliament as a hindrance to getting things done, rather than as a crucial part of scrutiny and checks and balances. If the Minister has concerns about timescales, it is perfectly achievable to address those by setting timeframes. But the removal of the clause that requires the Government to pay attention to the views of cross-party Committees scrutinising particular statements is concerning.
Matthew Pennycook
I say gently to the hon. Lady that she has ignored everything I have said. Every one of the changes that will be able to be made through this process will have already been subject to relevant consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. There is the example of changes to the national planning policy framework, which underwent a huge amount of parliamentary scrutiny through a Select Committee and a statement on the Floor of the House. It is not particularly problematic that we should be able to quickly, in a timely manner—with Select Committee input if it is able to respond in the necessary timeframe—make that change to a national policy statement to ensure that it is up to date and effective.
It is worth considering what the current arrangements require. Currently, the consultation, publicity and parliamentary scrutiny appeal that the Government must follow when updating an NPS, even for a minor change of the kind I have spoken about, is exactly the same as designating an entirely new NPS. There is no ability at the moment for timely and often minor reflective updates that will only reflect policy changes that have already been made subject to scrutiny, and court decisions that have been issued—there is not process for that. We think the system would work far better in most cases if there were.
Although it is a matter for the House, we would hope that in nearly every instance the relevant Select Committee would be able to respond in time, and that those views would be taken into account to help the NPS be updated in a more proportionate and effective manner.
Paul Holmes
I apologise for interrupting the Minister mid-flow, but if the utopian vision that he has outlined is the case—if a Select Committee comes to them within the right amount of time they will listen to its views, but the timescales are currently too long—and the Minister genuinely wanted to allow parliamentary scrutiny and responses to be taken into account by his Department, he would have come to the Committee today outlining a number of steps contained in the legislation setting standard response times for Select Committees and the processes of this House, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said.
The Minister could have clearly outlined in the legislation an aspiration for the amount of time that he would want the changes to be worked through with Parliament. I understand that there are Standing Orders of the House, but I remind the Minister that the Leader of the House is currently a Minister under his Government, and he could have got a workaround instead of taking out the scrutiny powers of the House of Commons.
Matthew Pennycook
I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a matter for the House rather than the Government. On their own terms, we think the changes made through the clause are proportionate and will ensure that the system is more effective. Again, I make it clear that we are talking about reflective amendments to national policy statements in the four specific categories I have given.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way one last time, and then I will make some progress.
Lewis Cocking
If we are talking about small, minor changes, surely the consultation period does not need to be that long—it will not take Select Committees long to produce a report to feed into the process if these are only minor changes. I do not see the need for change that the Minister is setting out.
Matthew Pennycook
All I would say is that if the hon. Gentleman looked at the history of the response times on some of these matters he would see that in not every instance is there a timely response. It can delay the process quite significantly. We appreciate the concerns, but the procedure cannot and will not be used to bypass due parliamentary scrutiny.
Any court decision change being reflected in the NPS will have been scrutinised by the public and Parliament on its own terms. We are adjusting the parliamentary scrutiny requirements to update an NPS, so that it is more proportionate and enables those documents to be updated more quickly. The process retains scope for Parliament to raise matters with the Government. The Secretary of State is required to lay a statement in Parliament announcing that a review of the NPS is taking place. The Government will write to the relevant Select Committee at the start of the consultation period, and Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the relevant Select Committee during the consultation period, so far as is practical. Finally, the NPS as amended will still be laid in Parliament for 21 days and can be prayed against.
I turn to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington; we have covered many of the issues it raises. In seeking to remove clause 2(3)(a), it is a wrecking amendment, in our view. It would fatally and fundamentally undermine the introduction of a new streamlined procedure for updating national policy statements by requiring the Government to respond to a Select Committee inquiry before being able to lay a national policy statement before Parliament. We will therefore resist it. As I have set out, the new procedure introduced by clause 2 will help to unlock growth in our country by enabling policy to be updated more easily, providing certainty for applicants using the NSIP regime and for decision makers. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I thank the hon. Members who have spoken. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for reminding me of the discussion about Hinkley, which is 13 miles from my home and is where a lot of my constituents work. In the evidence sessions, much was made of the fish disco. If memory serves, it is an AFD—not a political party in Germany, but an acoustic fish deterrent—which would cost a fair amount, but would stop about 3 million fish being killed every year in the 7-metre diameter cooling tunnels that suck seawater into Hinkley. Many of my constituents are concerned about species loss, habitat loss and the effect on the natural environment.
David Simmonds
Sucking fish into a nuclear reactor—what could possibly go wrong? That seems a good example of how, when the details of a project are analysed, there is a requirement for such measures. However, we have also looked at the issue of battery storage in connection with improving grid capacity, and the point has been made that ongoing appraisals of the nature of battery storage ensure that local authorities granting planning consent have fulfilled all their relevant environmental and health and safety duties when doing so.
It seems to me that, if a parliamentary Select Committee had looked at and taken into consideration such projects, it would be valuable for the Secretary of State to be required to respond, rather than being able to set that aside and having to seek to unpick the whole decision later as a result of judicial reviews brought because of the failure of a local authority to carry out its statutory obligations.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman raises another example of a failing that could have been addressed by parliamentary scrutiny.
Hon. Members may be wondering why I am referring to the acoustic fish deterrent, but the fact is that such concerns do matter to people, and people do care about species loss and habitat loss. A simple change in Government policy—for example, a ministerial speech changing Government guidance—could provide a pretext or a basis for a change to a national policy statement without any parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, if the NPS changed, EDF would be allowed to get rid of its acoustic fish deterrent, and there would be no further scrutiny on that basis, but that is not a good way to make policy.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people are also very concerned about the anaemic economic growth in the United Kingdom over the past 14 years, as well as the housing and energy crises, and that the Bill seeks to strike a balance between all these competing considerations? At the moment, we do not have a balance—the balance is against development—and we desperately need developments such as Hinkley that create brilliant, well-paid jobs, including for many young people in south-west England.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is right: many of my constituents appreciate the opportunities that the Hinkley development provides them. Perhaps he is right that the decision should be wafted into a quick policy statement and then whacked into the NPS, so EDF can get rid of its fish deterrent for the sake of economic growth and the jobs that he is talking about—but surely Parliament should have some say on these crucial questions of balance between economic objectives and objectives around the natural environment.
Matthew Pennycook
I am struggling to follow what the hon. Gentleman’s specific concern is. He keeps throwing out the after-dinner speech example; that would not meet the threshold for a reflective amendment through this route. If the Government have made a policy change that has been subject to consultation and scrutiny in this House—
Matthew Pennycook
Well, it would have to have been subject to consultation and scrutiny in this House in order to meet the criteria. We think that it is therefore reasonable to take it through in this manner. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is suggesting that there will be a complete absence of parliamentary scrutiny, and in that way is misleading the Committee regarding the effect of the clause.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to be able to get back to the clause. Clause 2(3)(d) of the Bill is clear that any published Government policy can be the basis for a change through this expedited route, which does not involve parliamentary scrutiny. As I explained earlier, court cases have held that a speech can be admitted as Government policy. There is another danger with this approach. It may be said that there will be only occasional changes. Were the clause restricted to where there have been legal judgments or thorough parliamentary debate, those of us on this side of the Committee would be more relaxed about the changes, but it is not; it covers all published Government policy.
One of the other dangers, besides quick changes in Government policy that would help particular projects, is a potential cumulative danger. There could be numerous changes to national policy statements through this minor amendments route, and anyone who thinks that that is unrealistic needs only to look at the cavernous website of the national planning practice guidance, which is voluminous, ever expanding and always changing. One of my concerns is that this process, through gradual attrition and minor changes, will degrade the importance of a national policy statement as a single statement that has been voted on in Parliament, rather than a mass of amendments over many years, on an ever expanding website of guidance.
If the Minister suggests that there is a very high test, clause 2(3)(d) says that the only test is that it is “published Government policy”. That is not a very high test for what can go through this expedited process.
David Simmonds
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is another risk? Ministers may set out that, in order for a particular project to be expedited, it needs to meet a series of tests. I think again of airport expansion; numerous Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box that a whole set of different tests on air quality and finance would need to be met before it could be approved. If we effectively set aside elements of parliamentary feedback, then Ministers, having announced that such tests would need to be met, could, in effect, retrospectively set aside that requirement in order to enable major infrastructure projects to go ahead, without having satisfied the kind of environmental and community concerns that the hon. Gentleman describes?
Gideon Amos
The hon. Member accurately highlights the point that I was trying to make in relation to the acoustic fish deterrent, where particular changes could be made through this new route to facilitate projects—changes that would not have had proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister may say that the provision would apply only to proper Government policy—real Government policy—such as the national planning policy framework, which I fully accept has had parliamentary scrutiny, but look at case law, such as Mead Realisations Ltd v. the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. In the Court of Appeal last year, Sir Keith Lindblom said that
“the legal status of the government’s planning policies in the NPPF and its guidance in the PPG is basically the same. No legal distinction exists between them...Their status is equivalent in the sense that both of them are statements of national policy”.
Clearly, Ministers and Secretaries of State can make a range of policy changes that could feature in, and become changes to, national policy statements. Through a cumulative process, an NPS could become degraded by a morass of detailed changes, and no longer have the strength and integrity that it requires. Crucially, it will not have benefited from parliamentary scrutiny. We intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman has already made it clear that he will press the amendment, but let me take one last opportunity to reassure Members on this point. We have to be clear what the current requirements entail: they do not require the Government to agree with a Select Committee report, if it is issued in a timely manner; they just require the Secretary of State to respond to resolutions made by Parliament or its Committees. Those resolutions can ultimately be set aside if the Government disagree.
As I said, we are not trying to remove wholesale parliamentary scrutiny or the ability of the public to engage and consult. All the changes that will come down this route, when it is appropriate and necessary to use, will have been scrutinised by Parliament and, in many cases, by public consultation on their own terms. However, we think that the removal of an aspect of parliamentary scrutiny is justified by the nature of changes that can be better reflected in policy within a national policy statement. We have had extensive engagement with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), and the relevant Select Committee Clerks on what guarantees we can provide, while removing this requirement, to ensure that there is still adequate parliamentary scrutiny when the procedure is used.
Finally, I want to bring home to Members what we think the change will allow. We estimate that, in many cases, the requirement to respond to resolutions, particularly in cases where a Select Committee’s response is not timely, adds at least three to six months to the process of updating a national policy statement. Given that we are talking about minor changes that are already policy and court decisions, we think that this is a necessary and proportionate means of ensuring that policy statements are up to date and that investors have confidence in the policy framework being applied. We therefore think that we can streamline the process, and will resist the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
The Planning Act 2008 provides a uniform approach to consenting, covering a wide range of sectors and types of development. However, this may not always be proportionate for specific developments. Clause 3 provides a new power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to disapply the requirement for development consent for specified developments that would otherwise fall under the NSIP regime. The clause contains several conditions governing when a direction may or may not be given by the Secretary of State, such as when a request for direction is needed, who may submit such a request, and what such a request may contain.
The Secretary of State may give a direction only if they consider it appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to apply to a specific development. This would mean that a development consent order is no longer required and that the development in question could instead be considered by an alternative appropriate consenting authority, bringing greater flexibility to the system of planning consent by ensuring that the appropriate regime is used, based on the specific circumstances at hand rather than on strict statutory definitions and thresholds. This will help to reduce burdens on applicants that may otherwise be disproportionate, and to develop a more streamlined and responsive decision-making process.
Let me make it clear to hon. Members what the current arrangements provide for. Section 35 of the Planning Act allows the Secretary of State to bring into the NSIP regime specified developments that do not come within the statutory meaning of a nationally significant infrastructure project. Clause 3 will provide similar flexibility but in the other direction, enabling more proportionate and efficient consenting processes. I can provide several examples of where such flexibility may be beneficial. A railway development may be within the scope of the Planning Act, but its impacts and benefits may be more local, and it may not require the compulsory acquisition of land. It might be more appropriate for such cases to be considered under the Transport and Works Act 1992 regime.
Similarly, other large developments often include multiple elements that need to be considered under different consenting regimes, leading to disproportionate work and costs in preparing multiple applications. For example, an access road that is secondary to the main development may require consent under the NSIP regime, while other elements of the development, such as housing, may fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime. Clause 3 will allow for a direction to be provided by the Secretary of State to enable the applicant to include the access road in the planning application under the Town and Country Planning Act route.
There have also been cases where it has been argued that a development close to exiting statutory thresholds could be more appropriately considered through other, more proportionate regimes. We have all heard the examples—I have heard them in many debates secured by hon. Members—and they were highlighted again in our planning reform working paper. There are many examples of solar developments that have been deliberately kept just below the Planning Act threshold of 50 MW to avoid coming within the NSIP regime. We committed to increasing the statutory threshold for solar developments to 100 MW in December 2024, but as the technology continues to improve, similar issues may occur in the future, and other examples could emerge in other fields.
The current arrangement has resulted in the clustering of developments just below the NSIP threshold and less energy being generated overall, undermining our work to strengthen this country’s energy security. The clause provides far more flexibility at local level so that, even under the new arrangements, an applicant who wants to bring forward a 120 MW solar application need not be deterred by the nature of the present NSIP system being slow and uncertain, which we are taking steps to address. They will be able to divide their application into, say, four different applications within the TCPA regime if they have a constructive and pro-development council that they feel they can work with. That would be a faster route to getting a decision on their application, as the clause allows them to apply to the Secretary of State to make a redirection into an alternative consenting regime.
David Simmonds
How does the Minister propose that this measure will address boundary issues? It is not uncommon for a significant construction project to be located in one local authority while the access road, as he described, is in another local authority. Particularly where a section 106 benefit is derived from a development that is taking place, the consenting authority will undertake those negotiations, so clearly it will be necessary to have taken that into account. Can he indicate how such an approach will be built in, so that everyone has an assurance that that will be fully dealt with?
Matthew Pennycook
It will be for the Secretary of State to consider applicants’ requests when they are made. They will issue their policy on redirection decisions, and issue guidance for clarity about precisely how the process will operate in certain circumstances. The access road example that I gave the hon. Gentleman is a good one. In that type of scenario, there is a very strong case for an access road application not to go through the full NSIP regime, particularly if the applicant in question is dealing with a local authority that is well skilled and well resourced, and that they feel is able to better deal with the application in a more timely fashion. They can apply to the Secretary of State to make such a redirection, but we will issue guidance on specifically how the power could be used.
David Simmonds
May I press the Minister a little further on that? I am thinking of the Southall gasworks site, a very large housing development on a former gasworks site in London. The only possible access route to facilitate the development involved constructing a bridge from the London borough of Hillingdon, where none of that development took place, into the borough of Ealing.
Clearly, one of the issues there is that the large scale of housing being delivered is of benefit to Ealing, since it goes against its housing target. The section 106 yield also goes to Ealing as it is the consenting planning authority. However, the loss is that an access road has to be driven through a nature reserve and leisure facility in the neighbouring local authority.
I am just keen to understand how the clause will be used. When the decisions sit with two separate local authorities in normal due process, one of which has a lot more at stake and the other a lot more to lose, how will the Secretary of State be able to balance them so that local residents—constituents—can be assured that their concerns are taken into account?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I want to be very clear about the circumstances in which this measure can be used. As he will appreciate, I will not comment on a specific application, for reasons he will well understand, but, in such a scenario, I struggle to see how that application could feasibly come within the NSIP regime process at all. It sounds like a straight-down-the-line application that would be made by the applicant, across two local authorities, through the Town and Country Planning Act regime.
What the clause seeks to do is ensure that, in cases where, due to the nature of the development, the only route to go down is the NSIP regime via a development consent order, an applicant can apply to have that application determined in a different consenting order if it will lead to a faster, more proportionate and more effective decision-making process. As I say, it will therefore be for the Secretary of State to consider the unique circumstances and impacts of any specific development so that the consenting of certain developments can be undertaken by whatever body the applicant appealing to the Secretary of State says is the more appropriate route. In most instances, I would assume that that would be the local planning authority, but I gave the example of the Transport and Works Acts regime for roads.
We are trying to get at the type of examples where developments need limited consents or may not need compulsory acquisition—in a sense, when the one-stop-shop nature of the NSIP regime may not be the most proportionate means to take that through. The redirection under the clause will not be appropriate for all developments, and, for a direction to be given, the Secretary of State must consider that it is appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to apply rather than the Planning Act.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the Minister for giving way. Has his Department done any analysis of how many requests the Government are likely to get under the clause, and how many applications will want to change how they are determined?
Matthew Pennycook
I think the thrust of the hon. Member’s question was about a numerical analysis. No, we cannot account for the behavioural change that would come if this clause is enacted. What we do know, from significant engagement with stakeholders in the infrastructure sector, is that lots of applicants would make use of the redirection route and are eager to do so.
The examples I have heard from particular major economic infrastructure providers are where, as I say, they have a constructive and healthy working relationship with a local authority that they are confident is resourced and able to take the decision to approve or reject an application in a timely manner and they do not want to have to take it through the NSIP regime, which is currently their only route.
As I said, section 35 already allows the Secretary of State to pull applications from other regimes into the NSIP regime. This will work the other way, and just provides a necessary flexibility. The point of clause 3, though, is to ensure that any given applicant can make a case to the Secretary of State to go into the regime that they feel is the most appropriate and proportionate for the application in question.
Lewis Cocking
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I just want to press him a little more. He is saying that people can choose to go through the Town and Country Planning Act regime, but we were always told by this Government that that is a long, arduous process that developments take a really long time to go through. Why are they suggesting that they might want to put more development through that process if, as they are saying, it is not working?
Matthew Pennycook
The Government are agnostic on which route a developer will wish to go down. As I say, developers will have to apply to the Secretary of State and make a case that, in the specific circumstances in which they are operating, there should be an alternative consenting route. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are making significant efforts to speed up and streamline the town and country planning regime. From previous debates, I know that he takes issue with some of that, but if he has had a conversion, I would very much welcome it.
Paul Holmes
The Opposition generally support what the Minister said. We want to speed up of these applications and give people a better choice in securing the developments that we require. However, we have some concerns and questions, which I hope the Minister will take in the spirit in which they are intended; I am looking to support the clause, not looking to make hay or create issues for him—would you believe it?
The introduction of the idea that the Secretary of State may disapply the requirement for development consent raises some concerns about the potential diminishing of that planning process and the vesting of too much power in Government Ministers. The Minister will understand that the Opposition are concerned about the wording of the provision with regard to when the Secretary of State can use this power. That probably needs to be strengthened, or at least there needs to be a strengthening of the relevant frameworks and parameters.
Two possible cases in which the powers could be used have been outlined, and the Minister helpfully outlined some examples, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. We will not press the clause to a vote, but I would be grateful if the Minister could write to the Committee about whether he and his officials would consider strengthening the parameters relating to where the power could be used. I hope that he does not think that too unreasonable.
Proposed new section 35D provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the timetable for deciding requests and about the provision of information to the Secretary of State. This may be my naivety or it may be that I have not read the right paragraph—I am perfectly willing to accept that I am not perfect, as many of my colleagues will say—but why are those provisions not on the face of the Bill? As the Committee continues this process over the next few weeks, will the Minister try to bring some clarity on that new section?
We do not disagree with the clause. We have some concerns about transparency, but generally we welcome the Minister’s aspirations to speed up these decisions and speed up the process that he has outlined.
Gideon Amos
Without wanting to shock the Minister too much, I rise to support the clause. The Liberal Democrats want measures that will help to facilitate net zero and other developments, and the clause will provide an opportunity for many decisions to go into the Town and Country Planning Act regime, which is local, is accountable and involves local planning committees. That shows that this does not necessarily need to be a slower process; it could at times be a quicker process with more local involvement. I have been involved in NSIP projects that could have gone through that process but in fact came through the Planning Act 2008 regime. Direction under the proposed new section could be very helpful in ensuring more local processing of planning applications.
Matthew Pennycook
I am slightly taken aback by the supportive comment from the hon. Gentleman, but I very much welcome it.
Before I make my main point, it may be helpful if I give hon. Members another example of the types of alternative consenting routes that may be considered more appropriate. We spoke about the Town and Country Planning Act and the Transport and Works Act regimes. Offshore generating stations are another good example. If they are wholly offshore, responsibility for electricity consent functions under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 may be more appropriately transferred to the Marine Management Organisation under section 12 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009—again, rather than the NSIP regime. We will provide further detail, through guidance, about all the regimes that it will be considered appropriate to use in relation to this power.
I gave hon. Members assurances on the fact that we will work across Government to prepare and publish policy that will provide clarity about the Secretary of State’s considerations when determining requests for redirection of a project. As I said, we will also issue guidance that makes the process clear. However, I am more than happy, in response to the shadow Minister’s point, to write to the Committee to set out in more detail how we think this process will work. That will include responding to his specific point on proposed new section 35D—
David Simmonds
It would be helpful if, when the Minister produces that response, he could also set out for the Committee how the processes in place will ensure consistency of decision making. As he described, some local authorities may be more pro in a particular area, or less so. There is a need to ensure transparency that a given nature of development and a given scale will be dealt with in a consistent manner.
Can the Minister tell us whether any consideration has been given to any time constraints? I am just mindful of the fact that one issue that certainly occurs in local authorities and potentially in central Government is that if the end of a Parliament, a general election, is coming up, there is a risk of developers thinking, “At this point, I’m more likely to get the Minister to sign things off if I go down this route or that route,” regardless of the merits, on a planning basis, of the individual projects that are being put forward. Can we be assured that that will be properly addressed so that we do not see development being constrained by an imminent election or, indeed, advanced without due process because of an imminent election?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that entirely reasonable question. It would certainly be our intention, in preparing and publishing policy, to provide clarity. As I said on the Secretary of State’s considerations when determining requests for redirection of a project, we would hope that guidance absolutely provides certainty and clarity. It will not help the Government’s objectives through the Bill if applicants and investors are not clear about how this process works.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s other point, about clarification of the timelines for how the process could be used, I recognise the concern, but I again remind him that it will be for the Secretary of State to make a decision only on whether an alternative consenting regime can be used. It will be through the normal processes of whatever consenting regime is used, if such a redirection is allowed, that a decision will be made on the material considerations at play in any given application; it will not be for the Secretary of State to decide. This is merely a power to allow, as I said, an applicant to redirect an application into an alternative consenting regime from the NSIP planning process through the Planning Act 2008. On that basis—
David Simmonds
May I press the Minister a little more on that point? I understand and thank him for the clarity that he has brought. As he set out, one purpose of the change is to ensure greater certainty for investors and applicants about the process. We are all very aware that planning issues can often become quite significant local political issues as well.
How will the regime avoid a situation where, with an election in the not-too-distant future, there is a political trade-off that involves a Government, a Minister or a candidate saying, “If we win the election, we are going to push it down this route” in order to try to produce outcome A, versus “We think we should push it down an alternative route” in order to produce a different outcome through the planning process? How can we make sure that it is sufficiently insulated from that political turmoil to ensure certainty?
The Chair
Order. I remind the Committee that we need to get through quite a lot of stuff. The Minister has already said that he will write to the Committee, so I urge Members to press on. I know that these are very important matters, but the Minister has already said that he is going to write.
Matthew Pennycook
Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. Those of us on the Government Benches will certainly take that stricture into account and limit the length of our contributions. On the specific point, I must say, in all candour, that I struggle to foresee how the dynamics that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined will operate. It is not for the Government to make a judgment on any particular application that a developer may wish to make. It is not the Government’s position to take a view on which consenting regime would be most appropriate, other than on which will produce the most timely and proportionate determination of an application. It will be for the applicant to decide in writing to the Secretary of State, and to make a request to use an alternative consenting regime.
All the Secretary of State will do is decide whether the circumstances at play are such that there is a good case for an alternative to the NSIP regime to be used in a given scenario. As I say, we will set out in policy and guidance more detail about the regimes to which we think this alternative can apply and how we foresee the redirection power being used. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Applications for development consent: consultation
Matthew Pennycook
I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 4, page 8, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment is consequential on NC44.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 58.
Clause stand part.
Government motion to transfer clause 4.
Clause 5 stand part.
Government amendments 60 to 67.
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Government new clause 44—Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements.
Government new clause 45—Applications for development consent: changes related to section (Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements).
Matthew Pennycook
As hon. Members will be aware, last week the Government announced that we will reform the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure projects to remove the statutory requirement for applicants to consult. Although the Government are committed to consultation and the value that early and constructive engagement plays in developing high-quality infrastructure schemes, feedback on Second Reading and since the Bill’s introduction has shown that the status quo is not working. Evidence indicates that the statutory requirements, which are unique to the NSIP regime and not found in any other planning consenting regime, are now creating perverse incentives.
Rather than driving better outcomes and improving infrastructure applications, statutory pre-application procedures have become a tick-box exercise that encourages risk aversion and gold plating. The result is that communities suffer from consultation fatigue and confusion, with them having to cope with longer, ever-more technical and less accessible documentation. The arrangement also actively disincentivises improvements to applications, even if they are in the local community’s interests, because applicants worry that any change will require further repeat consultation and added delay to the process.
As the Deputy Prime Minister and I set out on Second Reading, we would not hesitate to act boldly if a compelling case for change was made, to ensure that the NSIP regime is firing on all cylinders to deliver on our ambition for building the homes and infrastructure needed to grow our economy.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Does the Minister, like me, recall the evidence we heard last week from the chair of the National Infrastructure Commission? A report written by the organisation in 2023 said that one of the reasons for the extravagant delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects was “disproportionate consultation”. My constituents are acutely aware of that issue because they have had to wait more than 15 years for the lower Thames crossing to be consented, partly as a result of the very disproportionate consultation that Sir John Armitt referred to. Does the Minister agree that the clauses and amendments he is proposing will provide a significant change to the speed at which NSIPs take place, which will benefit those who are currently suffering as a result of the lack of infrastructure in their area?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I completely agree with him. The system was set up with very specific objectives in mind. It was created initially without a role for Ministers. That was addressed by the Localism Act 2011, but the statutory pre-consultation requirements were kept in place on the basis that they were helping to improve applications prior to submission. However, according to lots of the evidence we have received in response to our working paper on the subject, the feedback from external stakeholders and the calls on Second Reading for us to look again at this specific area, the statutory requirements are now driving perverse and often bad outcomes, including for the communities affected by them.
Last week, I made a written ministerial statement explaining the changes that the Government intend to make. We are tabling a clean package of amendments to implement these reforms through the Bill. The amendments fall into three broad categories.
First, new clause 44 will remove the relevant sections of the Planning Act to give this change effect. That includes removing the sections that require applicants to consult local authorities, landowners, statutory consultees and local communities before submitting applications for development consent. It will also remove from the Act definitions for those groups.
Gideon Amos
This set of amendments is, at first sight, very sweeping and broad, as it will remove large sections of the Planning Act 2008. However, we have some sympathy with the Government. Provisions were put into the Act to proscribe dangerous commissioners who might make decisions without proper scrutiny. Given that the decisions reverted to the Secretary of State in 2011, it seems that a number of them may not be needed.
None the less, it is important to ensure that consultation is meaningful and of high quality. In place of the Planning Act provisions, we want a consultation test on the face of the Bill; if the machinery of the Committee so allows, we would like to table an amendment along those lines. If there is no test at all for meaningful consultation in NSIPs, these amendments would simply remove a great number of requirements for consultation without putting anything in their place. We should be moving from a set of sections in the Act that are about the mechanics of consultation to a qualitative test: consultation should be meaningful, and people should have had the opportunity to be consulted.
We would like to see the key principles in the guidance on the face of the Bill. That is the spirit in which we will respond to the amendments. We hope to be able to bring forward proposals for the Committee to consider.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, as I should have said earlier. There are three reasons why I, too, have concerns about new clauses 44 and 45 and the removal of the requirement for pre-application consultation.
First, pre-application consultation is often a very useful process, as a way of highlighting and addressing issues between developers and other stakeholders before we get to the formal, structured, legalistic processes. There was a case in Suffolk in which engagement between the Wildlife Trust and National Grid resulted in the trust’s concerns being addressed in such a way that they did not have to be raised in a more legalistic way later in the process. Pre-application consultation is useful and productive for all parties. It is not for developers to decide whether pre-application consultation will be useful in a particular case, but there should be a statutory requirement for key stakeholders, such as local authorities, to be consulted in that way.
My second concern is that the replacement guidance requirements set out in new clause 45 do not provide sufficient clarity for developers, communities and other stakeholders, or for the Planning Inspectorate, on what pre-application engagement is required specifically, because the wording is too vague to provide sufficient clarity. “Have regard to” is a relatively weak duty, while
“what the Secretary of State considers to be best practice in terms of the steps they might take”
is very vague language. It would be open to interpretation and potentially to contestation, which could be unhelpful to speeding up the process in the way we seek.
My third concern, notwithstanding individual examples of processes that might have been held up, is that generally speaking pre-application consultation and public engagement is not the main constraint on the rapid processing of such applications. I understand that research conducted by Cavendish in 2024 looked at DCO consent times from 2011 to 2023. It found that for the first 70 projects going through the DCO process up until 2017, the response time was pretty reasonable. What changed in 2017? It was not the pre-application consultation requirements, which remained the same throughout the process.
Political chaos is what caused the change. Cavendish’s report identifies that it was political turmoil and manoeuvring that caused delays to happen once projects reached the Secretary of State’s desk—I see my Conservative colleague, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, nodding. Who was in government at that time? We had the turnover of Prime Ministers, Ministers and so forth. Bearing all that in mind—the fact that pre-application consultation is a very useful way of deconflicting issues of contestation, the fact that the replacement guidance is so vague as to be unhelpful and itself probably subject to test, and the fact that this is the wrong solution to the problem of delays—I am concerned.
John Grady
I am grateful. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.
Is the hon. Member disagreeing with the evidence that we heard from Catherine Howard, one of the most eminent planning lawyers in the United Kingdom? Catherine Howard said:
“We cannot magic up more comms consultants, lawyers, environmental impact assessment consultants and planning consultants in that period, so we desperately need a way to apply those professionals most efficiently in a really focused way across all the projects we need.”
She then went on to talk about the pre-app process, which has gone up from 14 months to 27 months:
“I suspect it is even longer now…The pre-app is always something I feel I have to apologise for and explain, and give the best story about how quick it might be”.––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 24 April 2025; c. 67, Q86.]
She explained that investors welcome this change. The pre-application process, in the mind of investors who want to invest in clean energy projects that lower carbon emissions and other critical infrastructure, is a very material source of delays, according to that witness.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would observe that generally speaking the way oral evidence sessions work is that the Government decide who they want to come and give evidence to support the arguments that they wish to put forward in Committee, so I am not all that surprised that we might have heard that evidence. I am not discounting what the witness said, but I am suggesting that there are other ways to look at it. A blanket removal of the pre-app consultation process with stakeholders who have a huge stake in applications, such as local authorities, is an excessively blanket position to take.
Gideon Amos
Would the hon. Member support a test in the Bill of the quality of the consultation carried out, in place of the mechanistic requirements in the previous Act? They do not actually exist in the Town and Country Planning Act, for example, and normal planning processes.
Ellie Chowns
Indeed, and I noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments about bringing forward a proposal about meaningful consultation. I would very much welcome looking at that. I think that would help to address the concerns being raised here.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I note the hon. Member’s comments about how the Government arrange the witness sessions, but surely she would not dispute the point about the increasing delays in the pre-application process from 14 months to 27 months. That is a serious issue. The Fens reservoir spent more than 1,000 days in pre-application. The National Grid’s application for Bramford to Twinstead spent 717 days in pre-application for just an overhead line and underground cables covering less than 30 km. Hinkley Point C spent three years in pre-app. Sizewell C spent seven and a half years in pre-app. The hon. Member cannot possibly be suggesting that pre-application is not an issue.
Ellie Chowns
I addressed those points in my comments. I am not disputing the fact that there are individual cases in which huge amounts of time have been spent. In response to the comments from the hon. Member for Glasgow East, I am not dismissing the evidence from the witness he referred to, but I have offered evidence from a report that looked at the whole spectrum of applications from 2011 onwards, which says that the representation of nature and community in pre-application requirements is not the underlying causal problem.
These issues are really complex. There is always a tendency to pick a particular example where the situation has clearly been problematic. I am not disputing the fact that some change may be needed. My argument is that it seems excessive to bring in a blanket policy and shift the pendulum too far away from the opportunity to use the pre-application consultation process to resolve issues that might clog up the process later on, because the requirement for meaningful consultation has been removed. Planning applications will always be contested, but these measures take it too far and sweep aside the rights of communities and organisations representing nature to have their voices heard, as well as the opportunity to resolve conflicts before they reach a legalistic stage.
Jim Dickson
Is the hon. Member aware that Cavendish, the organisation that produced the report, is a company that undertakes consultations? It might just be in its interest to make the case that consultation is not at fault for the delays. Does she agree that the five separate consultations over 15 years that were required—or not required, in my view—for the lower Thames crossing were excessive?
Ellie Chowns
I am aware that Cavendish is a consultancy company. It is perfectly reasonable to make that observation. Most people—I mean, pretty much anyone—who will ever give evidence or produce a report will have some sort of interest. We are not saying that anyone who works in the planning system in any way cannot have a viewpoint that is objective, evidence-based and so forth. There are clear examples of processes that have got stuck. I am concerned not only about unsticking the planning process, but about the proposal to let the pendulum swing too far away from the opportunity to have meaningful pre-application consultation that could be more effective than waiting until things bang up against each other further on in the process.
Ellie Chowns
I am happy to take as many interventions as hon. Members want to make, but I am concerned about the timing, Mrs Hobhouse.
Ellie Chowns
If Members feel that they have additional things to raise, they should feel free to speak.
Nesil Caliskan
I was rising to make my speech, Mrs Hobhouse, not to intervene; I apologise. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
A crucial component of the ability to deliver homes across the country will be to deliver transport and other infrastructure projects. The measures in the Bill go some way towards speeding up the statutory processes of consultation in the delivery of infrastructure projects. As I outlined in my speech on Second Reading, the pre-consultation period for infrastructure projects is a major cause of delay for infrastructure being delivered. To echo the Minister’s remarks, the status quo in this country is simply not working to speed up the process.
As matters stand, applicants operate in what I describe as a hyper-risk-averse context. Delays caused to pre-application contribute not only to the length of time that it takes for infrastructure to be delivered, but to the cost. Other Members rightly identified the lower Thames crossing, which impacts my constituency; 2,000 pages and £800 million spent are figures that have served absolutely no one, and certainly not the taxpayer.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Lady not agree that getting rid of the pre-planning application consultation completely will disenfranchise residents and constituents from engaging with the process? Sometimes that process can solve some of the issues down the line. I understand that it takes too long—I agree with and have strong sympathy for her points—but should we not be able to speed it up while allowing that engagement to take place?
Nesil Caliskan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not think that the change would prevent applicants from continuing to engage with residents and elected Members. All it would do is avoid putting additional onus on a process that is costing the taxpayer a huge amount of money.
I will go further. Having spoken to members of our community, I have heard over and over again that there is consultation fatigue with the endless stream of negotiations. Before we even get to a statutory consultation period, we have had many years of something that has been proposed with no statutory framework. This proposal has the good intention of a material change that will shorten the consultation period.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way as she makes an interesting and good speech based on her expertise in local government. I pay tribute to her for that. She outlined how there can be delays in pre-application. Does she not accept that that very length of time shows that there are issues to be resolved? Does she understand why some people are concerned that the proposals to remove that pre-application process place the onus on applicants to conduct the consultation, and without any safeguards? Potentially, residents and residents groups, constituents and local organisations, such as wildlife trusts will go without their genuine concerns being met by a system that now puts an onus on the people who want planning applications to go ahead.
Nesil Caliskan
I do not accept that, because the statutory consultation period will still be in place and thresholds will still have to be met. The reality is that, as things stand, the pre-consultation period has become a beast in itself, which I do not believe is serving our communities. Years and years of endless consultations, including pre-consultations and pre-application consultations, is not true engagement with communities. That part of the process has become a period in which the applicants just try to derisk their approach to crucial infrastructure in this country, which will see land unlocked so that homes can be built.
Ellie Chowns
I do not think that anybody wants “years and years” of contest, but is it impossible to retain the requirement for a degree of pre-application consultation—perhaps within a shorter timescale or with a more tightly drawn set of consultees—so that issues can be dealt with informally and in advance, to prevent more problems arising further down the line? To sweep everything away seems excessive.
Nesil Caliskan
Manifestly, we do not want years of delay before the delivery of infrastructure, but the truth is that that is exactly what is happening in this country. There are years and years of delay, in part because of the pre-application consultation period.
There is nothing preventing applicants and local authorities, or communities and organisations, from working pre-application on the sort of engagement that the hon. Member is referring to, but including it in the proposals in this way would heighten the legal risk for applicants, making them very resistant to submitting their application formally before going through every single possible step. As hon. Members have highlighted, there is a very long list of examples where the status quo has created a huge burden, made the processes incredibly long and cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money. I think I recall the Minister saying that the proposed amendment would save up to about 12 months and £1 billion, which could be the difference between an infrastructure project being viable or not being viable. Infrastructure projects being viable will mean the land value will increase, and the potential for land to be unlocked and millions of homes to be built across the country will be realised.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I am intervening on a different but still very much related point. What is also really important for me is that we remain attractive as a country to foreign investors and others who are looking to invest here, including in the infrastructure that enables our country to grow and creates jobs. It is important that investors want to come and invest here. The longer the process or the greater the burden, the less likely they are to invest here, and we will lose out to other places across the globe. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to tackle that issue?
Nesil Caliskan
I am so glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because that was precisely the point I was going to make and he has made it incredibly well. If we are serious about building homes across the country and about seeing the growth that investment in infrastructure, not least in transport infrastructure, will deliver, we absolutely have to give industry certainty. We have to be able to say to the public, “This will happen with speed.” The amendment seeks to deliver that and it is absolutely in line with the aspiration to speed up the planning process in this country, which at the moment is holding back investment, and to unlock land for development and infrastructure investment.
David Simmonds
I have a lot of sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and for North Herefordshire. I appreciate that the clause was tabled quite late, and the evidence that we heard last week was mixed. The National Infrastructure Commission gave us its views on the impact of pre-application consultation, and local authority representatives who are responsible for that section of the planning system’s decision making said that they have quite significant concerns.
The Opposition have sympathy with what the Government are trying to achieve, but it seems to me that, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined, we need to look at alternatives. It may be that a regime of deemed consent is a mechanism we could use to speed up elements of the process, or perhaps altering how we set out the requirements of pre-app consultation.
I know that you have extensive experience in local government, Mrs Hobhouse, and you will be aware that, as a matter of law, Parliament has set numerous obligations on local authorities in respect of the quasi-judicial process that they follow in planning, and numerous other obligations in respect of what they do for their communities. The pre-application process is a means drawing out, before a major application is made, how the impacts may play out.
I can draw a good recent example from personal experience. The Chancellor, at the Dispatch Box, said that Heathrow expansion, and airport expansion more generally, would be enabled because sustainable aviation fuel would reduce emissions. It is true that sustainable aviation fuel mandates reduce the overall lifetime emissions from a given quantity of aviation fuel, but they do not reduce the level of pollution at the tailpipe of the aircraft at all. So when we look at Heathrow airport, it does not matter whether the fuel burned there is sustainable aviation fuel or conventional aviation fuel; emissions within the locality, which are what give rise to the legal obligations on the local authority regarding air quality, remain the same. It is not a solution. When a developer proposes to create a solar farm, a battery storage area or a nuclear power station—or any kind of major infrastructure—the pre-application process gives the local authority an opportunity to begin to understand which of its legal obligations may be engaged by the application.
I am conscious of the experience that the hon. Member for Barking described, illustrating the need to streamline the process as much as possible, but clearly, as several hon. Members have said, the major risk of that is that a developer comes along and sets out an ambition for a development, and residents are consulted and their response is, “In general—in principle—that sounds okay, but what will the impact on us be? Do we understand that from what the developer is putting forward?”
Luke Murphy
It is useful to reflect on what Cavendish Consulting said in responding to these proposals:
“Removing a lot of the tick box requirements of a statutory consultation opens up an opportunity to be a lot more strategic and insight led in the pre-application communications, moving away from the security of ‘this is how we’ve done it before to get accepted’ to ‘what does this project and this community need’.”
The changes being proposed could be much more beneficial in removing the tick-box exercise and focusing on what communities need.
David Simmonds
I understand the point the hon. Member makes, but part of me thinks, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” For a business whose profits come from expediting the grant of planning consent as much as possible, removing potential obstacles to that is important.
However, as has been outlined in many of the examples that we have debated, there can be crucial points of detail that either would make all the difference to the level of consent and support in the local community for a project, or would engage other legal obligations that Parliament has placed on the local authorities, either to carry out an impact assessment—an evaluation of what that will mean—or, in some cases, to engage with that process to oppose the development taking place, because it contradicts other legal obligations placed on the authority by Parliament in respect of environment, health or whatever it may be. Clearly, we need to ensure that there is a functional process.
Lewis Cocking
Does my hon. Friend agree that removing the pre-planning application consultation entirely places too much trust in developers? Sometimes developers build absolute rubbish. I do not want them to spend too much money on something that does not have some sort of community support, or support from Government agencies. The Bill could jeopardise that, if we remove the consultation completely.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend puts it probably more bluntly than I have, but he is absolutely spot on. I know he has an enormous amount of experience in local government negotiating around exactly these kinds of points.
Matthew Pennycook
I want to tease out a point here, because one of the reasons the Government are confident that the change will lead to beneficial outcomes is that high-quality engagement and consultation routinely takes place in other planning regimes that do not have statutory pre-application requirements. Why do Opposition Members think that their removal, which will equalise all planning consent regimes so that statutory pre-application requirements are not at play, is damaging in this instance? In the TCPA and the types of residential application they are talking about, bad engagement happens, but high-quality consultation and engagement happen too, and residents and other stakeholders get their say post-submission.
David Simmonds
I think that most of us who have been on a planning committee, as the Minister has, probably recognise that, if anything, to satisfy the concerns of our constituents we should be going further with the consultation on small applications, rather than reducing it in larger ways. We are debating developments that will have an enormous community impact, and there are often important points of detail that influence the level of consent.
We have had multiple debates in this and the previous Parliament about the loss of high-quality agricultural land to solar farms, for example. It is quite likely that a community, if it fully understands exactly how a developer will mitigate that impact, will come around to supporting such a development; but if the community is simply faced with, “Here is the planning application. We have made it already. Take it or leave it,” there is a risk from not allowing the opportunity for the level of consent to be built up. That will in turn encourage, and in the case of local authorities’ statutory obligations, force, the exploration of other legal routes of objection to prevent the application proceeding.
While I understand what the Minister is saying, like the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, we will use the opportunity given by the provisions being tabled relatively late in the day to explore alternative methods by which concerns can be addressed. It seems to us fundamental that if a major application is made, those who are affected by it should have the opportunity in advance to learn what it means for them, their community and their home, and should not simply be told that the planning application has been made.
There is a world of difference between a planning application that means, “Your house is going to be demolished in order for something to proceed,” and a planning application that indicates a much less significant impact. It is those kinds of issues that need to be teased out; that is what the pre-application discussions and consultations are there for. We encourage the Government to think about a different, more nuanced way to address fully the concerns that have been expressed cross-party, although in slightly different ways.
Paul Holmes
The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be making a very long speech. I will briefly comment on some of the clauses before the Committee, and elaborate on some of the genuine points that Members on both sides of the Committee have made. I am grateful that the Minister tabled these new clauses, albeit quite late in the day, to give us some clarity, but they actually do not give any clarity on the proposals for the removal of the consultation, particularly new clauses 44 and 45.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and others, I too have chaired a planning committee. I genuinely believe that pre-applications can be very useful. If a community or organisations in a geographic locality have genuine concerns, the pre-application stage can make the passage of planning applications and planning permissions smoother by unblocking some of those concerns, and deliver a better planning application or infrastructure project. A number of colleagues, including the Minister and the hon. Member for Basingstoke, said that this and the length of time the stage takes is a block. I agree with them, but does not mean that it needs to be removed entirely. It means that we should work to ensure that the pre-application stage is better and more efficient.
I am concerned that, if we go down this road and remove pre-application requirements, we will have worse applications and store up longer term blockages when genuine concerns are not met. The Minister outlined the money and time saved, but we will see both start to creep up again or other issues arise. The hon. Member for Basingstoke gave examples of problems. I understand he is an expert in his field but I say to him strongly that solutions can be found. The solution is not necessarily to eradicate completely a provision that is designed to mitigate overwhelming grassroot concerns.
I apologise to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for thinking she was a Liberal Democrat Member. She is a Green, which is absolutely fine—I would never wish being a Liberal Democrat on anyone. [Laughter.] No offence to the Liberal Democrats, but it is rare for me to agree with either party. I am grateful for her speech, as she is clearly an expert. It was genuine and heartfelt, and came at the problem with an attitude shared by me and my colleagues.
As I said to the hon. Member for Basingstoke and the Minister, we all accept that the processes are too long, but we do not believe we are in a position where people want to do bad. My concern, shared by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, is that if we go down the proposed route, applicants and developers will end up having overarching power over local people who want to raise concerns. In my view we are giving developers too much power and the pendulum is swinging too far that way. The Minister’s view is that developers genuinely want to make a difference 100% of the time. There is a difference in approach, so I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for her speech.
I ask the Minister to look again at this matter and produce a guidance regime. [Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that there will be guidance. We believe that that needs to be strengthened in the Bill. Completely removing the pre-application consultation stages, as the Minster outlined, is a retrograde step; it will put too much power in the hands of developers, and will silence those who are not nimbys but who genuinely want to achieve the best solutions for their local communities. These measures go too far and need to be looked at again. I shall be grateful if the Minister comes back to the Committee and the House having reconsidered them.
Ordered That the debate be now adjourned.— (Gen Kitchen.)
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government amendment 58.
Clause stand part.
Government motion to transfer clause 4.
Clause 5 stand part.
Government amendments 60 to 67.
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Government new clause 44—Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements.
Government new clause 45—Applications for development consent: changes related to section (Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements).
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. In the last sitting, we discussed the various clauses and Government amendments in this group, and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their considered engagement with them. The proposed changes we are considering are, without question, a significant evolution of the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime, and it is entirely right and proper that they are subject to intensive scrutiny.
As the Committee is aware, I set out the Government’s position on this matter in considerable detail in my written ministerial statement from 23 April. I therefore intend to focus my remarks on providing useful further points of clarification about the rationale for the proposed reforms and how we see the system operating once they have been made.
In her remarks, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire conceded that the NSIP process can take a long time, but she implied that the problem was merely confined to individual applications. The Government disagree. From our perspective, the problem that these and other changes in this chapter are intended to remedy are systemic. The status quo is not working, and all too often it is burdensome to applicants and consultees alike.
We know that the performance of the NSIP regime as a whole has deteriorated sharply over recent years. We know that pre-application periods have, on average, nearly doubled since 2013, increasing from over 14 months to nearly 28 months in 2021. As much as Labour Members welcome any and every reminder of the chaos unleashed under recent Conservative Administrations, I do not believe that the deterioration we are discussing can be attributed to the uncertainty that the post-2016 period engendered.
The evidence clearly points to the fact that inefficiencies in the NSIP system, both structural and cultural, are driving delays and high costs. We heard examples this morning of the fact that the documentation underpinning consents has been getting longer, and in too many instances now runs to tens of thousands of pages. Part of the reason is that the statutory and prescriptive nature of the pre-application requirements—I again remind the Committee that they are absent from other planning regimes, including those used for applications for new housing—are driving perverse outcomes.
It is precisely because the requirements are statutory that applicants fear that falling short of them will see their project rejected further down the line, or leave them exposed to judicial review. As we have discussed, the result is that projects are slowed down as developers undertake ever more rounds of consultation and produce greater amounts of documentation to ensure that the requirements are met. Sensible improvements are deterred because applicants worry that they will require further rounds of consultation to insulate them from challenge.
In short, as I argued in the previous sitting, the dynamics of the system are actively encouraging risk aversion and gold-plating and are compelling applicants to go above and beyond what may be required in law, rather than merely ensuring that an application is acceptable in planning terms. Because the root of the problem is the statutory nature of the requirements, it is worth noting that the same behavioural incentives would be in play if we reinserted into the Bill precise statutory criteria for what constitutes effective consultation, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington suggested we should.
In his contribution, the shadow Minister argued that we should focus on improving rather than removing the statutory requirements in question. However, he overlooked the fact that the NSIP action plan, published by the previous Government in February 2023, contained a range of reforms designed to drive more effective and proportionate approaches to consultation and engagement, including new cost-recoverable pre-application services for applicants at the Planning Inspectorate, and revised and strengthened pre-application guidance.
While those steps were welcome, and this Government are seeking to embed new services and cost-recovery mechanisms, the feedback we have received from a wide range of stakeholders suggests that they will not deliver the necessary step change needed to tackle risk aversion and gold-plating. It is the dynamic that has arisen as a result of the very existence of the statutory pre-application requirements in question that is hampering their nominal purpose of producing better outcomes, and the present arrangements are driving up costs not only for developers, but for the bill payers and taxpayers we all represent.
The Government are in complete agreement with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire that early, meaningful and constructive engagement with those affected, including local authorities, statutory consultees, landowners and local communities, often leads to better schemes, greater local benefits and improved mitigation. We still want and expect the NSIP regime to function on the basis of a front-loaded approach in which development proposals are thoroughly scoped and refined prior to being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. As part of that process, we still want and expect high-quality, early, meaningful and constructive engagement to take place and for positive changes to be made to applications. However, we want and expect it to take place without the downsides that the current statutory requirements are causing.
Removing the statutory requirements in question does not signify that pre-submission consultation and high-quality engagement is no longer important. Statutory guidance that the Government will be required to produce will encourage such pre-application engagement and consultation, but with applicants given the flexibility to carry it out in the way that they consider best for their proposed development, in accordance with that guidance.
Equally as importantly, the system will still reward high-quality engagement and consultation. The Planning Inspectorate will continue to assess whether applications are suitable to proceed to examination. We expect guidance to emphasise that without adequate engagement and consultation, applications are unlikely to be able to do so. Guidance and advice from the Planning Inspectorate will be aimed at helping applicants demonstrate that they are of a satisfactory standard in terms of meeting that process.
Ultimately, all communities will still be able to have their voices heard, whether that is through objecting outright to applications or providing evidence of adverse impacts through the post-submission examination process, which all applications obviously still need to go through.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I do not demur from much of what the Minister says about the provisions. To go back to his remarks about the delays not being caused solely by the chaos under the previous Government, is it not a fact that during the last few years of the Conservative Government, the delays at the decision stage, which is meant to be three months, rocketed?
The regime, which began as one in which every section of it respected the deadlines, became one in which every section respected the deadlines with the exception of the Secretary of State. The intention of those drafting the Planning Act 2008 was that, in such circumstances, a report to Parliament by the Secretary of State when delaying the decision would serve as a disincentive on the Secretary of State for doing so. That clearly has not happened. Will the Minister reflect on whether any other measures could be taken to eliminate the delays caused by Secretaries of State making decisions on NSIPs in future?
Matthew Pennycook
It is certainly the case that it is not only in the pre-submission phase where slippages in timeframes have occurred. The hon. Member makes a valid point about the fact that we have seen a pattern in some Departments of Secretaries of State not making timely decisions. This Government have sought to improve upon the past performance. We are already doing so, but I am open to ideas on how we might tighten the process. The Government are giving further thought to the general matter of how consents are taken through Departments.
To conclude, the changes proposed will make a significant contribution to speeding up and streamlining the consenting process for critical infrastructure, and we are convinced that in many cases they will produce better outcomes than the status quo. I therefore urge the Committee to support them.
Amendment 57 agreed to.
Amendment made: 58, in clause 4, page 8, line 32, leave out subsection (3).—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment is consequential on NC44.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That clause 4 be transferred to the end of line 32 on page 12. —(Matthew Pennycook.)
Clause 5 disagreed to.
Clause 6
Applications for development consent: acceptance stage
Amendments made: 60, in clause 6, page 10, line 4, leave out “follows” and insert
“set out in subsections (2) to (13)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 68.
Amendment 61, in clause 6, page 10, line 25, after “Secretary of State” insert “and others”.
This amendment is consequential on subsection (5)(d) of NC45.
Amendment 62, in clause 6, page 11, line 4, leave out from “satisfying” to “and” in line 6 and insert
“section 48 (duty to publicise),”.
This amendment is consequential on NC44.
Amendment 63, in clause 6, page 11, leave out lines 12 to 14.
This amendment is consequential on NC44.
Amendment 64, in clause 6, page 11, line 16, leave out “50” and insert “50(1)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 63.
Amendment 65, in clause 6, page 11, leave out lines 17 to 20.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 63.
Amendment 66, in clause 6, page 11, line 21, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
“(9) Omit subsection (5).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 64.
Amendment 67, in clause 6, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(14) In consequence of the amendments in subsections (7)(c) and (10), omit section 137(3) and (4) of the Localism Act 2011.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This technical amendment omits provisions of the Localism Act 2011 that are no longer required (because of changes made by clause 6 of the Bill).
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Planning Act 2008: legal challenges
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 8 streamlines the judicial review process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The changes apply to legal challenges against decisions on development consent orders and national policy statements. At the moment, individuals wanting to bring challenges against nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as nuclear plants, railway lines, wind farms and other projects, have up to three attempts to try to obtain permission from the courts. As noted by Lord Banner’s independent review last year into the delays caused by these legal challenges, each attempt extends the duration of a claim by several weeks, and in some cases, by several months.
The clause will remove the paper permission stage, meaning that applications for judicial review will go straight to an oral hearing in the High Court. The clause will also remove the right to appeal for cases that are deemed totally without merit at the oral hearing, which becomes the only attempt for these cases. The Government are committed to maintaining access to justice, which is why the right of appeal will remain for cases that are refused permission at the oral hearing, but that are not deemed totally without merit. The changes are a necessary means of preventing meritless claims from holding up development by exhausting the appeals process and of ensuring that legitimate legal challenges are heard promptly. I commend the clause to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. We touched on the issue of remedy earlier today. A local authority, for example, may have a statutory obligation placed on it by a piece of legislation, which means that it has an obligation to take an interest in a particular development, including potentially judicially reviewing that application, if the impact runs contrary to its other statutory obligations.
We are well aware of issues relating to air quality, but there are also organisations such as ClientEarth, which many of us will have heard of. Essentially, their stock in trade is to look for opportunities to address broader issues around, for example, climate change and environmental impact by using what, in some cases, are arguably loopholes, but in many cases, are essentially contradictions in legislation.
The Minister talked earlier about a shift from having statutory pre-application processes to having guidance that would need to be followed. Clearly, one of the issues is that guidance can be challenged, and bodies that have a responsibility to follow the guidance can be challenged as to whether they have fulfilled their obligation to the letter.
Opposition Members certainly have concerns about the implications of removing the right to judicial review. We share the view that we need to ensure that those processes—those applications—are not frivolous and that they are not being used simply because the cost of responding to judicial review, and the delay that is involved, is a tool to create delay, impose costs and therefore deter development, which we all agree should take place. Conversely, however, we do not wish to see a situation where a public body or a local resident—a constituent—who has a genuine right to be heard and a genuine concern arising out of law is constrained from bringing the matter forward and seeking a remedy.
We also do not want a situation where, for example, a decision by Government, which is then taken through this process and restricted from judicial review, results in a third party, such as a local authority or NHS body, being judicially reviewed for its failure to stop that from proceeding—for its failure to bring a judicial review under other responsibilities that it has. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that.
Statutory consultees already have many legal obligations and duties relating to issues such as water quality, air quality and nature. They are obliged to go to the utmost of their powers to fulfil those obligations. Clearly, they may well be held in default if a development proceeds by virtue of the fact that they have not had the opportunity to appropriately challenge it in law. It would be helpful if the Minister set out how that will be fully addressed.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reasonable questions. If I have understood him, he makes a separate point about the statutory consultee system. As he will know—I refer him to my relevant written ministerial statement—we are seeking to reform that system in a number of ways.
On clause 8 specifically, the changes will not affect the ability to challenge the lawfulness of Government decisions in court. They are simply designed to reduce delays. We are not preventing anyone from challenging our planning decisions. Obviously, Government do not control how many of those challenges are made. We are tightening up the process so that if a challenge is judged to be meritless by the court—not by Government—it cannot be dragged on for years through numerous further appeals.
Only cases deemed totally without merit in the oral permission hearing in the High Court will be prevented from appealing to the Court of Appeal. Other cases will continue to be able to appeal the refusal of permission to the Court of Appeal. That will ensure that there is no possibility of meritless claims holding up nationally significant infrastructure projects, while maintaining access to justice in line with our domestic and international obligations.
I hope that the hon. Member is reassured that we are not removing wholesale the ability to mount judicial review challenges. Some have called for us to go further, but we think the proposals strike the right balance between addressing the removal of the paper permission stage and dealing with the issue of meritless claims. On that basis, I hope that he is reassured and may even feel inclined to support the measure.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Notwith-standing the comments from my fellow shadow Minister, who made an excellent contribution, can I press the Minister on one question? My hon. Friend outlined the Opposition’s concern over removing wholesale—we are not saying that the Minister is doing this—the checks and balances relating to somebody being able to challenge a decision that they deem has not been taken in the right way.
However, it would be remiss of us as a party not to acknowledge that there are cases where JR is used vexatiously. To use an example from my constituency, I waited for 12 years to get a 300-foot extension to Southampton airport’s runway. It took three judicial reviews before we finally got that through. There was unmitigated support from the local authority and me as the Member of Parliament at the time, and it was taken to JR for what I would say were very dubious reasons, just to try to delay the project.
I understand why the Minister is bringing in the measures, notwithstanding some of the concerns that my hon. Friend mentioned about the balance. However, I am reassured by what the Minister said about not removing the ability to challenge and tightening the process around what can be accepted as being without merit.
I have one question for the Minister, which he may not be able to answer today—I would not necessarily expect him to—but perhaps he could write to me about it. Following Lord Banner’s work, which was a thoughtful examination of how legal challenges could be streamlined, has the Minister made any assessments, through officials or the Department, of how much time or cost on average the changes to clause 8 might mean for the system overall? I am not expecting him to get his abacus out and look at that now, but I wonder whether he could outline to the Committee, through an impact assessment, the effect of some of the changes.
We will not push this clause to a Division. We understand the principled reason why the Minister is bringing it forward, even if we have some concern about the detail of the measure.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. This clause and the other clauses in this chapter are good news for Scotland, because we in Scotland depend on projects in England to proceed. Many projects are cross-border and need consent in both countries. That is important for jobs, particularly jobs for young people.
I have had the misfortune to be involved in infrastructure projects for many years. From time to time judicial reviews without any merit are brought solely to delay and frustrate projects. It is right and proper that the law is changed to make it clear that, once the High Court has made a decision, following argument—because the right to an oral hearing is retained—further appeals are prevented. Such appeals can lead to significant delays, depending on the business of the Court of the Appeal, which has many pressing priorities.
Some mention was made of costs. I will briefly describe the cost to developers, because the Labour party is a pro-business, pro-environment party. If someone has a development that is subject to a judicial review, they have planned their contracting strategy, and what it will cost to build the development, and their financing. If there is an indeterminate delay, and a series of additional delays of unpredictable length—as a lawyer, I could never tell people how long litigation would take—they are then exposed to significant fluctuations in the financial and commodities markets. There are therefore real costs, so I naturally support clause 8. The clause, along with the rest of the package of reforms to the development consent order regime, will create the opportunity for significant additional employment in Scotland, jobs for our young people, and great net zero and housing projects.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, for his constructive tone on this clause—and others; I do not mean to confine his constructive attitude to just this clause. I welcome his praise for Lord Banner’s review, which I agree was thoughtful and insightful. As part of that review Lord Banner made it clear that although the duration differs between different applications, each attempt to apply for a judicial review currently extends the duration of a claim by, on average, several weeks, and in some cases by several months. In large numbers of cases, time is added by legal challenges that are unsuccessful. The changes made by the Bill aim to strike the right balance between improving efficiency and ensuring access to justice.
To be clear, this clause does remove the paper permission stage, but only makes changes by removing the right to appeal for cases that are deemed “totally without merit”. Other cases will retain that right of appeal if they are deemed to be with merit and able to be considered. We think these changes will make a difference to the time that projects take to work their way through the system, and we will work with the judiciary to advance a number of other changes to the process for NSIP judicial reviews, such as introducing target timescales for cases that we think will have a beneficial impact. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 9
Connections to electricity network: licence and other modifications
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 9, page 14, line 6, after “distribution system” insert
“(and such an improvement may include changing the order in which connections are made)”.
This amendment clarifies that the purpose for which the power under clause 9(1) may be exercised may include the making of changes to the order of the queue for connections to a transmission or distribution system.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 37 to 40.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 10 and 11 stand part.
New clause 19—Increasing grid capacity—
The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a plan to—
(a) reduce the cost of, and time taken to make, connections to the transmission or distribution system;
(b) permit local energy grids.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a plan to reduce the time and financial cost of connections to the electricity grid and to allow local energy grids.
Michael Shanks
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Twigg. We thought a change in the tone of the Committee for a few clauses would be helpful, before we return to the other Minister.
Amendment 36 clarifies that a modification made under clause 9 may include changes to the order of the queue for connections, which works towards the broader aim of improving the management of connections to the transmission and distribution systems. The purpose of all this work is to reorder the connections queue. That is essential to deal with the extreme level of oversubscription in the queue, and enable a move from the “first come, first served” proposition that we have at the moment to a “first ready and needed, first connected” approach. The amendment is essential to fulfil the intent of the clauses, which is to provide the means to implement connections reform should the current Ofgem and industry-led process face delays or be unable to realise its benefits in full.
Amendment 37 clarifies that the power of the Secretary of State to direct Ofgem to modify a licence or agreement may be exercised only for the purpose of improving the management of connections to the transmission or distribution system, which places an additional safeguard on the use of that power. Amendment 38 clarifies that the Secretary of State or Ofgem may modify an agreement under the powers in clause 9 even where the effect of the modification might amount to a repudiation of the agreement, which provides consistency with the existing wording in clause 12. It is also essential to fulfil the intent of the clauses. Finally, amendments 39 and 40, which are purely consequential on amendment 38, move the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” within clause 9.
I turn to clause 9 more broadly. As many Members will know, the current first come, first served electricity grid connections regime is causing considerable and unacceptable delays. It is blocking clean power projects from connecting to the grid, and blocking demand projects that are critical to our economic growth as a country. The National Energy System Operator—NESO—and Ofgem are reforming the electricity grid connections process to a strategically aligned first ready, first connected system. The reformed process will require projects to meet readiness, technological and locational criteria to progress.
The reform requires complex amendments to codes and licences. Clause 9 therefore enables the Secretary of State or Ofgem to support the existing connections reforms by directly amending electricity licences, and associated documents or agreements, should that prove necessary. It is intended to be used should the existing processes enacting connections reforms face significant delays, including alignment with strategic energy plans. The Government or Ofgem will then be able to expedite a set of changes outside the standard process to ensure that our clean power mission is delivered at pace. The clause is focused on improving the management of connections to the transmission or distribution system, and follows precedent in being time-limited to three years after commencement of the power on Royal Assent. Similar powers have been taken in the past, including in section 84 of the Energy Act 2008, but they were also time-limited and are therefore no longer in force.
Clause 10 details the scope of the power in clause 9, which enables the Secretary of State or Ofgem to make amendments to electricity licences and associated documents or agreements. The clause first defines the power to modify in clause 9, which includes the ability to amend, add to or remove provisions, and to add or release parties from agreements. It will enable the Secretary of State or Ofgem to support Ofgem and NESO’s existing connections reforms by directly amending electricity licences, and associated documents or agreements, should that prove necessary.
The clause further details how the Secretary of State or Ofgem can exercise the power, which includes allowing for general or specific modifications, incidental changes and provisions that do not necessarily relate to the activities authorised by the licence. It ensures that modifications to standard licence conditions are reflected in future licences, and specifies the conditions under which licences can be revoked. Finally, it allows agreements to include conditions that must be met before the taking of specific steps, or provision about the procedure for varying the agreement. Similar scope and procedure have been outlined previously in legislation, including in the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act 2022.
Clause 11 details the procedure around the provision in clause 9 to enable the Secretary of State or Ofgem to make amendments to electricity licences and associated documents. It aligns with the precedent established in section 8 of the 2022 Act, which detailed the procedure to modify a generation licence of a relevant licensee nuclear company. The clause obligates the Secretary of State or Ofgem—I am not sure how many more times I will say that in this speech—to consult a list of specified persons, such as the holder of any relevant licences, NESO and any other appropriate individuals, before making modifications. Details of those modifications must be made public as soon as reasonably practicable to ensure transparency with wider stakeholders. However, the Secretary of State or Ofgem can exclude from the publication any information that could harm commercial interests.
I will respond on new clause 19 after it has been spoken to.
John Grady
I rise simply to add my support to this provision. There is an extensive requirement to develop the electricity generation industry in Scotland and England, and this will give rise to great long-term jobs and apprenticeships for young people, as well as move us on to cheaper, secure, lower-carbon energy.
Such queues have been a long-standing issue in the electricity industry, as any developer will tell you, and half the time it is absolutely impossible to know when their project will be connected. That is no basis on which to attract the significant investment we need in our industry in this country, because developers can go to other jurisdictions and get much quicker connections.
This reform has been carefully put together by the ministerial team and Ofgem. The Minister for Energy has addressed the issue, and the reform is to be applauded. It may seem a rather arid and dry topic, but ultimately the reform is of significant benefit to industry in the United Kingdom.
Paul Holmes
What I have to say about these clauses will not be arduous, partly because I am not a shadow Energy Minister—as many Members will be pleased to note, including me—and my focus will be on the planning amendments. This is, however, a very important part of the Bill.
The Minister said he keeps mentioning “Ofgem and the Secretary of State”, but if he would like us to helpfully have a word with the Prime Minister to recommend that he becomes the Secretary of State, we are more than happy to do so. The Opposition believe that even he, as the Under-Secretary, could not do as much damage to our energy system networks and future growth as the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). [Interruption.] It is a policy disagreement.
This is a policy disagreement because, looking at the proposals in these clauses, we are very concerned. We obviously agree that the grid needs to be ready to connect to, because of the demands being placed on the system, and that is the policy of this Government and of the last. However, the focus of the current Secretary of State in really going down the route of the net zero agenda at what we would describe as a very fast speed, sometimes cutting off his nose to spite his face such as by cutting back on some of the energy systems we currently have, has put overwhelming demand on the energy grid.
The Government’s proposed decarbonising of the grid by 2030 will add at least £25 billion per year to the cost of the electricity system. The brunt of this increase will be felt by the people out there, who will see their household energy bill shoot up by over £900. Professor Gordon Hughes, the leading energy system expert, has found that these plans will increase power generation costs, grid balancing and capacity levels, thereby passing on those costs to our constituents.
The costs of balancing the grid alone are set to rise by £4 billion. Despite that, the Government have scrapped the full system cost review commissioned by the last Government. The current Administration are steaming ahead without a clear understanding of the impact on the energy bills of hard-working people—the energy bills they promised to freeze—on their families and on the industry’s competitiveness. Decarbonising the grid requires transparency on costs, not just soundbites about renewables, which I believe is what we have seen.
The Government have also watered down the proposed community benefits of new energy infrastructure, which they lauded before the press a couple of weeks ago, to just £750 per person.
Paul Holmes
From a sedentary position, the Minister says, “Just”, under his breath. It was not me who went to the BBC and leaked a report saying that the Government were going to give more money than they are now proposing; that has been reduced by his amendment, so, yes—“just”.
Furthermore, the Government have abandoned a number of reforms, including a review of the presumption in favour of overhead lines, stronger protection for prime agricultural land against large solar developments, and enhanced safety measures for battery storage facilities. Expanding and improving the electricity system is necessary, but it must be done in a way that balances affordability, reliability and community concerns. We are concerned that the clauses in the Bill remove this transparency and add costs, but will not deliver the streamlined or more rapid benefits to the system that the Minister outlined.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I rise to speak to new clause 19. First, the Liberal Democrat members of this Committee support a lot of what the Government are proposing in this part of the Bill. Creating electricity grids of the future is a critical route to decarbonising and has the potential to reduce consumer bills.
It is much to the UK’s credit that we are making good progress in efforts to decarbonise our electricity generation. Wind and solar in particular account for a growing share of our power generation. However, the transition from one-way transmission of electricity from a small number of very large power stations to a more distributed and multi-directional movement of power creates some challenges. We are going to need major upgrades of our electricity grid to accommodate the growing number of solar installations, as an example, more of which my hon. Friends and I would like to see on new and existing buildings. Making further progress will help our national energy security and reduce consumer bills at a time when energy inflation and the cost of living are still significant problems.
There are examples where cost and/or process have acted as barriers to the ability to feed surplus solar energy into the grid, or to the commissioning of new clean and renewable electricity production. Local energy grids have the potential to benefit communities and use the energy much closer to its source of generation. Therefore our proposed new clause would go further than the Government in the current Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to, within three months of the passing of this Bill, lay before Parliament a plan for how the Government will facilitate the creation of local energy grids and deal with the cost and time of grid connections. I hope the Minister and hon. Members on the Government Benches will embrace this amendment as a way to help continue our country’s journey towards becoming a clean, renewable energy superpower.
Michael Shanks
I will first respond to a few points in the debate generally. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East—across the Clyde from my constituency—made the absolutely right point that sums up what this connections reform process is all about: the absence of reforming the queue is driving away investment. Reform is critical for investment in our generation capacity and for how we connect demand projects that will be so important for unlocking economic growth. With more than 750 gigawatts currently in the queue to connect in the UK, the truth is there is no scope for that to happen without some radical reform of the queue. The Conservative party, when in government, recognised that that was a challenge and had already set about some reforms to make that happen.
We think we need to go even further. The shadow Minister, in a ray of honesty, said he was glad he was not the shadow Energy Minister. Based on the script on net zero, I think we are all fortunate that he is not the shadow Energy Minister, frankly, but it is the same script we are hearing from everyone at the moment.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Might it not be that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley is embarrassed by his party on net zero? After all, on 17 January he said:
“I will conclude—many will be pleased to hear—by reaffirming the Conservative party’s strong commitment to the UK’s target of reaching net zero by 2050”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 650.]—
only for that to be scrapped by his leader exactly two months later.
Michael Shanks
There is always a quote, as they say, and my hon. Friend is always there with the quotes at his fingertips, which is helpful. The truth is that the only way we are going to bring down bills and deliver energy security is the sprint to clean power. This is a crucial element of that, and of how we unlock investment—predominantly private investment—over the next few years as we build that clean power system. Even if we were not doing that, the grid is essential. It is an essential part of how we deliver electricity to homes, businesses and industry and it is critical that we upgrade it anyway.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Minister talks about energy security and bringing down bills, and of course we need to have more renewables online to do that, but we also need to issue new oil and gas licences so that we can produce more energy at home. That would help with what he is suggesting.
Michael Shanks
We are straying far from new clause 19, which I am keen to return to, but the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong on that point. Gas traded on the international market is exactly why all our constituents pay more on their energy bills. The answer is to get off gas as the marginal price setter, not to have even more of it.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington made a helpful speech, although I will resist his new clause. We are in agreement about the issue of connection delays and the first come, first served process not working, and it is important that we reform that. We are of the view that our proposals do that, and the National Energy System Operator has worked with Ofgem and is of the view they are sufficient to do that.
The question of local power and local grids is an interesting approach that we are looking at. We take seriously the role of community-owned power—it is in the Great British Energy Bill, recognising our commitment to it—but we do not see it in itself as a barrier to what we are trying to do here. The infrastructure, including for local networks, that incorporates generation and demand is already permitted under the existing system. It can be constructed and operated by distribution network operators, by independent network operators or by a private wire under a statutory licence exemption provision.
We agree about the importance of community energy and are looking at a range of things, in particular at how communities might to sell power locally. They are all important points, and all this is how we will unlock the social and economic benefits of the clean power transition. For the reasons I have outlined, and because we think it is already entirely possible, we will resist new clause 19.
Gideon Amos
People in Taunton and Wellington are four-square behind new clause 19, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage who spoke to it.
Michael Shanks
I betray my lack of English geography. I am sorry, but I assume that the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for Didcot and Wantage are both in complete agreement with new clause 19. In any event, I thank them, but disagree with them both, instead of just one of them. I commend Government amendments 36 to 40 and clauses 9 to 11 to the Committee.
Amendment 36 agreed to.
Amendments made: 37, in clause 9, page 14, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may exercise the power under subsection (3) only for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2).”
The amendment makes it clear that the power of the Secretary of State to direct the GEMA to modify a licence or agreement may only be exercised for the purpose of improving the purpose of managing connections to the transmission or distribution system.
Amendment 38, in clause 9, page 14, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) A relevant authority may under subsection (1) modify an agreement mentioned in subsection (1)(e) or a qualifying distribution agreement even if the effect of the modification might amount to a repudiation of the agreement.”
This amendment ensures consistency with clause 12(8) in clarifying that modifications made to a particular connection or distribution agreement under clause 9(1) may be made even if the effect of the modification might amount to the repudiation of that agreement.
Amendment 39, in clause 9, page 14, line 16, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment, together with amendment 40 moves the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” into subsection (7); this change is consequential on amendment 38.
Amendment 40, in clause 9, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
“‘qualifying distribution agreement’ means—
(a) the terms subject to which a connection is made by an electricity distributor in pursuance of section 16(1) of the Electricity Act 1989, or
(b) a special connection agreement as defined by section 22(1) of that Act;”.—(Michael Shanks.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 39.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Directions to modify connection agreements
Michael Shanks
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 12, page 16, line 8, leave out subsection (1).
The effect of this amendment is that a relevant authority may give a direction under clause 12 without first having exercised its powers under clause 9(1) to modify an electricity licence or an electricity industry code.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 42 to 47.
Clause stand part.
Michael Shanks
Government amendment 41 will allow the Secretary of State or Ofgem to direct the NESO or a distribution network operator to amend an agreement under the clause without the need to have previously modified licences, codes and associated documents under clause 9. Without the amendment, the Secretary of State would not be able to use the power to direct the National Energy System Operator or a DNO had not the modification powers in clause 9 —to make changes to licences, codes and associated documents—also been exercised. The amendment will mean that the directive power in clause 12 is no longer contingent on the use of the powers in clause 9.
An example of where the amendment would be needed is if an Ofgem and NESO-led process to amend licences and codes under the framework is successful, meaning that the powers in clause 9 do not need to be used, but the NESO or DNO has not accordingly amended its agreements with customers connecting to the electricity network. The directive powers could be used to ensure that the implementation of connections reform is successful.
David Simmonds
I have a couple of questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has set out, we are broadly supportive of the direction of travel around energy in the Bill.
One of the things we are all conscious of with the move to renewables being the main source of power in the grid—something that the UK has achieved faster than most other countries, with a bigger drop compared with the 1990 baseline than any other developed economy —is that it makes the grid more complex. Unlike oil, gas and nuclear, which can be delivered in an entirely predictable manner, renewables are generally much less predictable. There are times when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, and we cannot therefore put that element into the grid. We need to find alternative methods so we need to be able to shift greater amounts of power around to meet the growing energy needs.
As the Minister has outlined, the regime that is envisaged will, for a limited period of time, give greater powers to the Government to determine who gets connected and in which order. First, will the Minister set out how he and the Government intend to feed back to Parliament what we learn from that process, to inform the future shape of our energy grid?
Secondly, what recourse will there be for those at a certain point in the queue who anticipate that their development, whatever it may be, will be served by a particular project and connected at a particular point, if the Government decide otherwise because the reordering of the queue is, in the Minister’s view, necessary? We all understand why that may happen, but if someone is about to invest in a major new carbon capture and storage facility—the sort of major infrastructure project that the Bill is designed to support—and they expect it to be powered by a wind farm but are then told they have been moved much further down the queue than they expected, that will affect the delivery of that project. It would be helpful to understand the process whereby those affected by the reordering of the queue are able to challenge the decision, if necessary, and certainly to engage with the Government, or with constituency MPs, who may seek to advocate for them, so that the reordering can be revisited if necessary.
Michael Shanks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those helpful questions. He rightly set out the fact that the grid is already considerably more complex than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and it will become more complex, which is partly why the reform of connections is so important.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the process of prioritising projects will mean that some will be deprioritised. We have looked at the projects that already have a connection date, and in many cases they will proceed. Viable generation projects above the capacity ranges outlined in the clean power action plan—the first strategic document that will be used to guide projects—might still be able to connect if there is capacity in that particular bit of the DNO after the prioritised projects have been assessed. If there is no space in the pre-2030 queue, they will be offered dates in the 2031-35 process.
We have been clear throughout that the process has not been arbitrary or theoretical. Ofgem and NESO have gone through individual applications that are currently in the process to make sure not only that they fit with the requirements of the clean power action plan but that projects are not unnecessarily disadvantaged. Some projects will go ahead even though they are not in the strategic plan, because where they already are in the grid will make it possible for them to go ahead.
The question of transparency is really important. I will come back to the Committee with details on how we might make the information public, but throughout the process Ofgem and NESO have made public as much information as possible about how they have gone about things, and there was a full public consultation as well. The point about how individual MPs can see whether projects in their constituency are affected is well made and I will take that away and reflect on it.
The critical fact, as the previous Government rightly recognised, is that 750-plus GW is simply unmanageable. Really good projects are sitting with dates long into the future but cannot connect because of what are often phantom projects that are never going to come to fruition and are holding up spaces in the queue. For all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined in terms of the importance of energy security, and the importance of prioritising the queue, we think that the Government amendments and the clause are essential.
Amendment 41 agreed to.
Amendments made: 42, in clause 12, page 16, line 17, leave out
“as mentioned in subsection (1)(c)”
and insert
“in accordance with the conditions of an electricity licence”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 41.
Amendment 43, in clause 12, page 16, line 22, after “distribution system” insert
“(and such an improvement may include changing the order in which connections are made)”.
This amendment clarifies that the purpose for which a direction may be given under clause 12 may include the making of changes to the order of the queue for connections to a transmission or distribution system.
Amendment 44, in clause 12, page 16, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“( ) A direction under subsection (2) must describe the kinds of modification to be made by the person to whom it is given.”
This amendment inserts a new subsection which would mean that a direction made by the Secretary of State or the GEMA to the ISOP or an electricity distributor to modify an agreement must describe the kinds of modification required.
Amendment 45, in clause 12, page 16, line 38, at end insert—
“(7A) Before giving a direction under subsection (2), the relevant authority must consult—
(a) the person to whom it proposes to give the direction, and
(b) such other persons as the relevant authority considers appropriate.
(7B) Subsection (7A) may be satisfied by consultation carried out before the passing of this Act (as well as by consultation carried out after that time).
(7C) A relevant authority must publish details of any direction it gives under subsection (2) as soon as reasonably practicable after the direction is given.
(7D) A relevant authority may exclude from publication under subsection (7C) any information the publication of which would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person.”
This amendment requires a relevant authority to carry out consultation before giving a direction under clause 12. It also requires a relevant authority to publish any direction it gives under the clause.
Amendment 46, in clause 12, page 16, line 41, at end insert—
“(8A) The power to give a direction under subsection (2) may not be exercised after the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”
This amendment ensures that the power to give a direction under clause 12 is time-limited in the same way as the power to make modifications to licences and other documents under clause 9.
Amendment 47, in clause 12, page 17, line 10, at end insert—
“(11) In Schedule 6A to the Electricity Act 1989 (provisions imposing obligations enforceable as relevant requirements)—
(a) in paragraph 4A (electricity system operator), after sub-paragraph (c) insert—
‘(d) section 12(8) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (duty to comply with direction under section 12 of that Act).’;
(b) in paragraph 5 (distribution licence holders), after sub-paragraph (g) insert—
‘(h) section 12(8) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (duty to comply with direction under section 12 of that Act).’”—(Michael Shanks.)
This amendment amends Schedule 6A to the Electricity Act 1989 in order to provide for enforcement of the duty to comply with a direction given under clause 12.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Managing connections to the network: strategic plans etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
Clause 13 will require NESO and the DNOs to have regard to strategic plans designated by the Secretary of State when they carry out functions related to connections. The Secretary of State will designate one or more strategic plans, with the current intention that this will include the clean power 2030 action plan in the first instance and the strategic spatial energy plan going forward. There is precedent in imposing a duty on a body to have regard to a strategic document—for example, the designated strategy and policy statement under section 165 of the Energy Act 2023, which outlines the Government’s strategic priorities, policy outcomes, and the roles and responsibilities of those involved in implementing energy policy.
Let me turn to the detail of the objects set out in the clause. It amends part 5 of the Energy Act 2023 to include a duty for NESO to have regard to designated strategic plans. It also amends the Electricity Act 1989 to place a duty on DNOs to have regard to any designated strategic plan, and adds a further exception to the duty on DNOs to connect in cases where it would not be in accordance with the designated strategic plans. The clause will support the implementation of ongoing connections reforms led by NESO and Ofgem, and will provide guidance and support for NESO and DNOs in making decisions on issuing new connection offers. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
The Minister has been clear in outlining how the clause relates to the previous clauses, and how he wants to overwhelmingly reform the electricity system. I do not see the clause as particularly controversial; it moves on from what he has previously described. Despite my previous speech—I have nothing against the Minister—the Opposition obviously want to be constructive where we possibly can be. The clause is simple and enables the process to carry on, and we will not contest it.
Gideon Amos
I endorse the clause on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, given that it lays out plans rather than an unplanned approach. Provided that interested parties have an opportunity to scrutinise those plans and be involved in them, we also support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Consents for generating stations and overhead lines: applications
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 14, page 18, line 36, after “application.” insert—
“(4) Any fees received by the Scottish Ministers under sub-paragraph (2)(d) may only be used to fund—
(a) consumer benefits packages, or
(b) local planning authorities.”
This amendment would ensure that fees collected by Scottish Ministers through applications can only be used for connected purposes, namely for consumer benefits or to support local authority planning departments.
The amendment was tabled in the name of the shadow Scotland Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The Opposition absolutely understand the provisions of clause 14, and we broadly agree with it, but we think it could be strengthened to allow added scrutiny and consultation among those who will be most affected by some of the changes in the Bill, including members of the public and interested parties who will be affected by applications that go forward.
I have had a number of interactions with the Minister for Housing and Planning in Delegated Legislation Committees and on the Floor of the House about the Government’s moves towards planning fee reform. I know we are currently scrutinising the Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but we support planning fee reform and the Government’s move to ringfence fees within local authorities. Amendment 80 seeks to do something along those lines with regard to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Scottish Ministers.
Michael Shanks
Normally, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine is my sparring partner in both the Scotland and energy spaces, so it is nice that he has made an appearance in this debate, but I disagree with his amendment. The main reason is that it concerns a devolved competence. This is a UK Government Bill and it is right, given that the resource of local planning decisions and planning authorities is devolved to Scottish Ministers, that they make the decision on how they resource statutory consultees and local planning authorities.
On the point about community benefits, the Scottish Government already have an established process. The 10-year onshore wind ban in England was not in place in Scotland, and the process of good practice for community benefits for onshore wind, for example, is already quite well developed. Processes are in place. Over the past 12 months, developers have offered more than £30 million in community benefits.
We are, of course, exploring all options and the Bill includes bill discounts for network infrastructure—we will come to that shortly—but we are open to much more on community benefits generally, because we agree that if communities are hosting nationally important infrastructure, they should benefit, as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley rightly said. However, for the reasons I have outlined—this is a devolved competence and not a matter for me as a UK Government Minister—we hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I completely understand where the Minister is coming from. He does not want to tread on the toes of devolved Administrations. I thought he might be more encouraged to do so, considering that the Scottish Government are run by the Scottish National party, which is not doing a very good job at the moment. However, I also understand that he may not want to give them any more money to screw up the job that they are doing.
Paul Holmes
Good—we have some consensus across the Committee. However, the Minister should not be fearful about giving those Ministers greater powers in this respect. We are trying to enable a greater amount of money to be devolved to the local authorities that are going to be directly responsible for ensuring community benefits from community infrastructure for the people who elect them. The Minister has said throughout our discussions that it is important to be transparent and to be able to resource some of the radical reform he is making. He should not be fearful—
Michael Shanks
I do not disagree with a single thing that the hon. Gentleman has just said, but it is not for me to dictate to the Scottish Government. They are democratically elected, and as much as I may disagree with much of what they do, they are none the less the Government of Scotland, and if they want to ringfence funding for a particular part of the process, they should be able to do so. In particular, diverting any funding away from the more speedy processing of planning applications would not be in the interests of the projects we want taken forwards. It is not that I disagree with him, but this is a devolved competence.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that, and I agree with him that it is a devolved competence—that is a fact—but he could be giving Scottish Ministers and constituents in Scotland a present by allowing the Government to make those decisions.
It is not just that the Government could be taking money from Scottish Ministers and giving it to local authorities under proposed new subsection (4)(a), but there is scope in the amendment for Scottish Ministers—the devolved Ministers—to be given the power to allocate consumer benefits packages where they think fit. That is strengthening the hand of devolved Ministers, not taking anything away from them. [Interruption.] The Minister says, “It doesn’t stop them.” No, but this would strengthen their hand. I think that giving devolved Ministers the power to give consumer benefits packages to Scottish people who are affected by infrastructure is a good thing.
I am not the intellectual powerhouse of the House of Commons, but even I can calculate that we would not win if we pushed this to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 14, page 18, line 36, at end insert—
“Consultation requirements (Scotland)
1B (1) Where an application is made to the Scottish Ministers for consent under section 36 or 37, the Scottish Ministers must provide for the holding of a public consultation.
(2) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make provision about the holding of consultations.
(3) Regulations may include—
(a) the length of consultation periods in urban and rural areas;
(b) requirements on applicants to publish the projected local economic benefits and other specified information in advance of a consultation;
(c) requirements on applicants to respond to or demonstrate consideration of submissions to consultations.”
The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend for—
Paul Holmes
The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross). Just as the Minister is not an expert on the south coast, I am not an expert on Scottish constituencies, particularly as they all changed their names at the last boundary review.
This simple amendment would introduce additional consultation requirements. It is in a similar vein to amendment 81, which, with your permission, Mr Twigg, I intend to move later. It would enable community and public consultations when an application goes forward. As I said in the last debate, I do not think it is unreasonable that, when an application is put forward, members of the public should have a public consultation to hear about the perceived benefits and to challenge the organisations trying to bring forward infrastructure projects. We must also accept that consultations can take effect in a number of ways, based on whether the infrastructure is being built in rural or urban areas.
This is a simple amendment that seeks to make sure that, when an application goes forward, Scottish Ministers have the powers that the Minister has outlined to ensure there is a public consultation, so that the people on the ground who are genuinely affected by such infrastructure projects have a say and see the transparency that we hope the Bill will put in place.
Michael Shanks
Amendment 84, tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), concerns public consultations under sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. It is worth making it clear that the planning systems of Scotland and of England and Wales are very different, and the starting points are very different.
The 1989 Act—which we will come to shortly, in relation to the necessary updates to consents more widely—provides for the process of notification and objection at the application stage. This is very different from aspects of the planning regulations in England and Wales, in that there are already opportunities for consultations, but clause 14 creates a further power to make regulations to set out such matters relating to applications for consent, including a pre-application consultation requirement. That requirement will be set out in regulations rather than in primary legislation, but its purpose is to ensure that the application is proportionate, adaptable and future-proofed.
As much as I politically disagree with the incumbent Scottish Government, we have been working together incredibly effectively, since we came into government, on some key aspects. The reforms of the 1989 Act are a good example. To take the earlier point about the changing energy system, that Act was legislation for a different time, and the planning system in Scotland has not kept pace with the reforms in the rest of the United Kingdom. The reforms that we are proposing give Scottish Ministers a framework to introduce regulations to allow for a pre-application consultation process, and to give both communities and statutory consultees meaningful opportunities to influence applications and have a voice early in the process. For that reason, I see much of amendment 84 as replicating provisions already in the Bills, so I hope the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will withdraw it.
Paul Holmes
I thought the Minister would recommend that I withdraw the amendment. I will put on the record that I am delighted that the Minister believes in pre-application consultation, because in one breath this morning—
Paul Holmes
The Minister has had his say. All I am saying, politely, is that in a different provision of the Bill, the Government have completely removed pre-application consultation for nationally significant projects, yet the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero believes in them. He does not want to accept our amendment to ensure transparent public consultation because pre-application consultation is strong enough already, and the public will be able to have their concerns looked at. The Minister says that they are different systems, but the principles are exactly the same. Ministers cannot rely on that argument for this amendment but not accept the same argument for amendments considered by the Committee earlier. However, as a realist, I know that this will not go very far. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 14, page 19, line 9, leave out from “application,” to end of line 12 and insert—
“(b) consider the objection and the reporter’s final report,
(c) hold a public hearing, and
(d) allow a period of one month to elapse
before determining whether to give their consent.”
This amendment would require the Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing and allow one month to elapse before determining whether to give consent to an application for new generating stations or overhead lines under sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.
The amendment is in the name of the shadow Scottish Secretary and acting shadow Energy Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, who I know the Minister would be delighted to hear from—[Interruption.] I heard the “boo”. Amendment 81 is similar to amendment 84 but more specific. I suspect that the Minister will come back with the same argument, so I will take only a short time on this. The amendment would require Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing, and allow one month to elapse before determining whether to give consent to an application for new generating stations or overhead lines under sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.
Put simply, that would allow local residents the right to provide feedback on proposed infrastructure. I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will agree that it is right that people can have their voices listened to by Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Government. The amendment would create one mechanism to ensure fairness in the planning system, by allowing not only the pre-application consultation but people to generally give feedback and a say, as they currently can in the English planning system. If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, I would be grateful if he wrote to me and the shadow Scottish Secretary, or acting shadow Energy Secretary.
Paul Holmes
Both—that is the world we are in, unfortunately. I would be grateful if the Minister could see if there is an opportunity for a meeting between himself and that shadow Minister on how we can strengthen the grassroots-level consultation that is important to the system. I look forward to the Minister’s response. If we could secure some unofficial channels on how we can strengthen this clause when we get to further stages, I would be grateful. I will not push the amendment, but I would like the Minister to respond to those concerns.
Michael Shanks
I thank the shadow Minister for the way he is discussing these topics. I appreciate that they are from a planning system alien to the one with which he is, I am sure, very familiar—I am tempted to say that the shadow Energy Secretary could join him on the Bench, but he is not here.
I understand the point that the shadow Minister is making. For hon. Members who are not familiar with the Scottish system, a public inquiry can be triggered with one objection into the planning system. The public inquiry can take years to conclude and often is not reflective of actual community sentiment on a particular project. This system does not exist in any form anywhere else in the UK. The purpose of these consenting reforms is to deliver significant efficiencies in the consenting process, and to make decisions faster—not necessarily to make positive decisions faster, just to make decisions faster. Introducing another element that feels like the element that we are removing takes away from that.
As I have said previously, there are still significant opportunities for communities to participate in the process. One of the key aspects that we are introducing is the right of a reporter, who is an experienced specialist in planning and consenting, to consider representations about whether there should be a public hearing on a particular process. That reporter will then make the decision about whether it should go forward into a hearing session or a public inquiry. That is rather than what we have at the moment, which is an automatic trigger that holds up projects for a significant length of time.
I am always happy to meet with the shadow Scottish Secretary on a range of things. I am happy to engage with him, because I appreciate that his part of Scotland has a significant amount of network infrastructure being built; but for the reasons I have outlined, this amendment goes counter to our objectives, and does not sit with the reforms we are making to the Scottish planning system, as distinct from the planning system in England and Wales.
John Grady
I will make a couple of brief remarks as a resident Scottish MP. The Minister has referenced co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments. That is to be welcomed; it reflects this Government’s determination to do right by Scotland and to work productively with the SNP Government in Holyrood.
These provisions will help to unlock significant investment in Scotland. We heard last week how SSE’s programme of projects, which these provisions help to unlock, will lead to £22 billion of investment by 2030. That is the biggest investment we have seen in the north of Scotland since the second world war. Just think what we could achieve if we had a Labour Government in Scotland as well as in England.
The Minister is right to have worked closely with the Scottish Government on reforming the provisions, which in many cases predate 1989, because the 1989 Act was a consolidation. He is right to have worked productively with the Scottish Government, putting Scotland first, because that will give rise to significant investment and jobs—jobs for our young people and high-quality jobs—as well as access for the people of Great Britain to greater volumes of fixed-price electricity that is not subject to fluctuations in wholesale markets, as we have seen over the last few years.
Paul Holmes
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 15 stand part.
New clause 53—Reforms to consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland—
“Where any reforms to the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland are proposed, the Secretary of State must ensure that such reforms—
(a) do not reduce requirements for community engagement or public consultation;
(b) include measures to address local concerns, environmental impacts, and impacts on all key sectors including but not limited to agriculture and tourism.”
New clause 54—Annual report on consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland—
“(1) The Secretary of State must annually lay before Parliament a report on applications for consent for electricity infrastructure in Scotland.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) the outcomes of each application for consent relating to an energy infrastructure project in Scotland;
(b) evidence of community consultation undertaken in relation to each application and, where applicable, how consultation has influenced the design of the infrastructure to which the application relates; and
(c) estimates of economic benefits to local communities from the relevant project.”
Michael Shanks
I will begin with a brief explanation as to why clause 14 should stand part of the Bill. I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East made a moment ago, and one that I have made before, which is that these reforms were in the pipeline under the previous Government. They are reforms to a long-standing piece of legislation that is long due for updating.
I thank officials in my Department and in the Scottish Government for working closely and at speed, with a similar set of objectives and an open-book approach to making this work, to draft the measures in a way that works for all of us. It is a reset of the tone of how we work as two Governments.
On enabling the introduction of pre-application requirements, as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley referenced, in the Scottish legislation there are currently no steps to give the public an opportunity to engage as there are in the NSIP regime in England and Wales. This is about improving the quality and readiness of applications at the submission stage. It is important to say that this was driven by the views of Scottish Ministers, who said that they thought it was a useful process, but it will be directed in detail in regulations so that it can be updated and adapted to situations, unlike the process that we have in England and Wales at the moment, which has been held back and has added time and complexity to projects and not delivered what it was intended to do. It will give Scottish Ministers the powers to charge fees for pre-application services, enabling them to better support applicants in developing good-quality applications.
Secondly, the clause establishes a power to set time limits through regulations for key stages of the consenting process, which will support the timely determination of applications and bring down overall processing times. Thirdly, it will establish a proportionate process for responding to objections by relevant planning authorities through a reporter-led examination process. The reporter will choose the most appropriate procedure for gathering any further information they need to provide recommendations in a final report to Scottish Ministers. That may include inquiry sessions, where the reporter considers that that is the best approach to take to address particular issues. Such an approach is similar to the well-established process in which appeals in the town and country planning decisions are currently addressed.
Clause 15 enables regulations to be made that prescribe new processes to vary electricity infrastructure consents in Scotland after they have been granted. The clause addresses the current anomaly that there is no prescribed procedure for holders of overhead line consents to apply to Scottish Ministers for a variation to their consents. The current position forces consent holders to make full consent applications in order to authorise often very modest variations. The clause also allows Scottish Ministers to vary an existing generating station or overhead lines consent due to changes in environmental circumstances or technological changes. Such variations will be made with the agreement of the consent holder. Finally, the clause allows Scottish Ministers to correct any errors or omissions made in consents for generating stations or overhead lines.
I will come back to the new clauses later, but I want first to underline the importance of the consenting process. In Scotland, we generate a significant amount of electricity, and there are further projects in the pipeline, including both floating offshore wind and onshore wind. It is critical that there is an off-taker for that power in the rest of the UK, and that requires us to build significantly more network infrastructure to bring that clean power to where it is required. Although these changes to consenting relate to Scotland, they are of critical importance for the energy security of the whole United Kingdom.
Paul Holmes
I would like to move new clauses 53 and 54, but I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about them first.
Michael Shanks
The shadow Minister wants to hear more! New clause 54 is in the name of the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross)—I want the shadow Minister to say, “Gordon and Buchan”, just so I can hear his pronunciation. The clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report providing detail of electricity infrastructure consenting decisions made in Scotland in previous years.
As hon. Members will be aware, responsibility for the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland is devolved to Scottish Government Ministers. The Scottish Government are accountable to the Scottish Parliament—not the UK Parliament—for the decisions that they make, for the rationale behind them and for what information they choose to provide on consenting decisions. I am aware that the Scottish Government publish all their decisions, which includes information about what public consultations have taken place and consultations with community councils, for example.
It would be inappropriate and potentially duplicative for the Secretary of State to have such an obligation, but fundamentally, to come back to the point I made earlier, there is a particular concern about putting a statutory obligation on what is a devolved power when there is a democratic link between Scottish Ministers and their democratically accountable Parliament, which is the Scottish Parliament and not this Parliament.
Paul Holmes
Thank you. I must apologise, Mr Twigg; this is the first time I have been a shadow Minister on a Bill Committee and I am a bit rusty, but I am learning very quickly.
I thank the Minister for Energy for being very gentle with me as well when discussing Scottish energy connectivity and Scottish planning. He will understand that beggars cannot be choosers on the number of MPs that we have, but being a Member for what is possibly the most southern part of the south coast that one can get bar the Isle of Wight, I am doing my best to discuss the Scottish planning system. I am grateful for the spirit in which he is responding to our new clauses and amendments. I am also grateful to his officials for their work, too.
I understand what the Minister is saying, and I know his reasons for refusing to accept previous amendments under clause 14, but these new clauses create a parallel system. He is absolutely right that Scottish Ministers are accountable to Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament, but Scottish Members of Parliament here are accountable to their constituents. The Secretary of State also has a role within this Parliament and within this UK Government. On new clause 54, the Minister is quite right to say that the Scottish Parliament already has that reporting mechanism, but I do not think that it is unreasonable that the Secretary of State should be able to do that for Scottish MPs here too; when we have questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland, we discuss UK legislation relating to Scotland.
Paul Holmes
The Minister keeps saying “reserved”. That is fine, but we have a Secretary of State for Scotland, accountable to a UK Parliament, who represents Scottish constituencies. There is a role for this Parliament to report and to scrutinise the successes of the Scottish Executive and the UK Government, with the Secretary of State having an overarching position as Secretary of State representing Scotland. Scottish Members of Parliament are entitled to the same rights and benefits as Scottish MSPs when scrutinising the Scotland Government north of the border. The Minister wanted me to pronounce “Gordon and Buchan”. I think that is right—I am not sure, but I did my best. Honestly, there are worse ones to pronounce.
Clearly, we are going to disagree on our approach to these two new clauses, but the reason for new clause 53 is exactly the same. I am surprised by the Minister’s reticence in allowing his Scottish colleagues to be able to have the same rights of scrutiny as Scottish MSPs. It is not an arduous new clause. It would not be arduous on the Government or the Scotland Office to produce those outcomes or statistics. It would not be arduous on the Scotland Office or the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to provide evidence of community consultation, particularly when we have just discussed some of the amendments that the Opposition have tabled on community consultation.
It would also not be arduous for the Scotland Office—or whatever Department would be answering—to provide estimates of economic benefits to local communities. That is exactly why many members of this Committee who represent Scottish constituencies are here in this UK Parliament: to develop policy that brings economic benefits to local communities. The Minister needs to think outside the box and allow Scottish MPs from all parties in this House to have those rights to scrutinise, to develop the economic benefits to local communities. He should not feel so constrained by the Scottish devolved Administration; he should branch out, improve and increase the power of the Scotland Office or his Department, and allow Scottish MPs to have their say in this area of legislation.
Michael Shanks
I am in danger of going into British constitutional politics 101, but the hon. Gentleman is introducing the West Lothian question.
The Chair
We have to be very careful given the subject of the amendment. I gave the shadow Minister a bit of leeway.
Michael Shanks
The shadow Minister is introducing the best example I have heard in a long time of the West Lothian question. The fundamental thing is that this is not a political question about the Scottish Government or the UK Government. There are reserved matters for which this Parliament is responsible for holding UK Government Ministers to account, and there are devolved matters that Scottish Ministers have responsibility for delivering and the Scottish Parliament is responsible for holding them to account for.
It would ride roughshod over this Parliament’s fairly consistent support of devolution in the UK for us to now suddenly say that those Scottish Ministers are also accountable to another Parliament. I think that we agree on the nature of devolution in this country, although we may strongly disagree on the actions that devolved Governments take, but we cannot support the new clauses, for the reasons I have outlined. This is not about thinking outside the box; it is about recognising the role that the devolved system plays in our constitution. For those reasons, I will resist the new clauses.
Michael Shanks
Clause 16 amends section 36D of the Electricity Act 1989, which provides for a statutory appeal to be brought by any person who is aggrieved by a decision made by Scottish Ministers—perhaps the shadow Minister. A challenge to an offshore electricity infrastructure consenting decision made under section 36 is by statutory appeal. The clause extends this, so that statutory appeal also applies to onshore electricity infrastructure consenting decisions made under section 36, decisions made under section 37 and all variation decisions.
The clause will create consistency in Scotland by making the challenge process the same for both onshore and offshore consents, and ensuring they are brought in a timely manner. A challenge will have to be brought within six weeks for onshore consents, as is already the case for offshore consents. This will bring the timescale for challenging large electricity infrastructure decisions into alignment right across Great Britain.
Clause 16 also amends the Electricity Act so that the six-week timescale for bringing a challenge commences from the publication of the decision by the Scottish Minister, instead of the date on which the decision was taken. This is a new requirement for both onshore and offshore, and is compliant with the Aarhus convention compliance committee’s recommendations relating to the timescale for challenging planning decisions. There is also a consequential amendment to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in respect of directions relating to deemed planning permission. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
My contribution will be very short, because the Opposition agree with what the Minister said. It seems perfectly reasonable to amend section 36D of the Electricity Act 1989, which allows anybody aggrieved by the process to appeal. That is a welcome step that meets some of our challenges in other areas of the Bill—not those for which this Minister is responsible—in relation to people being intimately involved in some of these decisions. If people are not happy with what is happening in their local communities, they should be able to challenge it. I welcome the clause, and we will not press it to a vote.
Gideon Amos
We do not object to the clause either. The date of the judicial review challenge being six weeks from the issue of the decision in writing is consistent with the approach under the Town and Country Planning Act, and therefore does not reduce or change people’s right to judicial review. We are content to support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Applications for necessary wayleaves: fees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
Clause 17 will confer a power on Scottish Ministers to make regulations to set and charge fees to electricity network operators for processing necessary wayleave applications that they should make in Scotland. Necessary wayleaves are statutory rights that allow electricity licence holders to install and access their overhead electricity lines and associated infrastructure on land owned by others, and in Scotland they are processed and granted by Scottish Ministers.
The objective of the change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleave applications by the Scottish Government. It is important to act now.
Lewis Cocking
Will the Minister elaborate on why he did not support amendment 80, which we have just discussed, on planning fees going to local councils to resource planning departments? What is the difference between that and him saying to Scottish Ministers under this clause that they can charge a fee, but that it has to go to the resourcing of dealing with these applications?
Michael Shanks
Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think that amendment 80 was about forcing Scottish Government Ministers to spend funds on community benefits and other things. This clause is saying that the Government will have the power to raise application fees if they choose to do so. Of course, they could choose not to, but under this clause they will have the power to raise them.
Lewis Cocking
It says that the Minister expects that money to be put into the system to make the system better. Why has he done that in this case when he did not support the amendment doing it?
Michael Shanks
As I think I have just outlined, that amendment did not just call for the money to make the system more efficient; it called for it to be spent in communities on community benefits. That is quite different. My argument to the shadow Minister in resisting that amendment was that we did not want to tie the hands of the Scottish Government, because we see that investing that money in making the planning system more efficient is probably the best use for it, but it is not for me to tell them that. This clause is about giving them the power to set and charge fees to electricity network operators. I suggest that the point he is making is a slightly different one, but if I have misunderstood him, perhaps he can explain.
David Simmonds
A general point arises here, which we also debated on the Renters’ Rights Bill Committee. The different systems in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England—most of the legislation we are dealing with here is for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—give rise to a risk of inconsistency. The shadow Minister spoke of the importance of community benefit. That is designed to secure community support. If there is a view that Ministers in Scotland might choose to spend such revenue on other things to the detriment of community benefit, that may also undermine consent.
I completely agree with what the Minister is saying about creating the necessary power, but will he commit to further discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government so that we can ensure—not just in this Bill, but in future legislation—that where we expect a community benefit to derive from something that we decide on, it will be a consistent benefit across the UK?
Michael Shanks
In general, I agree and disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. I understand the point he is making about consistency, but I take the view that the whole purpose of having different devolved Administrations in England, Wales and Scotland is to make different decisions. Northern Ireland is separate in the energy discussion, because it has a separate grid.
I am not sure that I would say that consistency at all costs is the right approach. We created the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly so that they could make decisions locally that affected them in a different way. We have worked with the Scottish Government on these changes to make sure that there is a package of reforms to the consent arrangements under the Energy Act that relates to the planning system in Scotland as it currently is. It is not the same starting point as the system in England and Wales, so it is important to look at them separately. Nevertheless, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.
I return to clause 17. Fees are already charged in England and Wales for processing wayleave applications. I reiterate—this comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne—that the Scottish Government do not have the power in legislation to raise those fees. That power is reserved. The clause will give them that power.
Paul Holmes
Has the Minister identified or outlined any potential total income that will come out of this measure? I know that it is not a certain process and that it is not certain how many will come forward.
Michael Shanks
No, we have not. A series of work will be necessary to come up with that figure, because the fees will be charged on a cost recovery basis. It is not a money-making exercise for the Government. That is in line with approaches in the rest of Great Britain. There will clearly be a significant number of such applications in the coming years—more than in previous years, probably—but the detail will be worked out with the Scottish Government. We do not know in advance exactly how many wayleave applications there might be, so we cannot give an exact figure.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for his answer. He will forgive me for intervening again; it will mean that I speak less later. In outline, has he started any engagement with Scottish Ministers to find out whether the intention of the clause will be borne out in reality? If the costs are being recovered on a cost recovery basis, has he secured the necessary assurances from Ministers that the money collected will be used to process the decisions more rapidly, and that it will not be spent in other devolved Scottish areas?
Michael Shanks
I am sorry to come back to this point, but the Government do not bind the hands of devolved Governments in any spending area. When this Parliament—[Interruption.] No, I did not say that. I said that the Bill gives them the power to do that, which they do not currently have.
Michael Shanks
No, I will carry on answering this point, if that is okay.
We are very enthusiastic about clause 17—who would have thought it? To be clear about this point—I feel as if I am the only Scottish MP on this Committee, but I am not—when this Government increase spending in a particular area, that results in a budget transfer to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Executive, which they can spend on whatever they see as their local priorities. An increase in NHS spending in England does not lead to the exact same in Scotland. We will not bind the hands of every single decision that is made in this case. This is about conferring a power on Scottish Government Ministers to set and charge fees to electricity network operators for necessary wayleave applications in Scotland.
John Grady
I thank the Minister, although he must feel awfully lonely as the Front-Bench Scotsman. As the Member for Rutherglen just on the other side of the Clyde from me, does he agree that the charging of fees for necessary wayleaves is a rather odd way to relitigate the referendum that took place in 1999, and a rather odd way to relitigate the questions of devolution? I know that the Conservative party has some trouble, from time to time, in accepting the devolution settlement. We seem to have moved from the West Lothian question to the Hamble Valley question. It is remarkably confusing.
Michael Shanks
No, I will respond to that point, if I may. I respect the view of the Conservative party and the argument that Conservative Members are making. I completely understand it, but I am trying to make the point gently that this is not about our directing specific decisions that will be made by Scottish Ministers. It is about how—in this case, as it is across wayleave applications in England and Wales as well—fees will be charged on a cost recovery basis in line with UK and Scottish Government policy on managing public money.
Lewis Cocking
Let me try a third time. According to the explanatory notes laid out by the Government:
“The objective of this change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government.”
The Minister is therefore directing the Scottish Government to spend the money that they get in through this process on that planning process. How is that different from amendment 80 which we discussed earlier and the Government said they will not accept?
Michael Shanks
I am trying to find the exact wording. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. I think I have outlined to him three times now why it is different. I do not have amendment 80 in front of me at this precise moment, but it had two parts to it, one of which was about community benefits. It was directing the Scottish Government to take funds and direct them to a specific purpose. This Parliament does not do that in any other aspects of devolved policy, because it is devolved to the Scottish Parliament to make those decisions. I think that I have made that point clear, but if not, I will write to the Committee and make it even clearer. [Interruption.] I am grateful. I now have amendment 80 in front of me. It mentions
“consumer benefits packages, or…local planning authorities”.
Neither of those things is in the gift of the UK Government to direct the Scottish Government to do. Consumer benefits packages are ill-defined, if nothing else, but local planning authorities are democratically elected in their own right, and the Scottish Government make budget decisions to local government, separate from any budget decisions that the UK Government make to the Scottish Government. The two are not comparable in any way. In any event, the Committee has already voted down that amendment.
Paul Holmes
I do not intend to speak for long. I am grateful to the Minister for repeatedly taking interventions, but I think he is in a slight pickle on this one. On a number of occasions he has said, quite rightly—I understand that he has deeply held views, and I promise that I am not going to go back to the West Lothian question, or the Hamble Valley question—
Paul Holmes
I will confine myself to clause 17. The Minister has often said that he does not want to direct Scottish Government Ministers on a devolved issue. That is perfectly reasonable. When I last intervened on him, I did not ask him to dictate to Scottish Government Ministers; I asked whether he had sought an assurance from them—
Paul Holmes
It is not the same thing. I asked him, in his role as a UK Government Minister, to seek an assurance from Scottish Government Ministers that the retrospective collection of funds under the new power would be used to increase capacity and improve the processing of this proposal. He was not rude to me, but he said, “That’s not my job as a UK Government Minister. It’s up to them as Scottish Government Ministers.” His own explanatory notes say:
“The objective of this change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government.”
When I asked the Minister whether he had sought an assurance from Scottish Government Ministers, I was not asking him to instruct them. I asked him whether he had any information on the total amount of money that would be brought in, which I accept could vary. I perfectly understood and respected that answer, but in his second answer he said that he could not seek such an assurance because he does not want to direct Scottish Government Ministers or take power away from them. Given the objective set out in the explanatory notes, how can we have confidence—
Michael Shanks
There is no contradiction here at all. We are confusing two different things. My ability to say that the Scottish Government could raise x amount of money and must spend it on y is different from what we have clearly outlined—the hon. Gentleman has just repeated it—which is that at the moment Scottish Government Ministers do not have the power to raise fees for wayleaves, as is the case in England and Wales. Those are two very different things.
I have said clearly, I think six or seven times now, that at the moment Scottish Government Ministers have no power to charge for the processing of wayleave applications. The clause will give them the power to do so. Of course, I would hope that those funds will be spent on the planning system, or whatever it might be, but I am not going to bind their hands and evaluate the success or otherwise of that in this Committee. The two issues are quite separate.
Paul Holmes
We are dancing on the head of a pin here. I know that the Minister has no power to do that and does not want to have such a power, but how can he, as a UK Government Minister, commend a clause whose objective the explanatory notes explicitly say
“is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government”
while claiming that he does not have the power to ensure that it happens?
I am not trying to be difficult. The Minister is doing a very good job of outlining the clauses, but he has said several times in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne—not just in relation to amendment 81, which was not accepted, but in relation to the clause—that he does not have the power to direct Scottish Government Ministers. All I am asking is why he set out the objective of the change in his approved explanatory notes if he cannot make it happen.
I am not asking the Minister to strengthen the legislation; I asked whether he has sought reassurances from Scottish Government Ministers that that is what they will do with the extra income from the measures. He answered that he did not want to force them. That was not the question. All I am asking—he is welcome to intervene on me—is whether he has had a conversation with Scottish Government Ministers about whether they will use this income for the purposes that his legislation has set out.
Michael Shanks
I have not had the conversation. I am happy to have it, but the tone will not be, “Here are my expectations of you as a democratically elected Member of the Scottish Parliament accountable to a Parliament I do not sit in.”
I do not know how familiar the shadow Minister is with the devolution legislation in the United Kingdom, but I gently say that this Parliament gives the devolved Administrations power to raise a whole series of taxes, charges, levies, fines and various other things. We give that power to those devolved assemblies; we do not then tell them exactly how to spend every single penny of that money. This is another example of that. It is a perfectly common thing in the devolution settlement.
Paul Holmes
I am not trying to be difficult with the Minister at all—I know it seems that I am, but I am not. He said that he has not had those conversations but he now will, and that is welcome. This clause is procedural and process-driven, but within the grand scheme of the Bill it is stated clearly in black and white that the UK Government have an objective for the extra income to be generated, yet the Minister has not had that conversation with Scottish Ministers. I do not blame him for that, but he will now have those conversations going forward.
I hope that when it comes to other clauses, UK Government documents will be very clear about the aims, ambitions and outcomes of what they will do because what we have seen this afternoon has been questionable. The UK Government are setting an objective, with no way to actually achieve it.
David Simmonds
This is a small “p” political point rather than a party political point, but it undermines confidence in devolution when we hear that a devolved body—a local authority, regional government or whatever it may be—has been given a power and has not used it, or central Government have said, “We have allocated additional funds for potholes,” but the council has spent it on social care, as we have seen recently. It undermines the confidence in those central messages that what is promised will be delivered.
I urge the Minister, on behalf of my hon. Friend, to please come back to the Committee with that assurance. For those listening to this debate who expect that the funds raised will be spent on the purpose that the Minister has told the Committee they are intended for, that assurance needs to be there.
Paul Holmes
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. I understand that I may not be the Minister’s favourite person, but I am trying to help him—I actually think what he is proposing is very good. We support any measure that allows an income stream to be spent on local people and within devolved Administrations to make processes quicker and more efficient. The other Minister on the Committee, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, knows that that is my stance historically. I support the Government reforming planning fees, for example, and ringfencing them to enable processes to be delivered more quickly, but I say again to the Minister that I hope he does what he has committed to in his interventions during the debate on this clause.
We will not push this to a vote because, as I have outlined in a very long-winded and convoluted way, we support the clause, but I hope the Minister will take a firmer line in speaking to Scottish Ministers. Before he says this again, I am not asking him to direct those Ministers; he seems to have a preoccupation with me claiming that I want him to instruct Scottish Ministers to do certain things. I am asking him, within his role and remit as a UK Government Minister legislating to give those Ministers extra powers, to use the art of politics and diplomacy to make sure that the outcomes he wants, as per the explanatory notes of his Bill, are delivered for the people affected by his changes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 19 stand part.
Schedule 1.
Michael Shanks
Clause 18 is technical, amending section 106 of the Electricity Act 1989 to make provision for procedural requirements that apply to the new powers conferred by the provision in clauses 14, 15 and 17. All new regulation-making powers, except for the power to amend primary legislation in clause 14(4), are subject to the negative procedure. Scottish Ministers or the Secretary of State must consult each other before making regulations relating to clauses 14 and 15. The power in clause 17 is to be exercised by Scottish Ministers, and it does not require the Secretary of State to be consulted.
Clause 19 introduces schedule 1, which makes amendments to the Electricity Act 1989 consequential to the amendments made by clauses 14 to 18. It also makes some minor amendments relating to consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland. These amendments are made to sections 36, 36B, 36C and 37 of and schedule 8 to the 1989 Act. Schedule 1 is needed to ensure the Bill’s consistency and clarity in relation to the 1989 Act. Some changes are needed to ensure that the new Scottish consenting reforms can function as intended. Some of the clarifications are needed because the 1989 Act was originally drafted prior to the Scotland Act 1998, which created the Scottish Parliament. Given the number of changes made to the 1989 Act in relation to Scotland, it is necessary to update outdated references in legislation to ensure that such references are clear and consistent.
The consequential amendments cover three main aspects. First, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to the 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about time limits for various parts of the consenting process, the amendments clarify how this relates to Scottish Ministers obtaining advice from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Secondly, as clause 14 amends schedule 8 to 1989 Act to allow the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make regulations about applications made to Scottish Ministers, amendments have been made so that proposed new section 1A will apply only to applications made to the Secretary of State, not to those made to Scottish Ministers.
Thirdly, there are clarifications to reflect the new processes for variations of consents and the new procedure following objection by the relevant planning authorities for consents under sections 36 and 37 of the 1989 Act. In addition, the minor amendments include those to reflect previous transfers of functions to Scottish Ministers, and some references to the water environment regulations are updated to refer to the most recent version.
As I have said, this is a very technical clause. I look forward to having slightly less debate on it, unless there are any questions.
Paul Holmes
Clauses 18 and 19 are consequential to the previous clauses, and consist of simple process amendments. The Minister will be delighted that we welcome the fact that clause 19 amends the Electricity Act 1989 to reflect earlier transfers of functions to Scottish Ministers. That is exactly as it should be, and we will not be scrutinising the various words. These amendments should go ahead, and I have no further comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 20
Environmental impact assessments for electricity works
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Michael Shanks
Clause 20 creates a power for the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to make limited procedural amendments to the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, which for ease of reference I will refer to as the EIA regulations.
As part of the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland, Scottish Ministers are required to assess the likely significant environmental effects arising from a proposed EIA development. Before the UK left the European Union, Scottish Ministers and UK Government Ministers had concurrent powers, under the European Communities Act 1972, to make regulations for electricity works EIAs. However, although the EIA regulations remained in force as assimilated law after the European Communities Act was repealed, the result is that neither Government have the power to amend them.
David Simmonds
We broadly support the content of clause 20, but I have one question for the Minister. I am mindful of his comments about the process of EU retained law, and it is absolutely right that we are looking to update that. However, a lot of the new powers set out for Scottish Ministers are the kind of thing that, in England, we would expect to be the subject of a pre-application consultation. One might ask the promoter of a project to come in and discuss those exact things with the local authority, the strategic planning authority if there is one, or the mayoral authority or the combined authority, so that the application process can be streamlined as much as possible.
Earlier on, we said that we would amend legislation through the Bill to remove that process in England. Given the intention to effectively introduce a top-quality process for applications to be considered in Scotland, does the Minister agree that there is an element of contradiction in that, in the same piece of legislation, we are seeking to remove many of the equivalent processes in England?
Michael Shanks
I understand the argument, but it appears as a contradiction only if we assume that both planning systems are the same, which they are not. And they are not slightly different—they are fundamentally different. The processes are different. The timescales are different. The opportunities for public consultation are different throughout, so we are starting from a different starting point. Although I understand the hon. Member’s point, I do not think that the two are comparable.
This particular clause is even more narrow than the hon. Member recognised. It is simply about the assimilated regulations. I have been in a number of Delegated Legislation Committees where we have discussed some of the unintended consequences, as we obviously assimilated thousands of different pieces of legislation into UK law. As I say, the result was that neither the UK nor the Scottish Government currently have the power to amend these regulations, which is a ludicrous position for us to be in. This clause is narrow in scope, and I do not think it has quite the reach that the hon. Member is suggesting.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Crime and Policing Bill (Twelfth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Schedules 14 and 15.
Clause 103 stand part.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
When the Committee adjourned this morning, I had just started to set out that the Home Office had consulted extensively on the reform of confiscation orders in clause 102. Not only did we consult extensively on those new measures, which were recommended by the Law Commission, but we had the benefit of over 20 years of operational insight. The reforms will support the delivery of key objectives endorsed by the Government in the economic crime plan 2 to reduce money laundering and increase asset recovery returns, to ensure that criminals are deprived of their benefits from crime.
The wide-ranging reforms are introduced across 12 parts in schedule 14 in relation to England and Wales. The provisions in schedule 15 largely replicate the reforms for Northern Ireland, with appropriate modifications. I do not propose to go through the whole of schedule 14 part by part because much of it contains necessarily very technical provisions, but I am happy to explain particular provisions if any hon. Member would find that helpful.
Clause 103 introduces cost protections for enforcement authorities in the High Court, and the Court of Session in Scotland, in civil recovery proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Government are concerned that the current rules that govern how costs are awarded in civil recovery cases expose enforcement authorities to the risk of excessive strains on their budgets, particularly in cases against wealthy individuals who use very expensive legal teams. Even if a law enforcement agency applies for a civil recovery order in good faith and in the public interest, losing a case exposes enforcement agencies to paying substantial legal and court fees. Enforcement authorities work to make decisions in the public interest, and it is detrimental to the protection of the public if authorities are deterred from pursuing an investigation for fear that, if any resulting legal action is unsuccessful, they would face adverse costs and expensive litigation.
Clause 103 therefore amends the so-called “loser pays” principle to ensure that the court does not make an order for costs against an enforcement authority unless the authority has acted “unreasonably”, “dishonestly” or “improperly” during the course of proceedings or it would be
“just and reasonable to make such an order”
against them considering all the facts of the case. Cost protections will provide a positive step forward for the UK’s broader goal of recovering criminal assets and disrupting criminal activity, and I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Clause 102 reforms the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, aiming to clarify and strengthen the confiscation regime for proceeds of crime in England and Wales. Schedule 14 outlines several significant amendments with the primary goal of improving the effectiveness and fairness of confiscation proceedings.
One key change introduced by schedule 14 is the insertion of section 5A into the 2002 Act. The new section provides an overarching principal objective, which has been lacking, for the confiscation powers under part 2. The principal aim as defined in section 5A(2) is
“to deprive the defendant of the defendant’s benefit from criminal conduct, so far as within the defendant’s means.”
That will help to ensure that confiscation powers are used proportionately and in line with the objectives of the law, addressing gaps in case law and providing a clear framework for the court.
Paragraph 2 of schedule 14 now allows the prosecutor to decide whether to pursue a criminal lifestyle assessment rather than automatically applying it. That change allows for more flexibility in the application of these provisions, enabling prosecutors to allocate resources more efficiently and only pursue the criminal lifestyle route where appropriate.
Paragraph 4 introduces a change to the test for determining whether an offence constitutes part of a defendant’s criminal lifestyle. Previously, the law required at least three offences to qualify, but this change reduces that threshold to two offences. That will also apply if the defendant has benefited or intended to benefit from the criminal conduct involved in the offence, making the test easier to meet and broadening the scope of the confiscation regime.
A significant reform is found in paragraph 6, which amends section 7 of POCA to clarify how the value of the recoverable amount should be calculated. Currently, certain categories of property are ignored when calculating the value of a defendant’s benefit from crime, including property that has been forfeited or is subject to a recovery order. The proposed amendment extends that to further categories of property, such as property seized under any rule of law and property returned to victims. That ensures that the confiscation amount reflects only the actual benefit derived from crime and prevents double counting of assets that have already been returned or forfeited.
In the light of the changes introduced in clause 102 and schedule 14 on criminal lifestyle provisions, can the Minister clarify how the new flexibility in prosecutorial discretion will ensure that limited resources are effectively allocated, while safeguarding the fairness of confiscation proceedings for defendants who may not meet the criteria for a criminal lifestyle?
Clause 103(1) inserts new section 288A into part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This provision aims to protect the enforcement authorities from being ordered to pay costs in civil recovery proceedings conducted in the High Court. The court is prohibited from making such orders unless the enforcement authority acted unreasonably, dishonestly or improperly during the proceedings.
Proposed new section 288A(1)(c) of the 2002 Act introduces a discretionary power for the court to determine if, in unforeseen circumstances, it would be just and reasonable for an enforcement authority to pay costs. This provision acknowledges that civil recovery orders, which result in the permanent deprivation of a person’s property, engage the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. It ensures that the enforcement process complies with the right to access to a court, as guaranteed by article 6 of the European convention on human rights. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us what mechanisms would ensure that enforcement authorities could be held accountable if acting unreasonably, dishonestly or improperly during civil recovery proceedings.
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank the shadow Minister; he went into some detail about how schedule 14 operates. I want to refer to the issue of criminal lifestyle offences in schedule 2 to POCA, which is about what the court utilises to determine whether a defendant has a criminal lifestyle. This is about the changes that we are adding. I refer in particular to the two environmental offences:
“depositing…certain waste, otherwise than in accordance with an environmental permit”
and
“operating a regulated facility, or causing or knowingly permitting a water discharge activity or groundwater activity, otherwise than in accordance with an environmental permit.”
The third offence that we are adding is the keeping of a brothel for prostitution. I want to make clear that those offences are being added.
The shadow Minister asked how this would be kept under review and whether unreasonable measures will be introduced. The legislation will set that out, but it is my understanding that the court will still have a role to play in any measures that are deemed to be unreasonable and forming a view about that. This part of the schedule is very technical, so I am happy to put in writing to the shadow Minister any further information that I have not been able to provide, but I think the general view is that it is implementing the recommendations from the Law Commission. As I understand it, it is very similar to what the previous Government were going to support. On that basis, I commend the provisions to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 102 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104
Extension of polygraph condition to certain offenders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Lewell. Clause 104 seeks to build on existing polygraph testing powers by making an express provision to enable the Secretary of State to impose mandatory polygraph testing as a licence condition for the most serious offenders who commit historic offences connected to terrorism, or who pose a risk of sexual offending.
Polygraph tests are used to monitor compliance with licence conditions. The information obtained from a test is used by probation practitioners to refine and strengthen risk management plans, thereby providing probation practitioners with additional risk-related information that they otherwise would not have known. Without this clause, these serious offenders would remain excluded from polygraph testing while on licence. Polygraph tests have been successfully used by the Probation Service in the management of sexual offenders since January 2014. Initially, it was as a successful pilot and later, a national programme. More recently, it was extended to terrorist offenders by the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021.
Subsection (3) of the clause extends eligibility for polygraph testing to offenders who have been convicted of murder and are assessed as posing a risk of sexual offending on release. It also extends to those who are serving multiple sentences alongside a sentence for a sex offence, to make sure that they can be polygraph tested for the duration of their licence.A gap in existing powers means that currently, for example, someone can be polygraph tested on licence when they have been convicted of rape, but if they have raped and murdered the victim, they are unlikely to be able to be polygraph tested because the sentence for rape is likely to have ended prior to their release on licence.
Subsections (4) to (8) of the clause extend polygraph testing to a cohort of individuals who committed a non-terrorism offence, such as conspiracy to murder, that would have been considered terrorist connected, but their offence was committed before the relevant legislation came into force enabling the court to make a formal determination of a terrorist connection.We refer to this cohort as historic terrorism-connected offenders. Following the changes introduced, where it is determined by the Secretary of State that an offence was an act of terrorism, took place in the course of an act of terrorism or was committed for the purposes of terrorism, individuals will become eligible to have the polygraph condition applied to their licence, subject to meeting the relevant policy criteria.
The polygraph testing licence condition is a vital tool for probation practitioners who are managing individuals who have been convicted of terrorism offences, yet it cannot currently be applied to historic terrorism-connected offenders. That means that polygraph is not available as a tool to manage the risk posed by this cohort, whereas it is available for an individual who commits the same offence today. The clause will therefore fill the gap in legislation and contribute to the consistent and effective risk management of historic terrorism-connected offenders in the community, seeking to close those small but significant operational gaps. Taken as a whole, clause 104 will ensure that polygraph testing can be used to strengthen the management of those who committed historic terrorism-related offences, and those who pose a risk of sexual offending.
Matt Vickers
Clause 104 broadens the use of polygraph testing for offenders by amending the Offender Management Act 2007. It allows polygraph testing for individuals convicted of murder upon release if they pose a risk of committing a sexual offence, and are 18 or over. It also applies to offenders who have served time for a relevant sexual offence, provided they are 18 or older at release. Additionally, the definition of “relevant offence” is expanded to include terrorism-related offences, including those committed for terrorist purposes. The provision functions as a preventive safeguard.
Polygraph testing can act as a deterrent, encouraging compliance with licence conditions or reminding offenders that their conduct and disclosures will be monitored. That is especially significant where there are concerns about future harmful behaviour, even if the original offence did not relate to sexual offending. The clause provides tools to manage individuals involved in terrorism-related offences, helping authorities gather intelligence and make informed decisions on their supervision. It also promotes consistency and supervision, as polygraph conditions are already used for sexual and terrorist offenders, ensuring a balanced approach to risk management across high-risk groups.
What safeguards ensure that the Secretary of State’s discretion in determining risk is transparent and fair? Given that polygraph evidence is not admissible in trials, why is it being increasingly used as a post-sentence supervision condition? Will there be an independent review of its effectiveness in reducing reoffending among the newly included categories?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. He asked me about the basis of the Secretary of State’s decision; if a Secretary of State decides that, for the purpose of extending polygraph testing, an offence was an act of terrorism or was committed for the purpose of terrorism, but a court does not reach the same decision, the Secretary of State will review their decision in the light of the court’s findings. That is an important backstop. Guidance will be produced on the process of the Secretary of State designating terrorist connections and for the court for the different management changes in the Bill.
Polygraph testing is one of many tools available to the Probation Service when managing offenders in the community and when they are out on licence. It is not the only tool available in its arsenal to ensure the public are kept safe.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 104 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 105
Duty of offender to notify details
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
This clause will create a new duty on offenders serving a sentence in the community and supervised by probation or a youth offending team, requiring them to inform the responsible officer if they change their name, use a different name or change their contact information. I thank my very good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), for her work in the previous Parliament on this issue, and I am delighted to be bringing forward this proposal.
The clause will improve the ability of probation and youth offending teams to monitor offenders in the community and will ensure that the public are protected. A significant number of offenders serve sentences in the community, and responsible officers must have the information that they need to keep tabs on those individuals, including if they change their name and contact information. The provisions in this clause are robust. Contact details can change for any reason, but the offender must report any difference from what is kept on file. The clause captures not just formal legal changes of name by deed poll but, for example, the use of an online alias.
We have a separate youth justice system, but it is equally important that services are able to maintain contact with children and have the right information about them to do their jobs. This policy therefore applies equally to offenders of all ages and will create consistency across offenders on licence and those serving sentences in the community, overseen by probation services or youth offending teams.
Probation and youth offending teams will have discretion about whether an offender is returned to court if they fail to comply with this requirement. It is right that the enforcement provisions for this clause are robust and reflect the seriousness of non-compliance. It is right that probation officers and youth offending teams have the same powers to deal with non-compliance with this duty as they have for any other case of non-compliance with a sentence requirement. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
Clause 105 requires certain offenders, including those under referral orders, youth rehabilitation orders, community orders and suspended sentence orders, to provide up-to-date contact information to relevant authorities. Offenders must notify their responsible officer or panel member of any changes in names, phone numbers or email addresses as soon as reasonably practicable after the relevant order is made or after they begin using new contact details. For youth offenders under referral orders, the clause adds a new section to the sentencing code, mandating them to inform a youth offending team member of any aliases and their current contact details as soon as reasonably practicable.
Similar requirements apply to offenders under future and existing orders. The overarching aim of the clause is to close a monitoring gap by ensuring that responsible authorities are kept fully informed of how to reach the offender. That is particularly important for managing compliance with rehabilitative requirements and preventing individuals from circumventing supervision through undisclosed identities or means of communication. Will the Minister clarify what threshold is intended by the term “reasonably practicable” in this context? Given that it is open to interpretation, will statutory guidance be issued to ensure consistent application by youth offender panels and responsible officers?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. We will of course ensure that guidance is available for this new measure. We will provide the responsible officers with all the tools they need to protect public safety, and ensure that they have all the relevant information available to manage offenders on licence in the community.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 106
Accelerated investigation procedure in respect of criminal conduct
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 107 to 109 stand part.
New clause 23—Previous conduct as factor in deciding whether to investigate a complaint—
“(1) The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 3, paragraph 1(6B)(d), at end insert ‘or
(e) the complaint is made about a person serving with the police who has previous convictions or has had previous complaints made against them.’”
This new clause would make previous complaints or convictions a factor in determining how to handle a new complaint against a police officer.
New clause 31—Automatic dismissal of officers who fail vetting—
“(1) The Police Act 1996 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) In section 39A (Codes of practice for chief officers), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1) and subject to subsection (1B), a code of practice may provide for an officer to be dismissed without notice where—
(a) the officer fails vetting, and
(b) it is not reasonable to expect that the officer will be capable of being deployed to full duties within a reasonable timeframe.
(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply where a chief officer concludes that—
(a) the officer, notwithstanding his vetting failure, is capable of being deployed to a substantial majority of duties appropriate for an officer of his rank; and
(b) it would be disproportionate to the operational effectiveness of the force for the officer to be dismissed without notice.’”
This new clause would ensure police officers who failed their vetting can be dismissed.
Dame Diana Johnson
Part 13 of the Bill pertains to matters relating to the police. Before I talk in detail about clauses 106 to 108, it may assist the Committee if I first provide some context for these provisions. Following the shooting of Chris Kaba, and the subsequent trial and acquittal of Sergeant Martyn Blake in October 2024, the Home Secretary made a series of commitments in response to the issues raised under the previous Government’s accountability review. The measures announced by the Home Secretary will rebuild confidence in police accountability systems for both the public and the police.
As the Home Secretary said when making her announcement, the case happened against a backdrop of wider and long-standing concerns about accountability, standards and confidence in policing. The British model of policing relies on mutual bonds of trust between the public and the police. For our model of policing to work, it is essential that the police have the confidence of the communities they serve, and that officers have the confidence they need to do the vital and often extremely difficult job of keeping us all safe. Too often in recent times, both elements of that confidence have become frayed.
Clauses 106 to 108 give effect to certain findings of the accountability review. Clause 106 will improve timeliness in the system by allowing the Independent Office for Police Conduct to make referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service prior to completing its final report. Clause 107 will amend the threshold for the IOPC to make referrals to the CPS, and clause 108 places the IOPC’s victims’ right to review scheme on a statutory footing, further improving the robustness of the IOPC’s investigative process.
Clause 106 will improve timeliness in the misconduct system. At present, a number of factors cause delay in the misconduct system, one of which relates to the fact that in order for the IOPC to make a referral to the CPS, it is legally required to complete its final report, concluding its investigation, which causes delays in making referrals. The final report has to include misconduct findings and lessons learned for the IOPC. Such elements are not required for referrals to be made to the CPS, so the change that we are making will enable the IOPC to make a referral prior to completing its final report, allowing for an improvement in pace in the accountability system.
Currently, the law states that the IOPC may refer a police officer to the CPS where there is an indication that a criminal offence may have been committed. This is a relatively low bar for making referrals to the CPS. Clause 107 changes this to bring the system in line with the threshold that the police apply when making referrals of members of the public to the CPS, which requires there to be a realistic prospect of conviction. It is right and fair that, as a result of this change, officers and members of the public will be referred to the CPS at the same threshold. The CPS will continue to make charging decisions at the same threshold, which is the full code test. This change will improve overall fairness in the system.
Finally, the IOPC’s victims’ right to review currently allows for victims and their families to challenge the IOPC when it decides not to refer matters to the CPS. This right is currently available to victims and their families through guidance. Clause 108 places this right on the statute book to protect victims and demonstrate our clear commitment to victims’ rights. Taken together, these clauses are a balanced package of measures that will help to speed up IOPC investigations while strengthening the rights of those who may be aggrieved by the outcome of an investigation.
Clause 109 amends the powers of the Secretary of State to make provisions on appeals to the police appeals tribunals. It will enable chief constables to appeal the findings or outcome of police misconduct proceedings, with a similar right for police and crime commissioners to appeal where the officer subject to proceedings is a chief constable. It will also enable a right of appeal to be conferred on the director general of the IOPC where the IOPC has presented the case at the misconduct proceedings.
This Government are committed to restoring public trust and confidence in policing, which is something fundamental to our model of policing by consent. While the majority of our police officers act with bravery and integrity, where things go wrong the public rightly expect that there is a system to robustly hold the police to account.
In the context of recent high-profile cases that have damaged that vital trust and confidence, chief constables must be empowered to drive up standards. While chief constables are themselves rightly held to account for standards in their forces, they are not afforded the same ability to challenge disciplinary decisions as the officers in their force. The only route for chief constables to challenge decisions that they consider to be unreasonable is through judicial review. That is a lengthier and more complex process than the existing specialist police appeals tribunals.
Clause 109 will allow the Secretary of State to make amendments to existing rules. First, it will provide for a right of appeal for chief constables to challenge the findings or outcomes of misconduct proceedings in relation to officers within their force, and an equivalent right of appeal for police and crime commissioners where the officer concerned is a chief constable. This is designed to ensure parity within the system, supporting the wider responsibilities of police and crime commissioners in respect of chief constables.
Furthermore, the clause will provide an equivalent right of appeal for the director general of the IOPC, limited to circumstances in which the IOPC has presented at the misconduct proceedings. This again supports public trust and confidence by ensuring vital independence in the system in the most serious and sensitive cases. Amendments to secondary legislation will be developed in consultation with the sector, including the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales.
I will speak to new clauses 23 and 31, which are also in this group, once we have heard from the shadow Minister.
Matt Vickers
On 5 September 2022, an armed police officer shot and killed Chris Kaba during a vehicle stop in south London. The police referred the case to the IOPC, as required when someone dies or is seriously injured in police custody or contact. The IOPC investigated and referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service, which authorised a murder charge in September 2023. Concerns over accountability systems led the Home Office to launch a review in September 2023. In March 2024, the officer was identified and the Home Secretary announced three immediate changes to improve accountability: raising the threshold for CPS referrals; relaxing restrictions on criminal proceedings; and formalising victims’ rights under the IOPC’s victims’ right to review policy.
Clauses 106 to 108 implement these proposals, which had previously been tabled as amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. Clause 106 introduces significant procedural reform to allow certain criminal investigations into police misconduct to be expedited. It is clear that the clause will help to significantly speed up accountability, especially in cases involving clear and serious misconduct by police officers. By allowing criminal proceedings to be brought sooner, it reduces the delay in holding individuals accountable for their actions, ensuring that justice is not unduly postponed.
In situations where there is clear evidence of misconduct, that allows for quicker action. A quicker response can help to reassure the public that, where there are serious allegations, the authority is acting swiftly and decisively. It demonstrates that law enforcement and oversight bodies are committed to transparency and integrity. What safeguards are in place to prevent inappropriate or premature referrals to the Director of Public Prosecutions under this accelerated procedure? How will the IOPC or other appropriate authority be held accountable for determinations made?
Currently, chief officers have no right of appeal against panel decisions and may only challenge outcomes via judicial review. In October 2022, the Government launched a review of the dismissal process, with findings published in September 2023. Recommendations included a presumption of dismissal for gross misconduct; automatic gross misconduct designation for certain convictions; streamlined performance and vetting-based dismissal processes; and a new appeal right for chief officers. Met commissioner Sir Mark Rowley welcomed the reforms, citing the need for greater control to uphold standards. However, the Police Federation criticised the changes, warning they could undermine fair hearings and lead to excessive influence by chief officers, risking biased outcomes.
Dame Diana Johnson
I welcome what the shadow Minister has said. There have been no changes to the clauses that were introduced in the Criminal Justice Bill and that are now in the Crime and Policing Bill, so I think we are on the same page in terms of these being the appropriate measures to take forward. I am grateful that he set out in detail the case for introducing the new clauses, which seek to ensure that the provisions work in policing and are fit for purpose, and that everyone who is in policing is fit to be a police officer. I reassure the Committee that the Government take police integrity very seriously. It is essential, as I said in my earlier remarks, that we have public confidence in policing and that the highest standards are upheld and maintained. I think we all agree that individuals who fall below the standards the public expect should not be police officers.
New clause 23 seeks to ensure that previous complaints or convictions are considered a factor in determining when a complaint against an officer should be handled formally under schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. I recognise the shadow Minister’s desire to strengthen the legislation to that effect but, in reality, these elements are already established practice. Under existing statutory guidance issued by the IOPC, previous complaints against an officer should be taken into account when considering whether to handle a complaint under schedule 3. All those working in policing must have regard to that statutory guidance. Compelling forces to record complaints under schedule 3, where a historical complaint exists on an officer’s record, would limit their ability to handle those complaints in the most proportionate manner and in the interests of the complainant.
Similarly, information on historical convictions is available to forces on the police national computer and is relevant in determining the most appropriate way to handle a complaint. The Government have committed to ensuring that vetting rules are strengthened with regard to historical convictions. We intend to put mandatory vetting standards into law this year, so that those who have committed certain offences cannot hold vetting clearance and serve as police officers.
New clause 31 would amend the Police Act 1996 to ensure that a code of practice may provide that a police officer who fails their vetting will be dismissed without notice. It may help the Committee to understand that the Government have acted rapidly to develop new regulations in this area, which will enable forces to dismiss officers who cannot maintain vetting clearance. The regulations have taken into account the relevant legal proceedings, such as the Di Maria judicial review, which considered the adequacy of the Metropolitan Police Service’s processes to remove those officers without vetting clearance. The Police (Vetting) Regulations 2025, which were laid just last week on 23 April, introduced a duty on police officers to hold and maintain vetting clearance, and provide a bespoke regulatory mechanism by which they can be dismissed should they fail to do so.
The Government also strongly believe that there should be no circumstances in which an officer who is unable to hold vetting clearance should remain in policing, so I cannot support the qualification in new clause 31, which suggests that an officer may be capable of deployment to other duties despite failing to maintain their vetting clearance. I hope that, having had the opportunity to consider the existing framework for complaints, the new regulations that I just referred to and the ongoing work to strengthen the vetting rules, the shadow Minister will be content not to move his new clauses later in our proceedings.
I want to mention how the IOPC will keep an eye on the changes that are being introduced. It is clear that there will be scrutiny of what happens following the changes. If there are emerging patterns of cases where, for instance, the CPS declines to charge an officer, despite the IOPC referral, I would expect the IOPC to consider whether there are lessons to be learned and a further review to be undertaken.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 106 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 107 to 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 110
Power to make youth diversion orders
Dame Diana Johnson
I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 110, page 128, line 31, leave out “an” and insert “a relevant”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 54.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 54 and 55.
Clause stand part.
Clause 111 stand part.
Government new clause 61—Notification requirements.
Dame Diana Johnson
Part 14 of the Bill is about counter-terrorism and national security. Protecting the public is the first duty of any Government, which is why national security is a key pillar of the Government’s plan for change. The UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism frameworks in the world, but we cannot stand by while threats evolve.
As the Home Secretary has set out in her statements to the House, the Security Service, Counter Terrorism Policing and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation have all consistently raised concerns related to the increasing number of young people being investigated for terrorism offences. While there must always be the potential to pursue prosecutions in the most serious cases, it is important to ensure that there are alternative risk management measures that do not automatically result in a young person receiving a terrorism conviction, which can have a hugely destructive impact on their life prospects. We have listened to operational partners about the need for alternative and earlier interventions, and we are taking the opportunity to build on a recommendation made by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC. Chapter 1 of part 14 therefore introduces new youth diversion orders or YDOs.
YDOs will be a new civil order designed to better manage terrorist risk from young people, while reducing the need for their further involvement in the criminal justice system. They demonstrate this Government’s commitment to ensuring that operational partners have the tools they need to reduce terrorism risk and support rehabilitation.
Clause 110 introduces a new power for the police to apply to a youth or magistrates court for a YDO. To impose a YDO, the court will need to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has either committed a terrorism offence, committed a non-terrorism offence with a terrorism connection, or engaged in conduct likely to facilitate the commission of a terrorism offence. The court will also need to consider that it is necessary and proportionate to make the order to protect the public from a risk of terrorism or serious harm, as defined in clause 111. This ensures that the new orders will be imposed only where there is a serious risk to the public.
The technical Government amendments 53 to 55 adjust the definition of “offence with a terrorist connection” to avoid the need to refer to legislation relating to sentencing. Sentencing will not take place in YDO applications, but the judge considering a YDO application will be able to consider whether the individual has committed an offence with a terrorist connection, in the same way as a judge would consider this on sentencing.
Finally, new clause 61 requires individuals to provide their personal details to the police where a YDO includes notification requirements. The relevant details are the respondent’s name, including any aliases, and their home address. This requirement will not be automatic or mandatory for every YDO, but will need to be agreed by the court on a case-by-case basis.
The notification requirement will also include a requirement to provide information about the individual’s school or other educational establishment if relevant. This information would be helpful, for example, in a scenario where someone moved school and there was no other trigger for the local authority to inform the police of the move.
The new clause is supported by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and operational partners have confirmed that it is necessary to support the effective day-to-day management of YDOs. I commend the Government’s amendments to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
The new youth diversion orders are designed as a counterterrorism risk management tool for individuals under the age of 21. The purpose of the YDOs is to divert young people from engaging in terrorist activities, and to allow police to intervene at an earlier stage.
Clause 110 grants the police the authority to apply to the courts for a YDO. Clause 110 clarifies that a YDO can be applied for by a chief officer of police when the respondent meets certain criteria based on their age and involvement in terrorist-related offences. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the respondent must be between the ages of 10 and 21, and in Scotland, between 12 and 21.
The aim of the order is diversion, rather than punishment. The YDO is intended to help prevent further involvement in terrorism or related activities. The order may give rehabilitation, counselling or other interventions designed to steer the individual away from terrorism-related conduct. Clause 111 defines serious harm in the context of YDOs.
New clause 61 introduces notification requirements for a youth diversion order, where the respondent must notify the police within three days of being served with the order. The notification includes personal details such as the respondent’s name, any additional names, home address, and the name and address of any educational establishment the respondent normally attends. It is intended to help ensure the youth’s compliance with the order, as well as assist in tracking their progress or risk of non-compliance.
This approach strengthens the monitoring aspect of YDOs by tying in an educational component. It ensures that authorities have up-to-date information regarding the young person’s school involvement, which can be a crucial element in their rehabilitation. How will the Government ensure that the notification requirements, particularly educational details, do not inadvertently stigmatise the young person, or disrupt their education experience, especially in cases where the individual might already be vulnerable or at risk of exclusion from school?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments. On his point about information on schools and stigmatising children, am I right in thinking he believes that information will be made available to the public? I was not clear.
Matt Vickers
In educational settings, if people are given the details and the contact, might that be reflected?
Dame Diana Johnson
I do not wish to try your patience, Mrs Lewell, but my understanding is that this would not be public information that was shared. It would remain within the youth court or the magistrates court. I am looking to my officials, and they are nodding at me, so this is not information that would be in the public domain. I hope that that deals with the point around any stigmatisation of a young person who was subject to a YDO.
Amendment 53 agreed to.
Amendments made: 54, in clause 110, page 129, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—
“‘relevant offence’ means an offence which—
(a) was committed on or after 29 June 2021,
(b) is punishable on indictment with imprisonment for more than 2 years, and
(c) is not specified in—
(i) Schedule 1A to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, or
(ii) Schedule A1 to the Sentencing Code;”.
This amendment, Amendment 53 and Amendment 55 replace the concept of an “offence with a terrorist connection” with the concept of a “relevant offence with a terrorist connection” so as to enable the court dealing with an application for a youth diversion order to makes its own determination as to whether an offence has a terrorist connection.
Amendment 55, in clause 110, page 129, line 14, at end insert—
“(3A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a)(ii), a relevant offence has a terrorist connection if the offence—
(a) is, or takes place in the course of, an act of terrorism, or
(b) is committed for the purposes of terrorism.” —(Dame Diana Johnson.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 54.
Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 112
Content of youth diversion orders
Dame Diana Johnson
I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 112, page 130, line 11, leave out “subsection (2) or (3)” and insert “subsections (2) to (3A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 59.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 57 to 59.
Amendment 40, in clause 112, page 130, line 33, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) A youth diversion order must specify the period for which it has effect, up to a maximum of 12 months.
(7) An assessment must be taken of the respondent before the conclusion of a youth diversion order to determine if they continue to hold extremist views or pose a terror threat.
(8) An assessment must be made by a qualified expert in extremism and counterterrorism.
(9) Assessments taken by the respondent’s youth offending team must be reviewed by an external expert with no pre-existing relationship to the respondent.
(10) If the respondent is assessed as holding extremist views or as a terror threat the youth offending team or a chief officer of police must apply to an appropriate court for the youth offending order to be extended up to a maximum of 12 months.
(11) All provisions, prohibitions and requirements of a youth diversion order remain in effect until the respondent has been assessed as holding no extremist views or posing a terror threat.”
This amendment would give the police the ability to apply for youth diversion orders in cases of youth extremism and terror risks. The diversion orders would conclude automatically after a maximum of twelve months without an assessment as to whether the individual remained a terror risk or extremist.
Government amendment 60.
Clause stand part.
Government new clause 62—Electronic monitoring of compliance with order: England and Wales.
Government new clause 63—Conditions for imposing electronic monitoring requirement: England and Wales.
Government amendment 79.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 112 sets out a non-exhaustive list of prohibitions or requirements that may be included in a YDO and the safeguards that the police and courts must consider. The police must have the ability to mitigate risk to the public from young people being drawn into terrorism—a growing problem, as we all appreciate. The YDO will enable the police to impose necessary restrictions on an individual, subject to a court order. These may include limits on accessing certain websites or apps, or restrictions on engaging with specific individuals or groups. For example, this could include engagement with other children who have been assessed to be vulnerable to radicalisation. A YDO may also include positive requirements that the respondent must comply with. These may be rehabilitative in nature, including, for example, mandatory attendance at intervention sessions that seek to support the respondent in moving away from extremist ideologies.
Although it is critical that the police are able to impose necessary risk management and rehabilitative measures, the legislation ensures that there are safeguards to limit the extent of such measures. First, each measure must be necessary and proportionate for the purpose of mitigating a risk of terrorism or serious harm. Secondly, any measure included as part of a YDO must not unnecessarily interfere with a respondent’s educational or work commitments, or their religious beliefs. Thirdly, any measure may not exceed a total duration of two years. The aim is to ensure that YDOs have enough time to make a positive impact on a young person’s life while remaining proportionate to the scale of risk they pose to the public by being drawn into terrorism.
The Government amendments to clause 112 provide further examples of the measures that may be imposed through a YDO. This increases transparency and provides a clear statutory basis for the most intrusive measures that will be available. The expanded list of prohibitions and requirements represents the measures that we expect the police will most commonly apply to the court to include in a YDO.
Amendment 57 allows for potential restrictions on entering a specific area, including travel restrictions inside or outside the UK. Amendment 58 outlines potential requirements for the respondent to answer questions, provide information, or produce documents. Amendment 59 provides that, if included in a YDO, the individual may be required to comply with notification requirements, as detailed in new clause 61, and may be subject to restrictions on the possession of weapons and explosives. Amendments 56 and 60 are consequential on these other amendments.
New clauses 62 and 63 and Government amendment 79 enable a YDO to include an electronic monitoring requirement. This will enable the effective monitoring of and compliance with measures such as curfew requirements and exclusion measures. Operational partners have been explicit that having this capability will maximise the utility and effectiveness of YDOs.
Finally, amendment 40, tabled by the shadow Minister, seeks to give the police the ability to apply for a YDO in cases where a young person exhibits extremist views; it would also prevent an order from expiring unless there is an independent expert assessment that concludes the individual no longer poses a terrorist risk or holds extremist views. YDOs are designed for terrorism-related cases only. A YDO is a tool to be used only when young people pose a public safety risk. There are no plans to use YDOs for cases that do not meet terrorism thresholds, as this would interfere with the rights of young people.
This Government take extremism very seriously, and we are committed to ensuring that we have the tools and powers needed to address this issue. Efforts to counter extremism span a broad range of Government and law enforcement activity, and we must persist in our efforts to challenge extremist narratives, to disrupt the activity of radicalising groups, and to directly tackle the causes of radicalisation. The Home Office leads work on countering extremism, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will lead work with local councils on strengthening community cohesion. It is vital that the two programmes on cohesion and extremism work in parallel.
Clause 116(4), which we will debate in a later group, permits the police to apply for the extension of a YDO. There may be two extension applications, and each will be for a maximum of six months, so the maximum duration of an order is two years in total. I assure the hon. Member for Stockton West that counter-terrorism police will regularly assess the risk posed by the individual while the order is in force. Although decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, the police may decide to apply to the court to extend an order. Where the police assess that the risk posed by the respondent remains despite the order having been in place, they may consider, in consultation with the relevant prosecutorial authority, whether the relevant test for prosecution for terrorist offending is met. Should the risk posed by the individual persist for longer than 24 months, other tools may be considered.
I hope the shadow Minister will agree not to press amendment 40 given the clear operational need for the Government’s amendments, which I commend to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
Amendment 40 primarily focuses on the duration, assessment and possible extension of YDOs, and it would ensure that the orders are subject to review and that further intervention is applied when necessary. Under the amendment, YDOs must specify a period of up to 12 months in which the young person is monitored and guided through the diversion programme. This would ensure there is a clear time limit with a defined end point for the intervention.
Additionally, before the order concludes, an assessment must be carried out to evaluate whether the individual continues to hold extremist views or poses a terrorism threat. This would add an important safeguard to the process, ensuring that young people who may still be a risk are identified before the order ends. A critical element of the amendment is the requirement that qualified experts carry out the assessment. The evaluation of whether the individual continues to hold extremist views or to present a terrorism risk must be conducted by an expert in extremism and counter-terrorism. This would ensure the assessment is informed by a high level of expertise and understanding of the complexities of radicalisation.
Assessments made by the youth offending team must be reviewed by an external expert who has no pre-existing relationship with the respondent. This independent review would guarantee objectivity and minimise any potential bias in the evaluation process. If the individual was assessed to be still holding extremist views or continuing to pose a terrorism risk, the youth offending team or a chief officer of the police would have the power to apply to the court for an extension of the youth diversion order. This extension could be granted for an additional 12 months, allowing continued intervention and monitoring of the individual. Importantly, the extension would ensure that the order remained in place for as long as the individual was considered to pose a risk to public safety.
Finally, the amendment specifies that all provisions, prohibitions and requirements set by the YDO will remain in effect until the individual has been assessed as holding no extremist views or posing no terrorism threat. This would ensure that the protective measures stipulated in the order were maintained throughout the duration of the individual’s involvement in the diversion programme, offering ongoing protection to the public while allowing continued monitoring of the individual’s risk level. The amendment would ensure that the diversion process is both effective and responsive to the changing nature of extremist behaviour, and that any decision to conclude or extend the order is based on robust and independent expert evaluations, thus improving the overall effectiveness of the youth intervention measures in countering extremism and terrorism.
Clause 112 outlines the content and conditions of a youth diversion order, providing the framework for how the order can be structured and what it can include. How will the Government ensure that YDOs do not interfere with religious or cultural practices of respondents, as the clause provides, especially when it comes to limitations on association or communication?
The Chair
My sincere apologies to the Committee: before I called the shadow Minister, I should have proposed Government amendment 56. I call the Minister.
Dame Diana Johnson
To answer the question that the shadow Minister just posed, I said in my earlier remarks that there would not be restrictions that interfered with educational and work commitments, or with religious observances. I think that deals with his question. On that basis, commend the Government amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 56 agreed to.
Amendments made: 57, in clause 112, page 130, line 18, at end insert—
“(d) the respondent’s presence in, or access to, a specified area or place or an area or place of a specified description;
(e) the respondent's travel (whether within the United Kingdom, between the United Kingdom and other places or otherwise).”
This amendment provides that the prohibitions or requirements a youth diversion order may contain include ones relating to the respondent’s presence in or access to particular areas or places, or to the respondent’s travel.
Amendment 58, in clause 112, page 130, line 22, leave out “provide information” and insert
“answer questions, provide information or produce documents”.
This amendment provides that a youth diversion order may require the respondent to answer questions, provide information or produce documents.
Amendment 59, in clause 112, page 130, line 23, at end insert—
“(d) require the respondent to comply with section (Notification requirements) (notification requirements).
(3A) An order may contain any prohibition that is of a kind that could be imposed by the Secretary of State in relation to an individual by virtue of paragraph 6A of Schedule 1 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (weapons and explosives measures).”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment provides that a youth diversion order may require the respondent to comply with notification requirements under NC61 and may contain prohibitions relating to weapons and explosives.
Amendment proposed: 40, in clause 112, page 130, line 33, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) A youth diversion order must specify the period for which it has effect, up to a maximum of 12 months.
(7) An assessment must be taken of the respondent before the conclusion of a youth diversion order to determine if they continue to hold extremist views or pose a terror threat.
(8) An assessment must be made by a qualified expert in extremism and counterterrorism.
(9) Assessments taken by the respondent’s youth offending team must be reviewed by an external expert with no pre-existing relationship to the respondent.
(10) If the respondent is assessed as holding extremist views or as a terror threat the youth offending team or a chief officer of police must apply to an appropriate court for the youth offending order to be extended up to a maximum of 12 months.
(11) All provisions, prohibitions and requirements of a youth diversion order remain in effect until the respondent has been assessed as holding no extremist views or posing a terror threat.”—(Matt Vickers.)
This amendment would give the police the ability to apply for youth diversion orders in cases of youth extremism and terror risks. The diversion orders would conclude automatically after a maximum of twelve months without an assessment as to whether the individual remained a terror risk or extremist.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dame Diana Johnson
I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 113, page 131, line 4, leave out from “order” to “consult” in line 5 and insert
“, a chief officer of police must, if the respondent will be under the age of 18 when the application is made,”.
This is a drafting change that ensures consistency between the drafting of subsection (1) of clause 113 and subsection (2) of that clause as amended by Amendment 62.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 62, 64 and 63.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 65 and 66.
Clause 114 stand part.
Government amendment 67.
Clause 115 stand part.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clauses 113 to 115 set out duties on the police to consult with relevant authorities, provide for applications to be made without notice in urgent circumstances, and provide for interim YDOs to be made.
The Committee will recognise the importance of ensuring that the police take wider factors into consideration—for example, a person’s age, mental health, safeguarding and educational needs—before applying for a YDO. Clause 113 therefore introduces a duty to consult before applying for an order or applying for variation or discharge of an order. In England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, the police will be required to consult with youth offending teams and the Youth Justice Agency respectively for applications involving individuals under the age of 18. In Scotland, the police will be required to consult with the Lord Advocate for all applications. This is necessary to give effect to the different position in Scotland, where consultation with the Lord Advocate is appropriate for all YDOs, including for 18 to 21-year-olds, and for without-notice YDO applications. That reflects the Lord Advocate’s specific functions in relation to their role as the head of the system for the investigation and prosecution of crime, which includes a specific working relationship with Police Scotland.
Government amendments 62 and 65 make the additional requirement in respect of Scotland that the police consult with the local authority before making an application for a YDO, irrespective of the age of the respondent, and remove the requirement for consultation with the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration for YDOs for under-18s. Again, the amendments are necessary to give effect to the different position in Scotland, where there is no equivalent to youth offending teams. Government amendments 63, 64 and 66 are consequential on those amendments, while Government amendment 61 ensures consistency of drafting between the subsections of clauses 113, as amended.
Consultation will be an important part of the YDO application process, ensuring that the police have thoroughly considered the necessity and proportionality of a YDO and taken into account the expertise of those who work closely with young people in the community. This statutory duty does not prevent the police from engaging with other authorities, such as the CPS or the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, wider social services, or the respondent’s school or college, where appropriate.
While it is likely to be rare in practice, there may be circumstances in which an urgent YDO application is required and providing notice to the respondent may increase risk. Therefore, clause 114 provides a route for police to apply for a YDO without notice to the respondent. The requirement to consult does not apply in such cases, although the police will still be required to consult relevant authorities before the full court hearing for a YDO.
Where an application is made without notice, the court will be able to consider whether to impose an interim order, in line with the approach taken with other preventive orders, such as knife crime prevention orders. Due to the temporary nature of an interim order, clause 115 ensures that the only positive requirements that can be included in such an order are to provide information and to comply with notification requirements. For example, the Bill does not allow the police to impose a requirement to attend intervention sessions similar to Prevent in an interim order, but they will be able to impose risk-management measures where necessary and proportionate, subject to the court’s permission. Amendment 67 clarifies the measures that can and cannot be imposed in an interim YDO.
I commend the amendments and the clauses to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
Clause 113 outlines the duty to consult before making an application for a youth diversion order or the variation or discharge of such an order, particularly when the individual involved is under 18. It ensures that key stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process, so that the young person’s best interests are taken into account, and it ensures that the relevant agencies are informed and consulted before any formal application is made. How do the Government plan to ensure that the agencies that are consulted—in particular the youth offending teams—have the necessary expertise and resources to adequately assess the case before the application for a YDO is made?
Clause 114 outlines the process for making an application for a youth diversion order without notice to the respondent. This provision is significant because it allows for situations in which immediate intervention is necessary and the respondent is not notified before the application is made. How will the Government ensure that respondents’ rights are protected in cases where an application is made without notice? What measures are in place to prevent misuse of this provision?
Clause 115 makes provision for an interim youth diversion order to be made during the adjournment of a hearing for a full YDO. It ensures that even while a decision on the full application is pending, the court can take immediate temporary action to manage the respondent’s risk, particularly in cases involving potential extremism or terrorism. The clause allows the courts to impose interim measures to temporarily manage a respondent’s behaviour, safeguarding public safety, while the full process is ongoing.
Dame Diana Johnson
The shadow Minister raised the issue of consultation with youth offending teams and their equivalent in the devolved nations. My understanding is that we are not talking about a large number of individuals being subject to these provisions. The reason we say that youth offending teams have to be consulted is that they have the expertise and the knowledge of working with young people, and it is likely that the individuals they will be consulted on will already be known to them. It is a good, positive measure to undertake that consultation with youth offending teams and recognise the skills and safeguards that they will bring. Their knowledge of the individual will perhaps include, as I spoke about earlier, issues in their background or safeguarding issues that need to be considered. That is really important.
An interim YDO may be required if there is an immediate risk that has to be managed. That is why provision needs to be made for interim YDOs, but of course they are interim, and a full hearing will take place. Interim YDOs will be used only in urgent circumstances, and of course the court will have to agree; while an application can be made, if the court does not recognise the urgency, it will not be granted. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has agreed that the power to make interim measures is necessary in order for YDOs to be effective.
I hope that, on the basis of those answers, the shadow Minister is satisfied that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Amendment 61 agreed to.
Amendments made: 62, in clause 113, page 131, line 10, leave out from “Scotland” to end of line 15 and insert
“must consult—
(a) the Lord Advocate,
(b) the relevant local authority, and
(c) if the respondent will be under the age of 18 when the application is made, the Principal Reporter.”
This amendment changes who the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland must consult before making an application for a youth diversion order or for the variation or discharge of such an order.
Amendment 64, in clause 113, page 131, line 21, at end insert—
“‘relevant local authority’ means—
(a) the Scottish local authority in whose area it appears to the chief constable that the respondent lives, or
(b) if it appears to the chief constable that the respondent lives in more than one such area, whichever one or more of the relevant Scottish local authorities that the chief constable considers it appropriate to consult;”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 62.
Amendment 63, in clause 113, page 131, line 21, after “section” insert “—
‘Scottish local authority’ means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994;”.—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 62.
Clause 113, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114
Applications without notice
Amendments made: 65, in clause 114, page 131, line 27, leave out “Section 113(1) does” and insert
“Subsections (1) and (2)(b) and (c) of section 113 do”.
This amendment disapplies the requirement to consult the relevant local authority and (where the respondent is under 18) the Principal Reporter where an application for a youth diversion order is made without notice in Scotland.
Amendment 66, in clause 114, page 131, line 35, leave out “section 113(1)” and insert
“subsection (1) or (2)(b) and (c) of section 113 (as the case may be)”.—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 65.
Clause 114, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115
Interim youth diversion orders
Amendment made: 67, in clause 115, page 132, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and substitute—
“(3) The only requirements that may be imposed by an interim youth diversion order on the respondent are—
(a) a requirement of the kind mentioned in section 112(3)(b) (requirements to provide information etc);
(b) a requirement to comply with section (Notification requirements) (notification requirements).”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment enables an interim youth diversion order to require the respondent answer questions, provide information or produce documents, or to comply with notification requirements under NC61.
Clause 115, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 116
Variation and discharge of youth diversion orders
Dame Diana Johnson
I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 116, page 132, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) The court may make provision of a kind mentioned in subsection (4) only if it considers that the provision is necessary for the purpose of protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism or other serious harm.
(4B) Subsections (5) and (7) of section 112 apply to additional prohibitions or requirements included on a variation of an order.”
This amendment provides that a court may only vary a youth diversion order to include an additional prohibition or requirement or to extend its duration if it considers it necessary; and that certain provision in clause 112 about the content of orders applies equally to such additional prohibitions or requirements.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 69 to 71.
Clause 117 stand part.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 116 ensures that the police or the subject of a YDO can apply to the relevant court to vary the order once it is in place to, for example, add or remove measures or to change the duration of existing measures. The clause also allows the police or the subject of a YDO to apply to end the order before it is due to expire, allowing the police to withdraw the order if it is no longer considered necessary.
Clause 117 sets out the route for the police or a respondent to appeal against a court decision to impose a YDO, an interim YDO or any change made under clause 116. Appeals will be made to the Crown court in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Sheriff Appeal Court in Scotland. The court may then make changes on the basis of that appeal, as required. Government amendments 68 and 71 make changes to clarify and streamline the appeals process for YDOs, as do Government amendments 69 and 70, which provide that a second appeal in relation to a YDO may be made to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales.
The Committee will recognise the importance of the clauses in ensuring that there is a process for varying or revoking the order as well as for both the police and YDO subjects to have a prescribed and proportionate route for appeals.
Amendment 68 agreed to.
Clause 116, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 117
Appeal against youth diversion order etc
Dame Diana Johnson
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 118, page 133, line 22, at end insert—
“(1A) Where a youth diversion order requires a person to provide information or produce a document, it is an offence for the person, in purported compliance with that requirement, to provide any information or produce any document which the person knows to be false.
(1B) Where a youth diversion order requires a person to comply with section (Notification requirements), it is an offence for the person, in purported compliance with that section, to notify to the police any information which the person knows to be false.”
This amendment makes it an offence for a person to knowingly provide false information, produce a false document or notify false information in purported compliance with notification requirements imposed under a youth diversion order.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 73 to 75.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 76.
Clauses 119 and 120 stand part.
Government amendments 77 and 78.
Clause 121 stand part.
Government new clause 64—Data from electronic monitoring in England and Wales: code of practice.
Government new clause 65—Reviews of operation of this Chapter.
New clause 42—Report on the organisations responsible for implementing and enforcing youth diversion orders—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the organisations responsible for implementing and enforcing youth diversion orders.
(2) That report must include—
(a) the organisations which will be responsible for implementing and enforcing youth diversion orders;
(b) what level of counterterrorism and de-radicalisation training and expertise they have; and
(c) what additional resources they will require to effectively administer the provisions, prohibitions and requirements of youth diversion orders.
(3) Within one month of the publication of this report, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a plan assessing the—
(a) training,
(b) financing, and
(c) guidance,
available to the organisations identified in the report under subsection (1) to bring their training, expertise and funding to the requisite level identified in that report.
(4) The Secretary of State must commission a report from the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to assess whether the levels of funding, training and expertise proposed in the plan under subsection (3) are sufficient. This report will be laid before Parliament with the plan under subsection (3).”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on the organisations responsible for implementing and enforcing youth diversion orders and a plan and independent report on the funding, training and expertise they need.
Dame Diana Johnson
I wonder whether it might be helpful for the Committee if I respond after the shadow Minister has spoken to his new clause 42.
Matt Vickers
Clauses 118 and 119 outline the offence of breaching a youth diversion order and subsequent processes for issuing and revising guidance on the exercise of functions related to youth diversion orders.
Clause 118(4) provides that if a person is convicted of breaching a youth diversion order, the court cannot issue a conditional discharge requiring a substantive penalty instead. This provision prevents a lenient approach that might fail to deter non-compliance. The clause also establishes varying penalties based on age, with difference consequences for individuals under and over 18. How do these penalties balance deterrence with the goal of rehabilitating young offenders, particularly those under 18?
Clause 119 grants the Secretary of State the authority to issue guidance for local police forces. How does the Minister plan to ensure that that guidance brings consistency in the application of YDOs across different regions? Further clauses outline wider procedures, including for applications for YDOs.
New clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within three months of the passage of the Act detailing the organisations responsible for implementing and enforcing youth diversion orders. The report must cover the organisations involved, the counter-terrorism and deradicalisation training they possess and any additional resources required to effectively manage the YDO provisions. Within one month of the report’s publication, the Secretary of State must present a plan to address training, financing and guidance to meet the required standards. Additionally, the Secretary of State must commission an independent assessment by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to evaluate whether the proposed levels of funding, training and expertise are adequate, with that assessment being laid before Parliament alongside the plan.
The new clause would ensure the effective implementation of youth diversion orders with the necessary expertise. The requirement for a report and plan would ensure that organisations are prepared to handle counter-terrorism and deradicalisation issues. It would set clear expectations for training and funding, holding the Government accountable for providing sufficient resources. The independent assessment by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation would add scrutiny, ensuring that the Government’s plans meet the required standards. Overall, the new clause would introduce a proactive and transparent approach, fostering confidence in the system’s ability to address terrorism and extremism.
What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the organisations involved in implementing YDOs have the necessary counter-terrorism and deradicalisation training and expertise? Are the Government confident that those organisations are sufficiently prepared without the need for an independent assessment? Given the complexity of implementing YDOs, does the Minister agree that additional resources might be required to ensure that the orders are effectively enforced? If not, what plans are in place to guarantee that the organisations responsible are adequately resourced?
Dame Diana Johnson
Clauses 118 to 121 will support the implementation of YDOs. Although the aim of a YDO is to divert a young person away from terrorist offending, it is critical that there is an effective deterrent against breaching the order, and that where a young person breaches the order, the police can take action.
Clause 118 ensures that a separate criminal offence is available for breaching a YDO without a reasonable excuse. In practice, we propose that statutory guidance will set out that the police will be expected to consult youth offending teams where there is a suspected breach, and for less serious breaches the police may consider alternatives to prosecution, such as varying the measures in the order or issuing a formal warning to the individual. Prosecution for this offence will therefore be a last resort.
Government amendment 72 makes it an offence for a person to knowingly provide false information, produce a false document or notify false information in purported compliance with notification requirements imposed under a YDO. Government amendments 73 and 74 make the offences under clause 18 triable either way irrespective of the defendant’s age, with a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. The amendments ensure that there is a consistent maximum penalty for any breach of a YDO, regardless of the young person’s age, and that the legislation more accurately reflects the potential severity of breaching a YDO. For example, a serious breach may involve a breach of a weapons measure, such as by making plans to purchase knives or encouraging or assisting others to do so. We would expect a prosecution for that offence to be the last resort. Detail on other options to be considered beforehand will be included in the statutory guidance. The change is supported by operational partners and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Government amendment 75 enables a copy of a YDO to be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings for breach of the order.
Clause 119 introduces a new power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the police in relation to YDOs. In issuing such guidance, we recognise the importance of proper consultation with relevant authorities, including the police, the prosecution service in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, and the Lord Advocate in Scotland. That is why clause 119 requires mandatory consultation with certain parties and permits the Secretary of State to consult with other stakeholders, where appropriate. Government amendment 76 expands the list of consultees to include youth justice agencies.
Clause 120 ensures that rules of court can provide for anonymity for individuals going through civil proceedings for a YDO. That is important to ensure that reporting restrictions apply, and it is in line with the general policy aim of ensuring that young people do not feel stigmatised through engagement with the justice system—something that the shadow Minister has spoken about.
Finally, clause 121 makes procedural provision in respect of applications for a YDO. Government amendment 77 disapplies the time limit that would otherwise prevent an application for a YDO from being made in relation to matters arising more than six months prior to the making of the application. Amendment 78 enables proceedings in Scotland for, or in relation to, a YDO to be heard by a summary sheriff.
I turn to the Government new clauses in this group. To safeguard effectively the data that is gathered under electronic monitoring requirements, new clause 64 will require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice for the processing of such data. The processing of such data will be subject to the requirements in the UK general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. New clause 65 will enable the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to review and report on the use and operationalisation of the youth diversion order. The independent reviewer already has a number of statutory functions, and this new clause aligns his statutory functions, enabling him to report on the YDO. The independent reviewer has been consulted on the clause, and his view is that the power to review the operation of the youth diversion order is important.
New clause 42, tabled by the shadow Minister, would require the Government to publish a report on the organisations that are responsible for implementing and enforcing YDOs, and a plan for delivering the relevant funding, training and guidance available for these organisations. It would also require the Government to commission a report from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.
As Matt Jukes, the head of counter-terrorism policing, set out in his written evidence to this Committee, counter-terrorism policing is a collaboration of UK police forces with a network of exceptional investigators. It is the lead law enforcement agency for managing terrorist risk, so it is appropriate that it will lead the implementation and enforcement of YDOs. It will be supported in this role by youth justice partners who have substantial experience of working with young people who are subject to court-imposed orders.
As I have already set out, Government new clause 65 already ensures that YDOs are added to the statutory remit of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. As part of this role, the independent reviewer is required to review the operation of YDOs in practice and report to Parliament. I hope that the shadow Minister agrees that new clause 42 is therefore unnecessary.
On the other issue that the shadow Minister referred to, regarding the consistent use of YDOs across the UK, one of the key objectives of the statutory guidance under clause 119, which chief officers must have regard to, is to ensure that there is consistency. To go back to the point about the youth offending teams, given the small size of the cohort of children who are likely to be given a YDO, we do not anticipate that the changes will add significant pressures to those youth offending teams. On that basis, I commend the Government’s amendments to the Committee.
Amendment 72 agreed to.
Amendments made: 73, in clause 118, page 133, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 74.
Amendment 74, in clause 118, page 133, line 33, leave out “aged 18 or over”.
This amendment makes offences under clause 118 (breach of youth diversion order) triable either way whatever the age of the respondent.
Amendment 75, in clause 118, page 134, line 8, at end insert—
“(5) In proceedings for an offence under this section, a copy of the original youth diversion order, certified by the proper officer of the court that made it, is admissible as evidence of its having been made and of its contents to the same extent that oral evidence of those matters is admissible in those proceedings.”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment enables a copy of a youth diversion order to be admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings for breach of the order.
Clause 118, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
Guidance
Amendment made: 76, in clause 119, page 134, line 16, at end insert—
“(za) the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales;
(zb) the Scottish Ministers;
(zc) the Youth Justice Agency in Northern Ireland;”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment adds to the list of persons the Secretary of State must consult before issuing or revising guidance to chief officers of police about youth diversion orders.
Clause 119, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121
Applications
Amendments made: 77, in clause 121, page 135, line 17, at end insert—
“(2) Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (time limit for complaints etc) does not apply to a complaint under this Chapter.”
This amendment disapplies the time limit that would otherwise prevent an application for a youth diversion order being made in relation to matters arising more than six months prior to the making of the application.
Amendment 78, in clause 121, page 135, line 17, at end insert—
“(3) In Schedule 1 to the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (asp 17) (civil proceedings etc in which summary sheriff has competence), after paragraph 12 insert—
‘Youth diversion orders
13 Proceedings for or in relation to a youth diversion order under section 110 of the Crime and Policing Act 2025.’” —(Dame Diana Johnson.)
This amendment enables proceedings in Scotland for or in relation to a youth diversion order to be heard by a summary sheriff.
Clause 121, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122
Prevention of terrorism and state threats: weapons etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 122 amends the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 and the National Security Act 2023 to broaden the definition of weapons that are prohibited for individuals who are subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures or state threat prevention and investigation measures. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to prohibit individuals who are subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or to state threat prevention and investigation measures, from possessing any items that she reasonably considers could be used to cause injury. The change builds on a recommendation by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, in his annual report “The Terrorism Acts in 2022”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 43—Travel abroad to support a proscribed organisation—
“(1) A person commits an offence if they travel outside of the United Kingdom to support a proscribed organisation.
(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘support’ includes—
(a) becoming a member of a proscribed organisation, or an affiliated group of a proscribed organisation;
(b) working for any entity, either voluntarily or for financial gain, run by a proscribed organisation;
(c) attending political, religious or social gatherings in support of a proscribed organisation;
(d) meeting with members of a proscribed organisation;
(e) creating content, both online and offline, to raise support for a proscribed organisation; or
(f) travelling to territory controlled by a proscribed organisation without an exemption.
(3) This section does not apply to—
(a) accredited non-governmental organisations and humanitarian organisations;
(b) accredited media outlets and journalists;
(c) diplomats and other governmental officials travelling in an official capacity; or
(d) independent journalists and content creators reporting on a proscribed organisation, or in a territory with a proscribed organisation present.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, to a fine (or both), or
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment of a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).”
This new clause would make travelling abroad to support a proscribed organisation an offence.
Dame Diana Johnson
Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes it an offence for a person to wear or display an article in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that they are a member or supporter of a proscribed terrorist organisation. The offence is committed only if the person carries out such conduct in a public place.
Clause 123 makes two key changes to section 13 of the Terrorism Act. The first is to create a new offence where a person carries out the conduct in one of the relevant premises set out in the Bill, including prisons, young offender institutions and immigration removal centres. In 2022, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation undertook a review of terrorism in prisons. That was in the context of the UK suffering four terrorist attacks in 2019 and 2020 committed by serving prisoners or terrorist offenders who had been released on licence. One of the reviewer’s recommendations was for the Government to consider amending section 13 to extend the offence to prison settings. This clause implements and builds on that recommendation. The new offence will act as a deterrent to such harmful conduct in the prison estate, and it will help to prevent exposure to articles that are linked to terrorist organisations. That, in turn, may reduce the risk of individuals being radicalised or otherwise encouraged to support such groups.
The second change concerns the powers of seizure under section 13. In his report “The Terrorism Acts in 2022”, the independent reviewer highlighted that the existing seizure powers would not be available where the police could not connect an article, such as a flag or banner, to specific individuals for the purpose of further criminal investigation. He recommended that that gap should be rectified. The clause will therefore amend section 13 to ensure that the police can seize such articles even when there is no real prospect of prosecuting an individual for a section 13 offence. An article may therefore be seized to prevent its continuing display and to preserve it as evidence.
Both changes to section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 implement the independent reviewer’s recommendations and are supported by the police. They will ensure that the offence and associated seizure powers can be used to full effect. I am happy to respond to new clause 43 once we have heard from the shadow Minister.
Matt Vickers
Clause 123 amends section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which concerns the offence of wearing or displaying articles in support of a proscribed organisation. The key amendment is the introduction of a new offence:
“A person commits an offence if, on relevant premises, the person…wears…or displays an article, in such a way…as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.”
What is the rationale for introducing the concept of reasonable suspicion in the offence of wearing or displaying articles, as opposed to requiring more direct evidence of support for a proscribed organisation? I would also be grateful for clarity on how the list of relevant premises is determined. Could that include other locations or contexts beyond those listed?
New clause 43 introduces a criminal offence for individuals who travel outside the United Kingdom to support a proscribed organisation. The offence covers various forms of support, including joining or working for a proscribed organisation or its affiliated groups, attending events in support of such an organisation, meeting with its members, creating content to promote the organisation, or travelling to areas controlled by the organisation without a legal exemption. The new clause provides specific exemptions for accredited non-governmental organisations and humanitarian organisations, media outlets and journalists, and diplomats or Government officials travelling in an official capacity. A person who is found guilty under the provision could face a severe penalty of imprisonment for up to 14 years on conviction on indictment, or up to six months and a fine on summary conviction.
The measure is a proactive step to curb the influence and spread of terrorism. By criminalising travel abroad to support a proscribed organisation, it would help to prevent individuals from engaging in activities that might contribute to terrorism and destabilisation abroad. The inclusion of various forms of support, ranging from membership and financial involvement to attending gatherings or creating content, provides clarity on what constitutes illegal activity. That would ensure that law enforcement could pursue a wide range of actions that support proscribed organisations.
New clause 43 is designed to prevent individuals from becoming embedded with or supporting proscribed organisations. Why would the Government not support a preventive measure that helps to protect the UK from individuals travelling abroad to engage in terrorism-related activities?
Dame Diana Johnson
As the shadow Minister has explained, new clause 43 seeks to introduce a new offence for travelling abroad to support a proscribed organisation. The UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism frameworks in the world. That includes, under the Terrorism Act 2000, the ability to proscribe an organisation that the Home Secretary reasonably believes is concerned in terrorism. That means that it commits and participates in terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. Some 80 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed.
As part of the counter-terrorism framework, there are a wide range of powers and offences that can be used by the Government and operational partners to disrupt travel overseas for terrorist purposes and to prosecute individuals on their return. That includes, for example, an executive power to cancel a British citizen’s passport and the power to temporarily seize a passport when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is traveling to engage in terrorism-related activity.
There are also a wide range of terrorism offences that could be engaged in relation to an individual who travels to support a proscribed organisation. For example, it is an offence to be a member of a proscribed organisation, to invite support—the invited support can be intangible, and it is not limited to money, property or support that incites violence or encourages terrorism—for a proscribed organisation, to attend a place used for terrorist training or to provide or receive terrorist training, and to undertake preparatory acts with the intention of committing an act of terrorism or assisting another to commit an act of terrorism.
The counter-terrorism framework also includes the designated area offence, which permits the Secretary of State to designate an area if she is satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism to restrict British nationals and residents from entering or remaining in the area. It is an offence for UK nationals or UK residents to enter or remain in a designated area. I recognise that the power has not been used to date, but the Government’s view is that it remains a useful tool to disrupt terrorist travel in the right circumstances.
As the shadow Minister may be aware, the Government are considering a recommendation made by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, on the topic raised by his new clause. The Government will not hesitate to address gaps in our toolkit and to ensure that it keeps pace with the modern terrorist threat. We have brought forward measures in the Bill to implement and build on recommendations the reviewer put forward under the last Government. In November 2024, the Home Secretary accepted his recommendation to consider introducing a new terrorist travel offence. Officials are currently considering it with operational partners, as well as the extent to which there is a gap. It is vital that any new offence extends the ability of operational partners and the CPS to disrupt and prosecute those involved in terrorism. In due course, the Government will respond fully to that recommendation on disrupting terrorist travel.
Before I conclude, on the issue of reasonable suspicion and the requirement, this measure simply extends beyond private settings to designated settings. We are not changing the reasonable suspicion test; I hope that that is helpful to the shadow Minister. For the reasons set out, I hope he will be content not to press his new clause 43 when we reach it later in our proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 123 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 124
Management of terrorist offenders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 16.
Government new clause 21—Terrorism offences excepted from defence for slavery or trafficking victims.
Government amendment 23.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 124 introduces schedule 16, which amends the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. It gives powers to effectively manage a certain cohort of historical terrorism offenders. That cohort includes individuals who committed non-terrorism offences, such as conspiracy to murder, that would have been considered to have a terrorism connection had they not been committed before the relevant legislation came into effect. This is the same cohort of historical terrorism-connected offenders as captured by clause 104, relating to the polygraph testing of those offenders, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice spoke to earlier.
The 2008 Act introduced a requirement for courts to consider whether there is a connection to terrorism when sentencing certain specified offences. In circumstances where a court determines that an offence has a terrorism connection, it must aggravate the sentence. Where a terrorist connection is determined, the sentence imposed will reflect the risk profile of the offender. In addition, the offender can be more appropriately managed on their release because certain counter-terrorism risk management tools become available to the police in respect of that offender.
Since the passage of the 2008 Act, several further risk management tools have been introduced via various Acts of Parliament to manage terrorism and terrorist-connected offenders. The Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 also expanded the scope of the terrorist connection provisions to require a court to aggravate certain non-terrorism offences with a maximum penalty of more than two years.
The clause and the associated schedule will extend the application of existing risk management measures. Those measures include powers of urgent arrest and personal search for those on licence, where it is suspected that they have breached a licence condition, as well as imposing terrorist notification requirements under the 2008 Act for this cohort of historical terrorism-connected offenders.
The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation noted that the schedule will allow the police to apply important counter-terrorism measures to serious offenders involved in terrorist plots backed by proscribed organisations, but who were convicted of non-terrorism offences. The amendments made in schedule 16 will also permit the police or the Secretary of State to apply to the courts for an order imposing the terrorist notification requirements on offenders whose historical offences have a terrorist connection. If such an order is made, the urgent arrest power and the power of personal search will also apply in respect of the offender. That measure is supported by the police and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who described it as a “sensible measure”.
Government new clause 21 will add certain existing terrorism-related offences to schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Government amendment 23 is consequential on new clause 21. As we have debated, schedule 4 to the 2015 Act contains a list of serious offences to which the section 45 defence of that Act does not apply. The list currently includes some terrorism offences, as well as serious violence and sexual offences. Section 45 provides a statutory defence against prosecution for victims of modern slavery, and is designed to give victims the confidence to come forward without fear of prosecution.
Schedule 4 to the 2015 Act ensures that those who commit the most serious offences specified in the schedule do not have the option to rely on that defence. New clause 21 adds existing terrorism offences to schedule 4, building on a recommendation made by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. Currently, only a limited number of terrorism offences are listed in schedule 4, including those in sections 5 and 6 of the Terrorism Act 2006—preparation of terrorist acts and training for terrorism, respectively. Others, such as the offence in section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000—collection of information useful to terrorists—are in scope of the section 45 defence.
Alex Davies-Jones
The clause will bring the offence of breaching a foreign travel restriction order, under paragraph 15 of schedule 5 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, within scope of the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020, known as TORER.
TORER was emergency legislation passed in 2020 following the horrific terrorist attacks at Fishmongers’ Hall and in Streatham, committed by terrorist offenders on licence. TORER restricts the eligibility of terrorist prisoners for release on licence. It ended the automatic early release—in other words, release without Parole Board approval—of individuals who have committed a terrorist offence carrying a maximum penalty of more than two years’ imprisonment, and increased their release eligibility date from the halfway point of their sentence to the two-thirds point.
The offence of breaching a foreign travel restriction order is not currently covered by TORER, despite having a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment and being a terrorism-specific offence, and despite offences for breaching other terrorism-related orders being within scope of TORER. The clause will add breaching a foreign travel restriction order to TORER, ensuring greater consistency.
Since the introduction of TORER in 2020, a number of other changes have been made to the counter-terrorism legislative framework to strengthen the risk management of individuals who commit a terrorism offence carrying a maximum penalty of more than two years. We are seeking to apply those changes to this offence too, in order to ensure that consistency remains.
Specifically, we are ensuring that the offence of breaching a foreign travel restriction order is capable of attracting a sentence for offenders of particular concern, and the equivalent sentence in Northern Ireland and Scotland. We are also making the offender eligible for certain specialist management on licence, including eligibility for personal search conditions, which will be UK-wide, and a polygraph condition, which will be for England and Wales only. We will also ensure that the offence is incapable of being found by the court at the point of sentencing to have been committed with a terrorist connection, on the basis that it is in fact a terrorist offence. Given that the offence of breaching a foreign travel restriction order applies UK-wide, the clause also makes the equivalent changes for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
This change will ensure that sentencing and release arrangements are commensurate with the risk that the individual is considered to pose, and that eligibility for terrorism management conditions is consistent with other terrorist offences. I commend clause 125 and schedule 17 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 125 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 126
Length of terrorism sentence with fixed licence period: Northern Ireland
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 126 makes a minor amendment to ensure that sentencing for terrorist offenders in Northern Ireland remains consistent with that in England and Wales. The sentencing and release regime for terrorists who commit offences attracting a maximum penalty of more than two years’ imprisonment is designed to be consistent throughout the United Kingdom.
However, as currently drafted, the relevant legislation in Northern Ireland—the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, and specifically article 15A—makes it possible for judges to hand down incommensurate sentences. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure consistency, so that where a sentencing court in Northern Ireland hands down such a sentence, known as the terrorism sentence with a fixed licence period, the length of the sentence is commensurate with the seriousness of the offending. That will then be comparable to the equivalent sentence in England and Wales, namely the sentence for offenders of particular concern.
Action is necessary to ensure consistency and fairness across UK jurisdictions. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 127
Implementation of international law enforcement information-sharing agreements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
Clause 127 relates to the implementation of international law enforcement information-sharing agreements, clause 128 sets out the meaning of “appropriate national authority” and clause 129 relates to the consultation with devolved authorities about regulations under clause 127.
International law enforcement information-sharing agreements are a vital tool that provides law enforcement officers with access to new intelligence to fight crime, increase public protection and reduce the threat of societal harm posed by international criminality. Clause 127 will provide the appropriate national authority with the power to make regulations to implement any new legally binding international law enforcement information-sharing agreements. Such regulations may, for example, make provision for the technical and, where appropriate, operational detail needed to facilitate the information sharing provided for in a particular agreement. Clause 127 also stipulates that regulations can be made in connection with implementing an international agreement only in so far as it relates to the sharing of information for law enforcement purposes, and that any data sharing must comply with data protection legislation.
Clause 128 defines the appropriate national authority as the Secretary of State or, where a provision falls within devolved competence, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Northern Ireland Department of Justice. Clause 129 requires the Secretary of State, before making regulations, to consult devolved Governments about any provisions in the regulations that would be within the legislative competence of the relevant devolved legislature.
These measures will enable the swift implementation of new international agreements that are designed to help keep the public safe from the threat posed by international criminality and cross-border crime, and help to protect vulnerable people. I commend them to the Committee.
Matt Vickers
Clause 127 gives the Government the power to make regulations to implement international agreements relating to the sharing of law enforcement information. The agreements may evolve over time, and the clause ensures that UK law can adapt accordingly.
The clause allows regulations to override existing restrictions on information sharing, but with two key safeguards. A data protection safeguard means that regulations cannot require or allow the processing of personal data in a way that would breach UK data protection laws, unless the regulations themselves impose a legal duty or power. Regulations also cannot override the restrictions set out in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which covers the surveillance and interception of communications.
The clause aims to ensure that the UK can meet its obligations under international law enforcement agreements, while still upholding important privacy and legal protections. Clause 128 defines who the appropriate national authority is for the purposes of making regulations under clause 127.
Clause 129 places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Administrations before making any regulations under clause 127 that include provisions falling within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature, as set out in clause 128. That ensures proper engagement with, and respect for, the roles of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive when regulations touch on devolved matters. We welcome these measures, but could the Minister briefly comment on what format such consultation would take?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am happy to comment. With matters such as this, the normal procedures are in place around consultation. There has been extensive consultation on getting these provisions into the Bill. That is just the normal way that we consult. I hope that that satisfies the shadow Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 127 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 128 and 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 130
Criminal liability of bodies corporate and partnerships where senior manager commits offence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dame Diana Johnson
As we know, crimes can be committed by corporate bodies, just as they can be committed by individuals. It is important that corporate bodies are held liable for committing criminality and face justice accordingly. That is achieved through what is called the identification doctrine.
In the 1970s, the Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v. Nattrass case determined that a corporation can be held liable for a crime if it is committed by its “directing mind and will”, but there is a lack of clarity on what that constitutes. As companies have grown in size and complexity, there are often multiple controlling minds within different business functions who can exert control and cause harm through different functions of the business.
Through clause 130 the Government are placing the case law test for attributing crimes to corporate bodies on a statutory footing, and clarifying and extending the circumstances under which a body corporate or partnership is liable for any criminal offence, if that offence has been committed by its senior management.
The previous Government undertook the first stage of this reform in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, placing the identification doctrine in legislation for economic crime offences. However, the identification doctrine was never intended as an economic crime-only regime. It has historically applied to any criminal offence in case law, and it is important that statute reflects that.
Clause 130 therefore repeals the relevant sections of the 2023 Act and replaces them with an identification doctrine that applies to all relevant crime, not just economic crime. As a result of the clause, a body corporate or partnership in the UK can be held liable for any criminal offence and fined accordingly where a senior manager who has control over the whole or a substantial part of the business commits an offence while acting in the scope of their actual or apparent authority.
The broadening of the principle to senior managers with control over any substantial part of the body corporate reflects the wide decision-making responsibilities of organisations and mitigates prior concerns that individuals committing crime could escape liability by changing or removing their title. That will ensure that businesses cannot continue to avoid liability where senior management have clearly used the business to facilitate or conduct crime.
Matt Vickers
Clause 130 holds organisations criminally liable when a senior manager commits an offence within their authority, expanding liability beyond economic crimes to all criminal offences. This reform addresses gaps in the previous identification doctrine and applies to both UK and non-UK entities. However, liability will not apply if the offences occur entirely outside the UK, unless it would be criminal at the corporate level in the UK. How will the Government ensure that the broader application of corporate liability strikes the right balance between holding organisations accountable and avoiding unfair penalisation for offences that occur in part outside the UK?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful for the question. It is clear that offences committed outside the UK would not be covered by the clause—I think that that answers the shadow Minster’s question. It is clearly something that we need to keep under review, because other legislation does have extraterritorial application. I am certainly willing to go away and look at that point, and to come back to the shadow Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 130 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of Thursday 27 March be varied by leaving out paragraph 1(g).—(Keir Mather.)
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Keir Mather.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Criminal Injuries Compensation
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered compensation for criminal injuries.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Murrison. At the outset, I thank the members of the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to allocate this debate and all hon. Members, across parties, who supported the application. I also thank those constituents and members of the public who have been in touch in advance of the debate. Criminal injuries are, by their nature, not easy matters to discuss, so I am grateful to all the people who took the time to recount their experiences.
I am also grateful to all the Members present today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who has already done much in this and the previous Parliament to highlight some of the problems that we will talk about in this debate. It is also good to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. I should make it clear that, I will be talking about the criminal injuries compensation scheme as it operates in Great Britain, but I am aware that different arrangements apply in Northern Ireland, and I am glad that that perspective will be represented today.
It is also important at this early stage to pay tribute to the staff of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Nothing in the opening of this debate is intended as a criticism of them. They work within parameters that are broadly set by us in Parliament, and with staffing numbers that have fallen by 19% since the current iteration of the scheme was introduced in 2012. The civil service people survey reveals that they take pride and find purpose in their jobs, and I am grateful to them.
The question of how the victims of serious physical and mental criminal injury may be fairly compensated has occupied this House for many decades. We are, to the month, at the 60th anniversary of the introduction for the first full year of the original, non-statutory scheme, which was introduced in recognition of the fact that there will always be cases in which the perpetrators of serious violence cannot be identified or awards cannot be recovered from their assets or incomes.
In preparation for this debate, I was delighted to learn of a local connection: the guiding and determined force behind the original scheme was the Birmingham magistrate and first secretary of the Howard League for Penal Reform, Margery Fry, who up to her death was a tireless campaigner for better support for the victims of crime and for the principle that perpetrators must, wherever possible, pay the cost of restitution. Those are principles that I am sure Members on both sides of the House will endorse today.
However, there is another, unhappy point of emerging agreement on the criminal injuries compensation scheme: it does not adequately serve the people it is meant to aid. As the Victims’ Commissioner put it in 2019, victims of violent crime reported
“delays, uncertainty about next steps and poor communication. To many, fairly or unfairly, the Scheme seemed calculated to frustrate and alienate.”
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling an incredibly important debate. I came upon this issue recently in dealing with the case of a 10-year-old boy in my constituency who was shot in a quiet residential street. It has taken five years to get him compensated for the injuries that he suffered, which will be lifelong. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the sheer length of time that it takes to get victims compensated, the bureaucratic and sometimes impersonal approach, and the inadequacy of the sums being received by people, particularly children, who have received lifelong injury?
Laurence Turner
The hon. Member raises what sounds like a truly shocking case. All my sympathies are with that child and his family. I agree wholeheartedly with the point she makes about timelines and the nature of communication through the scheme, which I—and, I am sure, other Members—will come on to in the course of this debate.
At the time, the Victims’ Commissioner further recommended that the Ministry of Justice
“examine the Scheme with a view to making it simpler and accessible to victims wishing to apply on their own behalf, reducing the reliance on legal representatives.”
Also in the last Parliament, the all-party parliamentary group for adult survivors of child sexual abuse reported that “almost all survivors” who contributed to its inquiry
“had a negative experience of applying to CICA for compensation.”
I recognise that some progress has been made in the last six years, which must be welcomed. The last Government retrospectively removed the “under the same roof” rule for crimes committed between 1964 and 1979. It had long been recognised that the rule prevented the awarding of fair compensation to victims of historical domestic abuse and childhood sexual abuse during that period. Progress has also been made more recently on reducing the paper-bound nature of the scheme.
However, we cannot reassure ourselves that the scheme is in good health. As has been said, victims of violent crime can face long delays before they access compensation. For residents in Birmingham, the average time between application and award is still more than a year. That average can be dragged upwards by the most complex cases, but even apparently simple cases can take many months to resolve. Applicants to the scheme are not effectively signposted to wider support or assisted to navigate the processes for accessing services, such as the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder through the NHS.
The reasoning that underpins the tariff system is hard to understand, and the apparently arbitrary limits to the scheme can produce outcomes that are, to the layperson’s eye, perverse. The two-year normal claim limit is out of line with the three-year limit for civil claims for injury.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally inconsistent to have a time limit of three years for ordinary personal injury claims, but a time limit of only two years for Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority claims? There is a reason why there are time limits—memories fade and evidence becomes less reliable—but does he agree that there should be consistency here?
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend is very learned and experienced in these matters, and I wholeheartedly agree. The discrepancy is hard to explain, especially as the pre-1996 non-statutory scheme explicitly aligned the criminal injuries time limit with that for civil claims.
There is some evidence that victims who have legal representation often receive greater compensation than they would have done had they acted alone. That is not a desirable outcome, especially when people with more limited means are more likely to become the victims of crime. The scheme’s tariff has not been updated since 2012, and its upper and lower bounds had been frozen for many years before that, despite inflation. Indeed, the lowest tariff of £1,000 has remained frozen since 1992—a real-terms erosion of 54%.
The process can feel cold and impersonal. As one member of the public with recent experience of the scheme who wrote to me in advance of this debate put it, the lack of “timelines or guidelines” means that
“victims are continually left in limbo and retraumatised by a process that is meant to help.”
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the way he is setting out the problems with the scheme, which is something of a Cinderella service. As he said, the tariffs have not changed, and the upper limit has not changed for almost 30 years. What gives away the situation even more is the fact that, although the average sum awarded in the last year is about £8,000, the amount increased sixfold on appeal. That, and the fact that only 3% of injured victims of crime actually receive compensation, suggests that there are things wrong with the scheme.
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, makes an important point. We must also consider the number of victims of crime who are so exhausted by the process that they choose not to appeal, even though they may have grounds to do so. His scrutiny in this area is very welcome.
Changes made to the scheme have an unhappy history in this House. Some Members may recall the very contentious changes made to it in 2012, with the express intent of reducing expenditure by between £40 million and £60 million a year. At the time, in the face of sustained scrutiny, including from Members on the then Government Benches, the Minister of the day, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), announced:
“a hardship fund of £500,000 per year which will provide relief from hardship for very low-paid workers in England and Wales who are temporarily unable to work as a result of being a victim of a crime of violence.” —[Official Report, 27 November 2012; Vol. , c. 14WS.]
That concession secured support for the relevant secondary legislation. The fund is still in existence, but its criteria are too tightly drawn. An applicant must be paid no more than £5,700 a year, the equivalent of statutory sick pay, and they must apply to seek it not within two years of an injury, but within two months of an injury, in order to qualify.
Far from the fund supporting low-paid victims of crime by £500,000 a year, the Ministry of Justice told me recently that only £4,100 has ever been paid out of it, and no payments at all were made in the seven years to 2023-24. I suspect that the very few workers who were eligible to apply were unaware that it exists. The hardship fund is a dead letter; it would be better to scrap it than to claim that special support is available to low-paid workers when, in practice, it is not.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend refers to low-paid workers; we know that retail staff are among the victims who experience a really shocking amount of violent crime within the workplace. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers for the work it is doing to ensure that its members who are victims of violent crime in the workplace can access the CICA scheme?
Laurence Turner
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree with her. USDAW’s Freedom From Fear campaign, which has been running for many years and covers a number of important issues, including the importance of fair access to compensation, is to be welcomed, and USDAW should be congratulated on the changes that it has already secured in this House.
Another high-profile change was the tightening of the criteria, so that the scheme only applied to injuries caused by deliberate violence inflicted by a person. That change excluded most dangerous dog attacks, and in practice compensation for such attacks can only be secured if it can be shown that a dog was directed to attack by its owner. It seems to me a serious flaw that a child or postal worker might be mauled by a dog and left with life-changing injuries, and the keeping of that dog may itself be an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but there would be no route for the victim to claim compensation, especially if the owner of the dog cannot be identified.
The Communication Workers Union continues to campaign on this issue; ahead of this debate, it drew attention to figures showing that each year 200 Royal Mail workers lose a finger or part of a finger after a dog attack. I encourage Ministers to look again at this issue, especially in light of the growing number of animals belonging to new, and now-banned, breeds such as the XL bully since 2012.
As has already been said, compensation for criminal injuries is an important issue for workers in public-facing roles more generally, and I am grateful to USDAW, GMB and Unison, as well as the CWU, for their work to draw attention to the risk of violent assault to their members. And for the avoidance of doubt, I draw attention to the support provided to my constituency party by GMB and Unison.
The changes to the scheme that I have referred to were made under the previous Government, but I wish to press the Minister on two further and more recent points. First, shortly before Easter the Ministry of Justice published its response to the consultations undertaken between 2020 and 2023. In that response, the MOJ said that there would be no immediate changes to the scheme, in part because of resource constraints.
The decision not to accept recommendation 18 of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has understandably caused disappointment and reignited wider criticism of the scheme. The Government cited two factors: protection of universality, which means treating all applicants in the same way, and cost. If the scheme is not to be amended to provide different criteria for victims of childhood sexual abuse, what other steps will the Ministry now take, such as the provision of enhanced guidelines on the circumstances under which an out-of-time application would be accepted, taking into account our modern understanding of the lifelong effects of this horrendous crime?
On resourcing, will the Minister accept that although the nature of the scheme means that expenditure varies year on year, the cost of compensation has actually fallen on average—that is the trend—after inflation is taken into account. Although the number of applications has risen, that appears to have been driven by an increased number of ineligible claimants. The scheme overall costs less than it did before 2012—less in cash terms, I believe, than under the pre-statutory scheme—and, as mentioned, CICA’s headcount has fallen.
Reforms are needed, but I am concerned that we seem to be talking again about protecting the sustainability of the scheme. I know the Minister has a strong personal commitment to this issue and to enhancing support for victims of crime more generally. I hope she will be able to reassure us that any future reforms of CICA will seek to improve victim support, including in its compensation elements.
Our constituents expect us to bring our knowledge, our judgment and the benefit of our experiences to this place. Like some other Members of this House, my interest in this matter arises partly through my direct experience of the scheme. By their nature, such matters are difficult to talk about; if I stumble, I ask for Members’ patience.
Some six years ago I was on the wrong end of an attempted robbery. I was left concussed, my arm was dislocated and one of the joints in my right hand was shattered. I was physically unable to leave the house for a month, and I had a frozen shoulder for a year. There are long-term physical effects: I have premature arthritis and permanent loss of movement on my right-hand side. By any common-sense judgment they are serious and blameless injuries, arising from violence, but with one minor exception: annex E of the scheme does not recognise them as such.
There was—and is—also a psychological effect. An event of that kind changes a person. I am changed in ways that I still find difficult to talk about. I have learned that recovery is not some happy state that is one day achieved: it is a process that follows its own timetable at an uneven pace, towards a destination that can never be fully reached. In my case, the perpetrators were never identified. I incurred substantial costs because the assault happened almost on my doorstep. Although I would be unlikely to recognise the perpetrators, they would have recognised me.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the police referred me to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. My experience of the scheme is typical of the delays and impersonal contact that have already been described, and does not require repeating. What I will say is that when a person is compelled to relive their experiences, within a system that they feel they have to fight against, the original injustice is continually visited anew.
At the conclusion of the process I received the lowest tariff award of £1,000. That was given because there was some post-surgical scarring—the only injury that qualified under the scheme. In truth, that aspect was the least consequential effect of the assault. The criteria felt—and still feel—arbitrary. I received an apologetic letter from one of the administrators of the scheme, and I remain grateful for that human touch. The award did not, as it does not for many, cover the costs of travel and accommodation for surgery or physiotherapy—but, three years on from the assault, I was just glad to have some official recognition and did not pursue an appeal.
I do not say any of this to attract attention or sympathy, or to suggest that my experience was in any way exceptional. The point is that it was not. Like many victims of crime, my hope now is that some good might come from adverse experience. In that respect, I agree with the Minister when she wrote:
“The clear message to me is that we need change, and I will be considering how Government can best provide the support that victims need and deserve.”
I hope we will hear more about those plans today.
I am encouraged by the Prime Minister’s clear and personal statement of support for victims of crime in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North last week. I am glad to have the opportunity next Tuesday to introduce to the House a ten-minute rule Bill that aims to secure the wholesale review of CICA and the scheme that the Victims’ Commissioner called for in 2019. The victims of violent crime deserve better, and I hope the Bill will secure cross-party support.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for setting the scene. Nothing tells a story better than when it is a personal one, as his was, and he did it very well. It is never easy for someone to tell their own story, but well done to him.
This is an important debate. As the hon. Member said at the beginning, the system in Northern Ireland is very different from that in England, Scotland and Wales, but the principle of what the scheme is trying to achieve is the same. I thank him for bringing this issue to Westminster Hall for debate. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place, and I very much look forward to her reply to all the questions we will be asking her.
There is no excuse in today’s society for crime, especially violent crime, which can devastate lives both physically and mentally. We cannot always see the impact of crimes on somebody when we look at them, because some people hold their emotions in check internally. We often feel that we hear horrific stories every day of people who have fallen victim to violent crime. As the hon. Member stated, many will be aware that the legislation for Northern Ireland is slightly different from that for the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be great to add a Northern Ireland perspective to this debate, and I wish to do so.
The scheme provides compensation to victims and, in addition, to the families of loved ones who have since passed away due to the impact of violent crime. The hon. Member talked about the scheme that applies in England, Scotland and Wales; in Northern Ireland we have slightly different credentials for the scheme. According to the latest figures available, roughly 12,000 to 15,000 applications for criminal injuries compensation are received annually in Northern Ireland, so the number of people who go through the process every year is quite large. Historically, around 60% of those claims have been successful, while 40% were declined due to not meeting the eligibility criteria.
It is important to note that victims are often unaware of the grounds on which they can apply. With this speech I wish to raise awareness and ensure that those who do not know their rights or what they can do are able to apply as a result. One of the big issues is that the perpetrator does not actually have to be charged with anything for someone to be able to claim compensation. That is important to note. If someone feels threatened or has been abused visually, even if not physically, a compensation system is in place. Applications can still be made two years after the incident occurred, provided it was not reasonable for an application to be made at the time. It is important to record these elements of the system.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the issue of entitlement, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that those who feel badly affected by some abuse or attack know and understand the system, but at the same time the system has to bear down on the very small number of people who abuse the system, in deference to those who are quite entitled to and should seek compensation because of the attacks they have suffered?
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the point that some people abuse the system. I have to say that I have not come across any, to be fair, so I cannot make a statement about that, but it is in the very nature of any system that there are always those who try to take advantage of it.
There have been ongoing concerns about and issues with the compensation scheme as it is. Many state that there is a complete lack of awareness about the scheme in general, and people are unaware that something like it even exists. I suppose my main question to the Minister is: what will be done to highlight the system to those who qualify, and to encourage those who should apply to do just that? This has to be addressed through raising awareness—“Know your rights” is how I would put it. People who have gone through harm are deserving of something. For those who have lost a loved one as a result of violent crime, no amount of money will take that pain away, but they are deserving, based on the trauma they have experienced.
Many victims may just wish for it all to go away, and I suspect that some may not want to pursue a claim even if they qualify. One of the big issues is that the process is undoubtedly traumatic for many. Having to relive their experience during an application can be retraumatising, as they have to live through the horror—the memories, the trauma and the pain—twice.
I want to talk about sexual or domestic violence crimes, and those reliving the passing of a loved one. In 2023, it was ruled that victims of non-touching sexual abuse are eligible for compensation under the CICS. Many people—especially young people—have fallen victim to that crime and have gone on to feel its effects for years and years. It is inconceivable how those young people deal with what happened to them. I look to the Minister for clarity. She has always been positive in her answers to those who have raised these matters, and I know she is very much on top of this subject, so I look forward to her response. The CICS applies in such cases in England, Scotland and Wales, so will the Minister kindly see whether, through the Department of Justice, our legislation in Northern Ireland can be strengthened along the same lines?
It is a sad reality that so many people are victims of crime that leaves a devastating impact, physically and mentally. The effects are the same for people of all ages. No amount of money can bring back a loved one or remove the mental torment of the past, but something can be done to ease the burden on so many. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s commitment to doing just that—it was never in doubt, by the way, but I look forward to her confirming that—not just here in England but across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner)—I am proud to say that he truly is a friend—laid out perfectly the historical context in which the criminal injuries compensation scheme was devised and the economic, moral and financial case for change, given that it has failed to meet its objectives. I am one of the co-sponsors of this debate, and I want to support my hon. Friend’s core argument and lay out an aspect of the scheme that cannot be understood by those for whom it is an abstract point of law or procedure.
Rape and sexual assault have a conviction rate of a pathetic 1.5% or so, so vanishingly few victims ever get justice through the courts. Of course we need to use every lever of Government to bring down the number of offences and drive up the number of perpetrators convicted, but to focus entirely on the criminal justice element is to miss the point when it comes to supporting victims. CICA provides a twofold civil remedy. First, it provides a level of financial restitution for the experience. Secondly, and most importantly, it is state recognition of the person’s experience as a blameless victim of violent crime. That vindication is an important part of the process of closure for people who have been victims of the most hideous crimes, including where a perpetrator has not been apprehended or where a conviction cannot be secured.
A constituent who was a victim of rape told me:
“I’ll probably never know why the jury decided not to convict in my case. The compensation awarded wouldn’t actually cover the cost of a copy of the trial transcript. The process of closure for me began with that letter from CICA, that seeking justice hadn’t been in vain despite the enormous personal cost.
Beyond the nightmares I still have replaying that night, replaying the trial, the court room, replaying every indignity meted out upon me over a truly miserable three year period; it is there. In black and white. On the record. This happened to you. He is a rapist. We believe you. That’s what that piece of paper meant.”
Every victim deserves vindication, but among the largest barriers is the time limit. The Victims’ Commissioner —the indomitable Baroness Newlove, who is incidentally a constituent of mine—recommended to the Government back in 2019 that it be amended in her landmark report “Compensation without re-traumatisation”. We are still waiting.
The time limit pressures victims into choosing between pursuing justice in the courts and a civil remedy—lest the defence infers a financial motive for coming forward—leaving them with a high statistical likelihood of ending up with neither. However, if the expectation is that victims should pursue both at the same time, or even in close succession, that is wildly unrealistic given just how much the criminal justice system retraumatises a person and puts far too much onus on the victim all at once. That is not a reasonable expectation for us in this place to have of the dozens of constituents I have signposted and supported through this process. It is a huge thing to do, and we can never fully appreciate just how much it grinds a person down unless they have been through it.
The fact that many of those who apply will be turned away because of arbitrary time limits, or that many will be dissuaded from applying at all for the support that they are entitled to in the expectation that that will happen, leaves victims without the ability to get closure. It leaves them frozen. In Warrington, 349 victims have already made a successful CICA claim in the past five years; from the crime statistics for our area alone, I know that there is massive under-claiming. Then there are all the cases that will not show up in those statistics, including those dealt with in the family courts. Currently, no agency is responsible under the victims code for informing victims about the scheme; the expectation is that that falls to the police or local support services.
I know that the Treasury has anxiety about this, but if we get anywhere near our target of halving violence against women and girls, the scheme will pay for itself. Until such time, victims cannot continue to pay the price. While there is no amount that would ever make being a victim of violent crime worth it, surely the least that they deserve is the amount that was intended back in 2012—not a fraction of that, as its value is eroded further each year by inflation.
For all the things that successive Governments have seen fit to spend money on, it breaks my heart that none have thought this scheme worth consideration. While we work to improve victim support services generally, there will always be a role for CICA. Unfortunately, CICA is compensation for state failure to keep people safe and, too often, to deliver justice. That compensation should be significantly uplifted at the comprehensive spending review to ensure that its value is a fairer reflection of the debt that society owes to those victims that it has let down. Awards must be index-linked to inflation, so we do not end up having the same debate in 15 years’ time.
The time limit should be amended in line with the recommendations of the Victims’ Commissioner, and we should ensure that the framework aligns with the rest of our system, including with our increased understanding of the harms of non-contact sexual offences. I hope that all hon. Members will support the ten-minute rule Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield next week, so that we can start this vital reform. I look forward to the Minister’s response today.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing this debate, and on his powerful and personal speech. It is an honour to follow the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who was eloquent and forceful.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme is an important fund of last resort for many victims of crime who cannot seek compensation through litigation. In the 17 years that I was a barrister, before I was elected last year, I represented many victims of crime at its tribunal. I saw the difference that it could make, but also the limitations and restrictions imposed on the scheme in 2012, which seemed more about saving money than ensuring that victims got compensation for the harm that they had suffered.
I rise to raise a specific concern related to a feature of the scheme that I think is indefensible, and one that the courts have sought to temper. Ultimately, the scheme itself should be changed so that it has a legally sound and consistent basis, and so that it makes sense. It may come as a surprise to many listening that the criminal injuries compensation scheme applies a different legal test from that applied in our criminal courts when it comes to consent.
Unlike our criminal law, the criminal injuries compensation scheme does not recognise that some people cannot legally consent. According to annex B, paragraph 2(d), only those who does not “in fact” consent can receive compensation. That means that if a victim says yes to sexual activity, even when under the age of 16, they are taken to have consented. A child abused or exploited over many years, who knows no better than to agree when an abuser proposes sexual contact, will not be taken to be a victim of a crime of violence because they consented.
If the House wants to be horrified by a legal principle that is still good law, it should read the decision of the Court of Appeal in a case called August from 2000. In that case, a 13-year-old boy, described by the then Lord Chief Justice in the criminal proceedings as “already corrupt”, was paid for sex by a 53-year-old man, but was held not to have been a victim of a crime of violence because he had allegedly consented.
It is true that in the years since the case of August, the courts and tribunals have sought to narrow the principle a bit. A few years after, the Court of Appeal found—some may consider unsurprisingly—that submission is not “real consent” and, in another case, it directed a focus on the applicant’s “relative vulnerability”, “subservience” and “lesser responsibility” as relevant factors, though many may be surprised that any responsibility in those circumstances was found. Far more recently, the Court ruled in the case of RN vs. CICA that sexual abuse causing non-physical injury is included within the scheme. However, the very fact that these sorts of workarounds have had to be introduced shows the indefensibility of the underlying principle. We cannot, and should not have to, rely on tribunals to apply legal rules creatively to seek to achieve just outcomes.
I understand that the Conservative Government left us with the public finances in tatters and public services on their knees, and I understand the concern about expanding the number of victims who might be eligible for compensation, but I hope that the Government will consider this clearly inconsistent approach between our criminal law and the law when it comes to compensating victims, and fix it.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing this important debate and on his moving and eloquent speech. The fact that he only received £1,000 compensation for the very significant injuries he sustained is an indicator of the inadequacy of the scheme.
Throughout my career as a personal injury solicitor before I became an MP, and now as an MP, I have tried to be a steadfast advocate for access to justice so that victims of injury, including victims of crimes of violence, can receive suitable redress. Compensation for injury does not just represent a recognition of the harm inflicted upon victims but provides the support and financial redress necessary so that victims of injury can start to rebuild their lives.
I would like to follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said about the criminal injuries compensation scheme. It is a national asset. It is there to compensate people who have been physically or mentally injured due to a violent crime, and those whose loved ones have died as a result of a crime of violence. But the scheme clearly needs reform. Too often, the system is falling short, leaving victims unsupported and failed. Too many are blocked from access to justice by an arbitrary time cap, and many are left behind by the long and confusing claims process.
The tariff system for assessing compensation means that victims are simply not properly compensated, and the compensation that they receive is inadequate in comparison with the injuries that they have suffered. They then have the problem of lodging an appeal, which again is very time-consuming and difficult, and yet another barrier to justice.
Laurence Turner
My hon. Friend is making a very informed speech, as did the hon. Members who spoke before him. Does he agree that, with each year that passes without re-examination of the tariffs, the gap will grow between the award that someone may be able to secure—if a perpetrator is identified and the victim is able to bring a civil case—and the compensation that they may receive through the scheme? Will that not add to the sense of frustration and injustice that many victims feel?
Warinder Juss
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I remember dealing with criminal injuries compensation claims when they were assessed in the same way as personal injury claims. When the tariff system was introduced, it was apparent to us that it was simply inadequate.
The Government should commit to review the current two-year time limit, for the reasons I have mentioned. Often, police will recommend that victims wait to apply for compensation until after criminal proceedings have concluded so that trial outcomes are not prejudiced. That effectively means that the victim has no time to make a claim for compensation, because they are out of time by the time the criminal proceedings conclude.
The other problem that I hope the Minister will look at is that victims who have suffered traumatic injuries, or abuse such as child sexual abuse, do not come forward with their experiences until many years later, which means that they are automatically excluded from the scheme.
Another point that has not been raised so far in this debate is the requirement for the incident—the crime of violence—to have been reported to the police as soon as possible. In my experience, those working in hospitals and schools often report the violent incident to their line manager and believe that that is adequate for the matter to be reported. I totally understand the purpose of the scheme, in which the victim must co-operate with the police to secure a prosecution, but the requirement for the victim to report the matter to the police when the matter has already been reported elsewhere is a barrier. When I dealt with these claims, I often found that a claim was turned down because somebody working in a hospital or a school had reported the matter to their line manager, but not reported it to the police as soon as possible.
Although the system has an honourable purpose, it is not doing what it is meant to, because people are missing out on their chance to secure justice and redress for their injuries. In 2023-24, only 8% of injured victims of violent crime in the UK applied for compensation. Compensation for criminal injuries must remain an essential part of our justice system, but the current system is inadequate, slow and inaccessible for too many victims. It is clear that we need reform to ensure that those who suffer from violent crime are given the support and financial redress that they deserve so that they can move on and rebuild their lives.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for securing this debate.
There is an interesting paradox at the heart of this scheme. The fundamental eligibility requirements are that
“You must apply as soon as it is reasonably practicable“
and that
“this should normally not be later than two years“
after the incident occurred. That is the time limit for adults, which can be extended “due to exceptional circumstances”. If the person was under 18 at the time of the incident, an application must be received by their 20th birthday if the incident was reported to the police before their 18th birthday, or
“within two years of the first report to the police, if the incident was reported to the police on or after“
the person’s 18th birthday.
I was sexually harassed as a teenager—nothing that would have met a criminal standard—and it never occurred to me to apply for these sorts of things. That is not something that enters the head of someone aged 18, 19 or 20, let alone the victims of child rape and sexual abuse. First, we should accept and implement the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. That is a basic moral requirement. Secondly, we should look at the “exceptional circumstances” rules, which allow someone who did not manage to apply as soon as reasonably practicable, or within two years, to apply if
“due to exceptional circumstances an application could not have been made earlier; and the evidence provided in support of the application means that it can be determined without further extensive inquiries by a claims officer.”
That is a much tighter exception than most legal “exceptional circumstances” exception rules. It basically requires that there be no work to do on the part of the agency that would be required to investigate. I do not understand why whether people get compensation is determined by what inquiries a claims officer would be required to make. I do not think that represents justice.
Significant numbers of claims are being refused; in 2023-24, nearly 2,000 were refused because they were not submitted within the time limit, and another 765 were refused because of a failure to report as soon as reasonably practicable. What we do not have statistics on, as far as I am aware, is the number of people who do not apply in the first place because they know that they would not meet the eligibility criteria. I suspect that it is substantial. It seems to me that whether someone hears about the scheme in the first place, or can meet the requirements, is very much an accident of their life chances and various other factors. That is no way to determine whether people should receive compensation.
At the moment, we are listing Crown court cases for more than two years hence. The police can take more than two years to investigate a crime. About 21% of claims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme take more than two years to conclude; in fact, 2.8% of them take more than five years to conclude. We habitually accept, and have done for some time—although we may not like it—that it can take the state more than two years to deal with a crime, but we do not accept that it can take more than two years for a victim to deal with a crime. That seems, to me, a fundamentally irrational and indefensible position.
In this country, we let people make a breach of contract claim six years after the breach of contract occurred, but we will not let them take more than two years to process their trauma. That is not, in my opinion, the right position for the state to take.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing the debate. I commend him on behalf of my party, and I am sure everybody in this room, for the bravery that he exhibited in sharing his own story of victimhood and engagement with the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
Victims and survivors in Eastbourne and beyond deserve dignity, respect and meaningful support when someone has violated their safety, their rights, their property and the law that is there to protect them. While no amount of compensation can take away the damage that such acts cause to those victims and survivors, compensation can, as has been described already, represent a powerful acknowledgment from the state about what happened to an individual survivor, and the sum awarded—to be spent on whatever it might be—can contribute towards their healing. Often it is spent on trying to access court transcripts, even though they are extremely expensive, or on therapy to overcome some of mental impacts of the crime.
For too long, victims and survivors of crime have been trapped by not only the trauma of their experiences but a criminal injuries compensation system that fails to recognise their suffering in a fair and humane way, often retraumatising them. The criminal injuries compensation scheme has become a maze of bureaucracy, and is unknown to swathes of victims and those who support them. I think we can all agree that it is in urgent need of reform.
First, the scheme must be simplified in order to make sure that it is as accessible as possible to victims and survivors. When people like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) encourage people to apply if they feel entitled, there should be minimal barriers. Submitting a claim involves a lot of paperwork. According to the Victims’ Commissioner, 40% of victims feel as though they have to secure legal advice to apply for this compensation. That often means giving away a share of their relatively small amount of compensation, which has not been uprated in line with inflation. I would argue that, in cases where there have already been criminal court proceedings, even one additional sheet of paper to fill in is too many.
As a survivor of abuse myself, which I have spoken about in this Chamber, in the House and elsewhere, I personally found the prospect of the criminal injuries compensation scheme process too much to engage with.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Member is making a very informed speech. On his point about the complexity of the application, I recently had cause to see the application form for the pre-statutory scheme, and it was simpler than the form that victims have to fill out today. Does he agree that something has gone quite wrong here down the years, and that we should be looking to make the process as brief as possible, and leave those detailed checks to the Government agencies that have already dealt with the victim and crime?
Josh Babarinde
I could not agree more that the burden of bureaucracy should not be on the victim. Having spent almost two years going through a police process as a victim, and then a very traumatising Crown court trial, the last thing that I wanted to do was rush to fill in application forms for compensation before the imminent two-year deadline from reporting to the police, which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) described, was about to be hit, so I did not apply.
For exactly the reasons that the hon. Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) described, it takes more than two years to process a crime. In my case, it took many decades, and I still process those crimes today. The system is not conducive to that healing process. A question that I asked was essentially, “Is this system for real? After dragging me through what is a shocking, adversarial and dehumanising criminal process, you’re going to ask me to jump through more hoops just to prove that what has happened to me has happened to me? You can go and take your paperwork and stick it where the sun don’t shine.” The sun shines in Eastbourne a lot, as many folks in this room know, so it did not have to go far.
In scenarios where a court case has happened, and where the evidence has already been presented once, it must be possible for the criminal injuries compensation scheme to access that evidence with the consent of the victim and make some kind of compensation assessment without dragging the victim through another legal ordeal from square one. I would be interested to understand what exploration the Government have undertaken in this area.
Inefficiency costs time, and, to the point made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who is no longer in her place, no victim should have to wait years and years for their claim to be assessed, as is too often the case today. Alexis Jay, in her IICSA report, also suggested that, in cases where proceedings have already gone to court, there could be merit in empowering a judge to order the payment of criminal compensation from offender to victim. I would be interested to know what assessment the Government have made regarding the merit of that suggestion too.
Secondly, the scheme must be more visible, because so many victims are unaware of it. Fewer than four in 10 victims recall being told by the police about the scheme, according to the Victims’ Commissioner. Significant numbers of victims and survivors are therefore missing out on the compensation that they need to rebuild their lives. I was not told about the scheme by the police; I was first told about it by an incredible child abuse solicitor, Dino Nocivelli, who I was connected with through a friend of a friend. As has been said already, awareness should not rely on who someone knows. The system is failing victims and survivors by leaving them in the dark.
Thirdly, victims and survivors must receive the support they need to navigate the system. I have touched on some of the complexities, as have other hon. Members. In my case, although I did not end up applying, I discussed the scheme with my ISVA—independent sexual violence adviser—from SurvivorsUK, Alan Robertson, to whom I pay tribute. ISVAs play a critical role in giving survivors the practical guidance and confidence to navigate our justice system, of which the criminal injuries compensation scheme is a part.
One of my key concerns, which I have expressed several times before, is that charities report that their capacity to provide support is being diminished by the national insurance contributions hike and the cut to core funding for police and crime commissioners. Those are debates that the Ministry of Justice will need to have had with the Treasury. Some charities that provide such guidance and support to victims have told me, and said publicly, that these measures are tantamount to a 7% real-terms funding cut.
Charlotte Nichols
I thank the hon. Member for his speech and particularly for his reference to ISVAs and victim support. In the Warrington area, there is no support available through either the NHS or third sector organisations for people under the age of 18 who have been victims of violence. That is why the CICA scheme is so important: it gives victims the ability to get specialist therapy outside the NHS and the charitable sector. Does he agree that ISVA services need to be far better funded, so that they can offer much more bespoke support to victims throughout the UK, including child victims?
Josh Babarinde
I could not agree more with the hon. Member. As someone who has used an ISVA service myself—I am not sure that I could have gone through the process without it—I think that the value of those services cannot be overestimated. It is of great sadness to me that across our country there are what I would describe as ISVA deserts, where it is very difficult to access those services. This should not come down to a postcode lottery. People should not be victims of these terrible crimes in the first instance, but if they are, then wherever they are in the country, they should be able to access those critical services and support to help them to navigate their trauma, their survival and their recovery beyond.
I welcome the fact that the Government have taken steps to protect funding for organisations tackling violence against women and girls, but we know that there are victims and survivors beyond this cohort who will be left with less support at a time when they need more.
The test of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. Right now, we are failing that test. Victims and survivors of crime deserve more than our sympathy; they deserve action. They deserve more than a criminal injuries compensation scheme that retraumatises those it is meant to help; they deserve a scheme that is fair, fast and fighting for them. The Liberal Democrats stand ready to work with the Government as they prepare the update to the victims code and forthcoming legislation, with a view to helping to achieve just that.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing the debate, and thank him for being willing to share his personal experiences. His doing so has been incredibly valuable. Similarly, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde).
The criminal injuries compensation scheme is one of the most important parts of our justice system. It does not simply punish wrongdoing but, crucially, offers some measure of direct justice—some attempt to right a wrong for those whose lives have been changed by violence and abuse, as incomplete as that attempt may often be.
In 2020, the previous Conservative Government published the findings of a comprehensive review of the scheme as part of a wider review of a first ever cross-Government victims strategy. It found that overall the scheme was operating well. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was dealing with more than 30,000 applications a year and had a high satisfaction rating of 95% from applicants who had been in contact in the preceding period. Those levels of satisfaction had been broadly maintained. Today’s debate has already highlighted that, within broad levels of satisfaction, there can often be serious and consistent individual failings, which it is important we do not take for granted.
However, the review also recognised that changes and improvements could be made, and a consultation was launched on a number of areas to make the scheme simpler, more transparent and easier for victims to understand and engage with. Those included the approach to classifying and compensating for disabling mental injuries, overhauling how brain injury is represented and reforming the groupings of other injury types. The review also proposed changes to bereavement awards.
Members may be aware that there was a need to launch a further, targeted consultation on the unspent convictions rule to ensure that it was fully and comprehensively reviewed for possible reform. Under that rule, an applicant’s compensation award could be reduced or withheld depending on the sentence imposed for an unspent offence they had committed. The Supreme Court has previously found that the unspent convictions rule was lawful and that the rationale underlying it was legally sound. The judgment also rejected the notion that vulnerability that leads to later offending should require any special exemption from the rule, on the basis that the criminal justice system should already include measures to allow any vulnerability of victims to be taken into account at the time of their prosecution and sentencing.
Following that judgment, there was further impetus to consider change, as the Government rightly sought to respond to the final publication of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which made further recommendations regarding the scheme, as a number of Members have touched on. The 2023 consultation focused on time limits and the scope of the scheme. It considered the inclusion of online abuse in the definition of a crime of violence. It also looked at whether children who suffered abuse should have longer to apply for compensation. It also raised the question of whether non-contact offences should be brought within the eligibility criteria.
The variety of consultations and additional areas for reform reflects what has been a rapidly evolving area of political and public concern. That has created a greater and greater focus on groups of victims, as our understanding of the nature and impact of sexual abuse, particularly historical sexual abuse, domestic abuse and online harms has broadened. Across the consultations, hundreds of responses were received and difficult questions were explored in detail. However, before a final response could be published, the 2024 general election was called.
Last month, the current Government sought to move forward to resolve those pieces of work and to progress on the basis of this extensive background. However, they have also decided to make no changes at this time to the scheme’s scope or time limits or to the unspent convictions rule, and it is important for the Minister today to clearly explain why.
I recognise the concerns about singling out particular categories of offending and about the unintended consequences of such changes. However, concerns arise when the guidelines that do exist that attempt to allow for exceptionality do not operate as well as they should. If the Government choose not to make formal changes to the rules, there is an even greater emphasis, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said, on ensuring that the guidelines that do exist that operationalise the exceptionality clauses function as they should.
On unspent convictions, the Government have laid out their reasons for not making changes—again, that is on the grounds of not wanting to create unintended consequences for victims. However, a proposal for reform was put forward that would have allowed the Government to maintain an overall bar on people seeking compensation despite their offending, by considering whether lower-level offences, such as community offences, could be removed from the disbarring applications, or where there could be a significant gap between the injury suffered and the nature of the indexed offence. That would be universal, rather than singling out particular types of offending. I would be interested to hear why the Government did not take forward that suggestion.
I would also like the Minister to explain further the Government’s failure to provide a comprehensive response to the 2020 consultation, which suggested many reforms. The Government have said, to quote directly from the Minister’s foreword to the Government response:
“I have decided not to publish a substantive response to the 2020 consultation as the victim support landscape has changed substantially since 2020. I am concluding that consultation by writing to the Justice Select Committee notifying it of my decision.”
Sarah Russell
Does the hon. Gentleman see that there is some irony in his asking why our current Minister has not responded to a 2020 consultation, when his Government, which was in power for another four years, did not do so?
Dr Mullan
I think I have clearly laid out the timetable and the sequence of events, particularly in terms of the courts requiring a further consultation, and the sensible decision to respond further to the inquiry consultation. I am interested in actually getting a response; I appreciate that the hon. Member seeks to make a party political point, but that is fine.
It is slightly disappointing not to see a comprehensive response, notwithstanding the hon. Member’s concerns, as I think that the 2020 consultation and the many proposals in it—some of which were implemented on an interim basis—were important. Does that mean that the Government have now entirely rejected some of the other changes I have outlined, or will the letter set out in more detail which changes will or will not be taken forward, and the reasons why? It is important for the Government to do that.
Although the scheme may be working well overall, we should continue to consider where challenges remain operationally. We know that the experience of applicants varies regionally. For example, in Birmingham, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, the average time for a compensation decision was over 490 days in 2022. While there has been some improvement, wait times are far too long for some individuals, even if the majority receive their compensation in a timely manner.
We have heard from a number of Members today about individual cases and their personal experiences. It is important that we hold the Government to account in terms of ensuring that as many people as possible, and as great a ratio of applicants to the scheme as possible, receive an adequate service.
The true measure of our commitment to victims is not the volume of our pronouncements, but the effectiveness of the systems we create to maintain them. I want to finish by saying that the criminal injuries compensation scheme has always been about more than money: it is about recognising harm and restoring dignity. The Conservative Government took that responsibility seriously. We listened, we consulted and we left a clear foundation for action. Now it is for the current Government to build on that foundation, and we will hold them to account, simply because victims deserve nothing less.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part; the strength of feeling is palpable, and I have heard them all.
I was deeply moved by hon. Members’ personal stories about being victims of crime and the impact it had on them. I thank them all for their courage in speaking out about their experiences so eloquently. Doing so is powerful, and it illustrates their views on the criminal injuries compensation scheme and on the experience of applying for compensation. I commend their desire to see improvements to the scheme and its operation. I also echo the thanks from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield to the brilliant staff who operate the scheme so tirelessly for the work they do every single day to support victims of crime.
I have a long-standing commitment to supporting victims of crime. Since I took on responsibility for this scheme, I have been struck by the bravery of victims of crime who speak out about what they have been through and how it has affected them. Sometimes I am contacted directly by victims, and sometimes I am contacted by Members of this House. Other times, I listen to and learn from high-profile figures, including the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, and the organisations that work so tirelessly to support victims. Whatever the medium for conveying individual stories, I am constantly reminded of the importance and responsibility of my role as the Minister responsible for victims and for violence against women and girls. This debate has added to my awareness and sense of purpose when it comes to doing all I can to support victims.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme has a long history, with the first non-statutory scheme launching in 1964. It has changed over time, including when it became a statutory scheme in 1996. However, its purpose has remained constant: to recognise the harm experienced by victims injured as a result of violent crime. The scheme is a last resort for compensation, where someone cannot obtain compensation from the perpetrator directly or via a civil claim.
Through the scheme, we meet domestic and international obligations. The scheme for Great Britain remains one of the most generous in Europe and the world. It pays compensation for physical, sexual and mental injuries and also for things associated with those injuries, such as loss of earnings and special expenses. It also provides compensation to families bereaved by violent crime, to acknowledge their loss and provide support to dependants.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, the previous Government announced a review of the scheme in 2018. They held their first consultation in 2020. This was wide ranging, looking at various aspects across the whole scheme. There was a second consultation in 2022 on the scheme’s unspent convictions eligibility rule. The third and final consultation was in 2023 and considered the scheme’s scope and time limits. The second and third consultations of course included consideration of the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, often referred to as IICSA. The last Government did not respond to any of the three consultations before the election was announced last year.
One of my key priorities when I became Minister was to consider how to conclude the previous Government’s review. I saw how many individuals and organisations had taken the time—and, in many cases, expended a great deal of emotional energy—to respond thoughtfully to the issues considered in the consultations. They deserved to know the outcome following their contributions.
At the forefront of my mind as I considered how to respond to the consultations were the IICSA findings and recommendations. There is no doubt that sexual abuse and exploitation of children are the most heinous crimes. It takes a great deal of strength for victims to come forward, seek justice by reporting the crime to the police, and access support and compensation to aid their recovery.
Earlier this month, I published my response to the 2022 and 2023 consultations, which concerned the IICSA recommendations. As has been mentioned, I also wrote to the Justice Committee about the 2020 consultation, concluding that consultation and informing the Committee of my decision not to publish a substantive response to it.
My conclusion was not to amend the scheme at the present time. I have made no secret of the fact that that was a difficult decision to reach. In the same way that I have listened to and learned from hon. Members today, I learned from the respondents to the consultations. I understand and hear their calls for change, and I am considering how we can best support victims with whatever they need through an improved and effective service. Although my decision was difficult, it was the right one for the scheme and the victims of violent crime it supports.
I fully appreciate the basis for IICSA’s recommendations that the scheme be amended and expanded for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation. I also acknowledge that many of the consultation respondents called for change in the way that IICSA recommended. However, it is my belief that all victims can feel a need for their suffering to be recognised, no matter the nature of the violent crime that harmed them. That belief aligns with the core principle of the scheme: that it is universal. That ensures that all victims can equally access the scheme. We cannot have one rule for certain victims and one for others, who have experienced other, often deeply damaging, crimes. Payments are based on injury or bereavement arising from violent crimes, regardless of the nature of the crime. That is why I decided not to amend the scheme as IICSA recommended.
Importantly, the scheme continues to be subject to scrutiny. The Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales recently proposed reform of the scheme’s time limits in her report on court backlogs. I responded to the report on 25 April, and I am considering the report of the Women and Equalities Committee, which recommended that the scheme be expanded to enable victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse to access compensation.
That leads me to explain a bit more about why I decided not to respond substantively to the 2020 consultation, which covered all aspects of the scheme as a whole. I appreciate that my decision means that the many people who responded to the consultation will not see change as a result of their contributions, and that the concerns they expressed will not be answered. The key reason for my decision is that the landscape in which the scheme sits has changed significantly since 2020. The questions were asked in a totally different context. Government provision and support for victims has developed, and at the same time demand for that support in all its forms has grown substantively. To put it simply, the context has moved on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield and others spoke eloquently about their experience several years ago, but I am hopeful that some of those challenges would not arise today. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which administers the scheme, has worked hard since 2020 to improve its service. For instance, all applications can now be made online, so there is no longer the need for the onerous paperwork that hon. Members described. All its staff have undertaken trauma-informed training, and it now has dedicated caseworkers for the most complex cases. It also runs awareness training sessions for stakeholders who support victims, including the police, ISVAs and independent domestic violence advisers. All those measures help to improve victims’ experience when applying for compensation.
There are of course other challenges, as we have heard today, and I assure hon. Members that we are not resting on our laurels. We are committed to continuously reviewing and responding to feedback from stakeholders. CICA undertakes user research, cross-agency work and outreach activity. That facilitates sharing experiences, learning and collaboration to improve its service. I also always welcome feedback from hon. Members, their constituents and victims about the service.
We are working hard for victims more generally. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 aims to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system. It makes it clear that victims require services under the victims code, and it strengthens agencies’ accountability for its delivery. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and others asked how we raise awareness and ensure people know about the right to access compensation. The victims code includes the right to be told about compensation. We are now implementing the reforms in the Act, and we aim to consult on a revised victims code in due course. We await the report of Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts, where we should be making it easier for victims to seek civil remedies directly from perpetrators.
Sarah Russell
If we create a right to be made aware of the scheme and a claimant can demonstrate that they were not made aware of it, could we amend the rules for exceptional cases reviews so that that automatically counts as an exception?
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestion, which we can of course consider. We will be consulting on a new victims code in due course. The Victims’ Commissioner meets me regularly to talk about compliance with the victims code and how we hold agencies accountable for their failure to uphold it, so that can be considered.
As well as compensation, the Ministry of Justice provides funding for vital victim and witness support services, including community-based services, in addition to the funding that we give police and crime commissioners to allocate on the basis of their assessment of local need. Across Government the financial situation is difficult, and we await the outcome of the spending review, but the Government will be considering how we can best provide the support that the victims of crime need and deserve.
As a proud Welsh MP, I reassure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I am due to meet my counterparts in the devolved nations very soon to discuss how we can best support victims of crime wherever they reside in these isles.
I reassure hon. Members that they have all been heard today, in the same way that I have heard the respondents to the consultation. Their message to me is that we need change, with less consultation and less talk, because we need action. Listening to their experiences, views and suggestions will help me to consider how we can best improve the system, make it effective and workable, and provide victims with the justice that they long for and deserve.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield for his contribution to this important debate and for all his work in supporting victims of crime.
Laurence Turner
I will not detain Members long, but I wish to thank everyone who has spoken in this debate for their informed speeches and for their tone. It is right that we scrutinise and criticise the records of Governments past and present—that is one of our critical functions—but all hon. Members have approached the subject with the seriousness and sensitivity that it deserves. We all share the common aim of having a scheme that delivers more for the victims of crime.
From the Back Benches, we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Although he described some of the differences in Northern Ireland, I was struck by the similarities with the frustrations experienced by victims in England, Wales and Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) made a speech combining powerful empathy with an acute reading of the technical challenges that still exist in the scheme.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and for Congleton (Sarah Russell), who enriched the debate with their professional experience and expertise. In particular, I was struck by the extremely important issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North highlighted, which needs remedying. It should be a matter of concern to us all that apparent dead letters in the law can be reanimated with a sometimes surprising lack of scrutiny.
From the Front Benches, we heard from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who spoke for himself as well as for his party. He has described his own experiences before in this place and has used those experiences to bring forward his own legislation on related matters. I thank him for his speech.
We heard an account from the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and it was very important that we heard such an account from the Opposition in this debate. He highlighted an issue that perhaps needs further scrutiny, which is the satisfaction rates that have been claimed. I have to say from my own experience of the scheme that I do not recall ever being asked to give a satisfaction rating. I wonder whether there are issues with how people are asked and what the response rate is; I must say that the 95% figure he cited is surprising to me.
The victims Minister set out an overview of the contributions to this debate. I was struck by her comment that changes to the scheme will not be made at the present time. It is important that if changes are made to the scheme, they are not driven by a short-term desire for cost-savings; they must be motivated by the improvement of the service for victims.
Charlotte Nichols
I thank my hon. Friend for his summing up. I want to pick up on that point. When the White Paper on changes to the scheme came out in 1993, more than two Governments back, the then Government said that the changes they wanted to make to the scheme were driven by a desire to “provide a better service” to claimants, although they admitted that the main aim was to cut costs. It is clear from today’s debate that it is important to ensure that change is driven by providing a better service, rather than by cost-saving measures. Does my hon. Friend agree that that needs to be the core focus, above any other consideration from the Treasury?
Laurence Turner
I am delighted to hear a reference to a White Paper from 1993. I am a great believer in the theory that obscurity is a source of strength, and my hon. Friend has provided some evidence for that.
The Treasury takes a legitimate and necessary interest in annually managed expenditure. On the other hand, there is a real risk that changes made at relatively short notice, with curtailed time for scrutiny in this place, could deliver a worse service. That must be avoided at all costs, as we have seen from some negative experiences with past changes to the scheme.
Building on the Minister’s welcome commitment to continue to work with Members of this House and victims across the course of this Parliament, I hope that we can secure the positive changes that she wants to achieve. I thank all hon. Members who supported the application for the debate, including some who are unavoidably absent, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who gave notice that unfortunately they have been detained by other matters. This is the first debate on the important subject of criminal injuries in this Parliament, but I am sure that it will not be the last. I thank you for your chairship, Dr Murrison, and I thank everyone for their contributions.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Thank you. Contributions are always more powerful when they are rooted in personal experience, as we have heard today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered compensation for criminal injuries.
Recycling of Tyres
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Tessa Munt will move the motion and then the Minister will respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of recycling end-of-life tyres.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Government have placed the circular economy at the heart of their agenda. The circular economy taskforce has been established and is expected to report back later this year. Adopting a focus on the circular economy means changing the way we think about so-called waste. We need to see things currently perceived as waste as a resource—a resource with an economic value that can be recovered and contribute to the economic growth that this Government so seriously seek. We also need to implement policies designed to maximise the economic value from these resources.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My hon. Friend is introducing a really important debate. A company called Tyre Renewals Ltd operates in Castle Cary in my constituency. Founded back in 1967, it specialises in tyre repairs and the shredding and granulation of used tyres to produce recycled rubber products. That prevents tyres from going into landfill and leaking harmful chemicals and microplastics into the environment, including waterways. Does my hon. Friend agree that urgent Government investment in tyre recycling infrastructure is needed to tackle the environmental hazards posed by worn tyres?
Tessa Munt
Yes, indeed; I shall come to that shortly.
The previous Government talked a great deal about the circular economy, had their own circular economy strategy and brought forward consultations on a number of measures to close certain loopholes that created an opening for waste crime. Sadly, despite multiple commitments to taking action, not enough was actually implemented. This Minister knows that it is not sufficient to talk about the circular economy; she and her team need to take action to deliver the changes that have been talked about for far too long.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. We in Northern Ireland had a problem with tyres and bonfires—it is in the nature of what happens—but over the last number of years, councils have had a distinct policy to make sure that that does not happen, and it has not happened. Does the hon. Lady agree that local businesses must not simply take the easy option of sending their tyres to be recycled overseas, which seems to end in fires, and that they should be encouraged to send them to recognised recycling groups in the United Kingdom, where there are guarantees that the tyres will be completely recycled and the rubber, fibre and steel will all be reused?
Tessa Munt
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that should be the case. We need to tighten up the licensing regulation and how the whole process works, so that we can reduce the amount of damage that is done.
According to global trade data, the UK disposes of approximately 600,000 tonnes of end-of-life tyres each year. About 350,000 tonnes of those are currently shipped to India. Of the remaining 250,000, some are exported to markets such as Turkey and Morocco, where they are used in the manufacture of cement. Some are processed in the UK to create materials to produce asphalt, which has many benefits for road safety and for the environment, and which enhances the circular economy. I will return to UK processing shortly.
The fate of the 350,000 tonnes of tyres exported to India raises serious environmental and public health concerns. India, like other non-OECD countries, does not have the same stringent environmental emissions regulations that we have in the UK. However, most tyres exported to India are shipped as “green list waste” under the waste shipments regulations, which are contained in assimilated EU law.
Batches tend to be sent in the form of baled whole tyres, which creates two risks. First, some tyres exported in that way are then sold for refitting in India, leading to road safety issues. Secondly, when exported as whole tyre bales, most of the tyres are sent on to rudimentary batch pyrolysis sites. In Indian batch pyrolysis, tyres are commonly burned to produce a high-sulphur heavy fuel called tyre pyrolysis oil—which is typically burned, causing direct harm to the environment—and low-grade carbon black, which is often unsuitable for reuse. The process involves enormous amounts of energy and the flaring of syngas directly into the atmosphere, without filtering or scrubbing, in conditions that are hazardous to operator health, the local population and the environment.
The use of imported end-of-life tyres in India—both for refitting vehicles and in batch pyrolysis—is illegal under Indian domestic law, but there is a lack of even the most basic enforcement capacity to uphold the law. The reality of the uses of imported end-of-life tyres in India was the subject of a recent BBC documentary and, as the Minister will be aware, additionally the subject of a recent legal challenge against the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by the campaign group Fighting Dirty. The challenge relates to the failure of the agency and the Department to take action to prevent the illegal use of end-of-life tyres exported to India.
It is important to note that this is not a historical waste crime, but one that is ongoing. Every single day, we ship around 1,000 tonnes of UK waste tyres to India. Investigators from the UK and Australia have used GPS tracking devices in several consignments of waste tyres shipped to India over the last few years, and have consistently evidenced that 100% of the tyres tracked do not reach their intended destination, with the majority being diverted to batch pyrolysis plants. What investigations has the Department undertaken to track consignments of waste tyres shipped abroad? Secondly, what conclusions has the Department reached in relation to digital waste tracking?
There has been growing concern that developed countries, such as the UK, are dumping their waste problems on developing countries and have continued to export their pollution over many years. International conventions such as the Basel convention seek to better manage waste internationally, and there is domestic law to give effect to such undertakings. What is the Minister’s view on a potential producer responsibility scheme for the UK’s end of life tyres?
In response to the legal challenge and the BBC documentary, the Government have announced that the Environment Agency will conduct a review into the issue. Today I seek clarification from the Minister about the scope of that review, and I have four questions at this point. Will the review be limited to an assessment of the enforcement of the existing legal provisions contained in the Basel convention and the waste shipments regulations? Will the review enable the Environment Agency to consider policy improvements? Will the review make policy recommendations to Ministers? How and when does the review intend to engage with the industry and interested parties?
The Environment Act 2021 significantly strengthened the powers available to the Government to manage and track waste exports. Section 62 of the Act added to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by creating further regulatory powers to better manage and track waste exports and the countries they pass through. It also established additional powers of direction for Ministers. As I understand it, those important new powers have yet to be used.
Will the Minister use her new powers under section 62 of the 2021 Act to take action to address the problems with waste tyre exports? Because end-of-life tyres are currently deemed green list waste under assimilated law through the waste shipments regulations, they are not notifiable and, as a result, are difficult to track. Will the Minister confirm that she will amend the waste shipments regulations to remove end-of-life tyres from the green list category and make such exports notifiable?
Under environmental permitting regulations, there are exemptions from the need to have a permit for a number of treatments. The so-called T8 waste exemption, applying to end-of-life tyres, has long been recognised as a problem. Operators can self-certify that they handle numbers below a certain threshold and are therefore eligible for an exemption. Marking your own homework is never a good idea: often those T8-exempt operators are exactly those who trade in baled tyres to India by undercutting our responsible operators who act within the regulated regime with a permit.
The Environment Agency identified the T8 exemption as a problem that made committing waste crime easier as far back as a decade ago. There were then various calls for evidence. Eventually, around three years ago, there was a consultation on removing this exemption, and the last Government confirmed that they would remove it 18 months ago. Then, nothing happened. Can the Minister confirm whether parliamentary counsel has drafted the necessary regulations and that, unlike her predecessors, she will lay the statutory instrument without further delay so that loophole can finally be closed?
As we seek to identify what makes up a circular economy, we might learn lessons from approaches taken elsewhere in the world. Australia offers a powerful case study to demonstrate what can be achieved through simple legislative tweaks to end-of-life tyre exports. Four years ago, recognising the environmental impact of allowing those tyres to be exported to countries such as India for use in rudimentary batch pyrolysis plants, the Australian Government introduced a new condition that waste tyres had to be shredded before they could be exported. That Government also created a new system of notification and licensing for exporters. The Act that created the provisions was the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, which had some similar objectives to parts of the UK Environment Act 2021. Subsequent regulations giving effect to the changes were the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export—Waste Tyres) Rules 2021.
First, the new Australian provisions required operators to have a waste export licence to export waste tyres at all. Secondly, they required that tyres could be exported only in a form that had been processed to shreds or crumbs of no more than 150 mm—just under 6 inches. Those could be used in modern pyrolysis to create tyre-derived fuel for uses such as sustainable aviation, or for other purposes, but only under a scheme verified by Tyre Stewardship Australia’s foreign end market verification programme, so the fate of every export was known.
At a stroke, the export of whole tyres, which could previously be used illegally overseas, was ended. When shredded, tyres cannot be refitted illegally to vehicles, nor can they be used in rudimentary batch pyrolysis plants, since those systems require whole tyres as feedstock. In addition to taking responsibility for the country’s waste and removing an environmental hazard from countries such as India, the regulatory changes also created additional feedstock for the domestic recycling industry in Australia. That was a spur to the circular economy, creating confidence for investors to increase capacity in the domestic production of asphalt and to invest in a new generation of modern, continuous-feed pyrolysis plants that can use shredded tyres and have a more positive environmental impact.
Modern continuous-feed pyrolysis plants maintain steady temperatures, and achieve about 250% higher throughput for the same energy input as batch pyrolysis. The syngas is captured and reused to heat the kilns through gas turbines, which removes carbon dioxide emissions. Such plants produce higher grade carbon black, which is pelletised and reused in tyre manufacturing, supporting the circular economy. Finally, the resultant tyre pyrolysis fuel oil is refined, undergoing further processing that would meet stringent UK environmental regulations.
The UK has dormant capacity to shred and process around 150,000 tonnes of end-of-life tyres each year. The reason why the plants are dormant is twofold. First, companies are unable to secure sufficient feedstock for plants because so many tyres are exported to India in baled form. Secondly, tyre collectors receive more money from India than the gate fees paid to companies who could recycle the materials here at home. The UK receives about £13 million in revenue from baled tyres sent abroad. A study by Fluid Ice and Imperial College assessed that if those end-of-life tyres were processed in the UK, even if the resultant products were exported, the revenue would be over £250 million. Several new businesses are seeking to invest in modern continuous-feed pyrolysis plants in the UK but they will do so only if they have confidence in the availability of their UK feedstock. We know that the potential feedstock exists, but it is currently being exported for illegal use abroad.
I have three more questions for the Minister. If we are to adopt the circular economy agenda, should we not support investors who want to recycle end-of-life tyres here? Does she agree that we should take steps to ensure that UK companies have a domestic feedstock to give them confidence? Finally, does she agree that we should take responsibility for our own waste, process it here in the UK and maximise the economic value of that resource? The Australian model for end-of-use tyres seems good and effective, and we could easily replicate its impact and effect with relatively minor changes.
I recognise that I have asked 13 questions, to which I would like answers, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on stopping the export of whole tyres to India, introducing better regulations and licensing, ensuring enforcement, and adopting a model parallel to that of Australia. I have provided her with a list of my questions, and I am happy to have her responses in writing, in the interest of completeness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. What a joy it is to be back in Westminster Hall to discuss everybody’s favourite subjects: the materials economy, waste crime, and how we are going to tackle waste crime, after a decade and a half of a lot of talk and very little action—as the Elvis Presley song goes. We will have a little more action under this Government. As part of our plan for change, we will clean up Britain, crack down on waste cowboys and close the waste loopholes. I am keen that we all work together on a cross-party basis to achieve that.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Waste cowboys have been a big issue around the villages of my constituency, as I have said previously. I appreciate the Government’s focus on the circular economy, particularly from the Minister, because I know that she is incredibly passionate about this issue. Does she agree that the focus on our circular economy is important not only for the environment, but to tackle the criminality around fly tipping and other areas of waste crime?
Mary Creagh
I do indeed. The amount of money and resources allocated to tackling environmental crime was steadily reduced over the term of the previous Government. There has been a sense that these are somehow victimless crimes. I listened to the “File on 4” documentary, and it was deeply upsetting to hear about the fire and the death of local people at that plant. There is always a victim. There is no such place as “away”. We have only one world, and we have to stop treating our rivers, lakes and seas as sewers, and stop outsourcing our material problems to other countries.
Sarah Dyke
In 2021, Natural England downgraded the Somerset levels and moors Ramsar area and the water quality there to “unfavourable declining”. Somerset Wildlife Trust has attributed the microplastics to worn tyres in the environment. It is obviously a really concerning pollutant. What steps is the Minister taking to make manufacturers take greater responsibility for the contribution that their products make to microplastic pollution on the Somerset levels and moors?
Mary Creagh
That is a really interesting fact, and not one that I have come across. I will take that away and look at it. As with many of these things, I am responsible for waste and materials and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice is the Water Minister, so things often fall between the gaps of segmented policy brief allocations, but we will look into that and get back to her.
I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this debate and other hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. This Government want to be good stewards of our country and planet’s resources, our prosperity, and our economic and environmental resilience, so the loss of any of those resources concerns me greatly.
We have seen the damaging impacts that makeshift furnaces abroad have on people’s health and the environment, and the illegal batch pyrolysis of tyres is linked with other criminal activities that cause harm to the environment, people and communities. It is unacceptable that illegal exportation in this country is part of that supply chain.
We take the reports from “File on 4” and others very seriously. The Environment Agency is working with Indian counterparts to ensure that waste, including waste tyres, is recovered and recycled lawfully. That is a joint UK effort, and DEFRA works closely with all four UK regulators to ensure that there is a consistent approach regarding controls on the export of waste across the United Kingdom. Scotland banned the export of whole tyres back in 2018, so there is inconsistency. What has that meant? It means, possibly, that whole tyres in Scotland have come down to England and Wales for export, but who knows? It is hard to say what the flows are doing.
The Environment Agency is conducting an internal review of how it regulates the export of waste tyres. I and my DEFRA colleagues look forward to that review’s findings, and we will carefully consider its outcomes when it has been completed.
Mary Creagh
Can I just finish this point? The EA is independent. It is important that we do not prejudice the ongoing review. My understanding from officials is that it will report at the end of June, and I look forward to discussing the outcomes of that review with them. I will ask them to write to the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills with detailed answers to her questions on the scope of the review. And on digital waste tracking, we will launch that from April 2026 and will provide further details on the scope of that in due course.
With tyres, as with other waste, our priority must shift from throwing things away to reusing and recycling more. We will do that by breaking the linear “take, make, throw” model and by seizing the opportunity to become leaders in circular design, technology and industry. We will increase the resilience and productivity of the UK’s economy, create highly skilled new green jobs up and down the country, and help our economy to keep more of the critical resources on which it depends. In doing so, we will fulfil our manifesto commitment to reduce waste and to accelerate to net zero.
We have a Circular Economy Taskforce that includes experts from industry, academia, civil society and beyond to help us to develop a circular economy strategy for England. That is supported by sectoral road maps detailing the interventions that the Government and others will make to drive circular growth and enhance our economic resilience. The Transport Secretary will be responsible for one of those road maps, and the others will concern agrifood, chemicals and plastics, textiles and waste electricals. We have a lot of different sectoral road maps, and I urge the Tyre Recovery Association to feed into that working group.
We have lots of ideas about how to reuse materials for a different purpose and they are all coming to the fore. The problem is that some ideas will win and some will lose, and we are in the stage where we are not quite clear about what is the right thing to do, and there are lots of good counter-arguments.
In the case of tyres, the rubber crumb produced by recycling them has a range of applications. The hon. Member mentioned, for example, that it can be used to produce asphalt, but it can also be used as a surfacing material in children’s playgrounds. The hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) mentioned a responsible and long-standing business that is doing the right thing, but is looking around the landscape, thinking, “Hang on, why are we doing the right thing when the cowboys are undercutting us?” The principle of fairness is important, as is enforcement of the law as it stands—before we make new laws, we should look at enforcing the laws we already have.
We have a competitive market in the UK for waste management services. New people and innovators are always welcome to join the field. There are a lot of management options available to waste handling operators; they need to be selected according to market conditions and local needs. Operators need to look at the waste hierarchy and the need to ensure the best available outcome for the waste. I am very interested in the Australian model and the Australian experience. I know that my officials have been in contact with Australian Government officials.
Sarah Dyke
The Minister mentioned Tyre Renewals in Castle Cary. I would very much like to welcome her to Glastonbury and Somerton to meet Tyre Renewals so that the company can show her what it does.
Mary Creagh
I will do a deal: I will come as long as we can go to The Newt, which I understand is the sponsor of this year’s Chelsea Flower Show. I have been reading all about The Newt, so I have been looking up Castle Cary and seeing how easy it would be to get to—my private office will not be very happy with me for saying that.
Tessa Munt
Will the Minister also meet Henry Hodge, who is part of Black-Ram Recycling and one of the people who informed me about this particular problem with tyres? That is in the constituency just next door, so it is an easy trip.
Mary Creagh
We can never spend enough time in Wiltshire, Dr Murrison, so we will see what we can do.
On the T8 exemption, we need to ensure that the UK’s house is in good order. The impact that waste criminals have on people’s lives is terrible, but poor performance in the waste industry is also a massive problem. It undermines the many excellent operators and responsible waste businesses in the UK, of whom we should be rightly proud.
We are determined to reform the way that the sector is regulated to mitigate environmental impacts, and we are considering plans. The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills mentioned the review in 2015, and there was a consultation in 2018. I have been pressing my officials as to why, a mere seven years later, nothing has happened. But she will have noticed that I have not followed in my predecessor’s footsteps; inertia is not my middle name. I have been very demanding of officials on this issue and I recognise the importance of removing the T8 exemption for the industry and the wider benefits of doing so. I am happy to tell the House that DEFRA’s intentions in this area, along with our priorities in the waste and recycling space, will be announced very soon.
I will close by thanking the hon. Member for securing this debate—but let me just check that I have answered her questions. I have covered the review, digital waste tracking and the retention of the circular economy. She asked about the Environment Agency review. The EA is looking at its own regulation. As part of that review, it will check its understanding of its powers and legal duties and ask, “Are we doing the right thing?” It will look at how it manages information and intelligence received from third parties. If people have evidence of waste crime, I encourage them to report it anonymously through Crimestoppers—so people do not have to give their name and address and worry about reprisals. That intelligence sharing is really important.
That review might also make recommendations for amendments to the EA’s legal and regulatory powers. The hon. Member can be reassured that I will not sit around twiddling my thumbs when I get that report.
Tessa Munt
It is really helpful of the Minister to ask people to contact Crimestoppers, but I wonder whether the Department can do more to demonstrate how it is prosecuting people who break the law. Enforcement is incredibly important—
Mary Creagh
We are not the regulator; it is for the Environment Agency, as the regulator, to do those prosecutions.
Mary Creagh
That is a very good point, but that is not the Department’s responsibility; we have the regulator and it is its job to do the prosecutions. There is a correct separation of power.
We have engaged with the Indian authorities, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, to help to ensure that this waste is recovered and recycled correctly, because small-batch pyrolysis is also illegal in India. There will be a delegation to meet officials in the autumn to strengthen relationships and discuss this matter further—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Black Maternal Health Awareness Week
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Black Maternal Health Week 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Before I get to the crux of this debate, I want to begin by saying that the UK is one of the safest countries in the world for a woman to give birth. I say that at the outset not to diminish the importance of this debate, but to move beyond that platitude—because in the sixth largest economy in the world, this should be one of the safest places to give birth. It is important that we move beyond that and focus on the real and persistent inequalities facing black and minority ethnic women in maternity care. While I am sure it is not the intention to focus on that, it can give the impression that, because the UK is broadly safe, the negative experiences of some women are exceptional and not matters that require significant Government attention. When we detail some of the harrowing experiences of women and hear that response, it can feel as though our concerns are being minimalised, so I hope the Minister will appreciate that I have got that part out of the way. While the UK is among the safest places to give birth, it is by no means perfect, and for many women it is deadly. As always, it is vital to lay out the current state of affairs.
The disparities in maternity care are evident not only in maternal mortality statistics, which show that black and mixed heritage women are three times more likely to die during pregnancy or childbirth as white women, and Asian women twice as likely, but in many other areas. Miscarriage rates are 40% higher in black women, and black ethnicity is now regarded as a risk factor for miscarriage. MBRRACE-UK’s 2023 comparison of care for black and white women who have experienced stillbirth or neonatal death found that the majority of all significant issues were identified in antenatal care for 83% of black women, compared with 69% of white women; 67% of black mothers and babies had a major or significant issue related to pathology, compared with 46% of white mothers and babies; and 75% of black parents and 66% of white parents had significant issues identified during the follow-up or reviews of their and their baby's care.
Public Health England’s 2020 report found that prematurity is a major cause of long-term infant morbidity. Black mothers, particularly those of black Caribbean background, are twice as likely to give birth before 37 weeks. In Five X More’s “Black Maternity Experiences Report 2022”, 27% of the 1,340 survey respondents felt that they received “poor” or “very poor” care during pregnancy and labour, and postnatally. Forty-two per cent of the standard of care during childbirth was “poor” or “very poor”, and I sincerely hope that the findings of Five X More’s next survey, which is currently under way, will show some improvement here.
According to Bliss, many babies born to black mothers require specialist care after birth, particularly due to preterm birth or full term complications, yet significant inequalities persist in neonatal care, admissions, the quality of care received, and outcomes after discharge. Poor care received at such an early stage of life can have critical consequences and lead to long-term health complications for black babies and deepen trauma for their families. Post-natal mental health disparities are also significant; UK studies show that women from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are more likely to suffer from common mental health disorders, yet are less likely to access treatment.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The Caribbean and African Health Network CIC report reveals that the perinatal mental health services lack spaces where black women can feel safe, seen and supported. Does my hon. Friend, and indeed the Minister, agree that more inclusive, high quality and personalised care is required to meet the needs of all women in maternity care?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; he is absolutely right. I re-emphasise the point that black, Asian and minority ethnic women are more likely to suffer from common mental health disorders, yet are less likely to access treatment. According to MBRRACE-UK’s “Saving Lives, Improving Mothers’ Care” report from last October, deaths from mental health-related causes accounted for 34% of deaths occurring between six weeks and a year after the end of pregnancy. It is vital that all those who experience pregnancy and childbirth receive mental health support, even if they do not necessarily present as struggling with their mental health; but that is especially true of black, Asian and minority ethnic women, who are more likely to have a negative experience during pregnancy and childbirth. Some of these women’s experiences are deeply traumatic and scarring, and can lead to several mental health problems. Despite that, they are less likely to access mental health support, so they are left to try to recover mentally from the experience on their own.
That disparity exists beyond pregnancy and childbirth, and even before conception. According to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, black women are 25 times less likely to access fertility treatment, and NHS-funded in vitro fertilisation cycles among black patients decreased from 60% in 2019 to 41% in 2021. Black and Asian patients aged 18 to 37 had the lowest IVF success rates compared with white patients in 2020-21, and non-white groups also struggled to access donor eggs, with 89% of egg donors being white, 4% Asian, 3% of mixed heritage and only 3% black.
During the International Women’s Day debate, I highlighted the latest MBRRACE-UK data, which showed a statistically significant increase in the UK’s maternal death rate in the years 2020 to 2022, even when excluding deaths caused by covid-19. Put plainly, more women and babies of all races are dying in the UK now than in the past two decades. This is incredibly worrying, and it means that black women, who often face the worst care, are likely to experience even further deterioration.
When I was researching the latest statistics and figures for this debate, it became increasingly apparent that the data on racial disparities in maternity care is limited and scattered. The data I have cited comes from a collection of reports by various medical bodies and advocacy organisations. Racial disparities are often identified as part of broader studies but, as far as I know, to date there has been no comprehensive medical study dedicated exclusively to racial disparities in maternity care and outcomes, despite the statistics consistently showing how bad things are becoming.
The Lancet’s recent study on maternal mortality and MBRRACE-UK’s reports do include racial breakdowns, but they are based on the data that they have, not the data that they need. A single, dedicated study is yet to be conducted. The lack of comprehensive research makes it incredibly difficult to see a full picture of what is happening, so I hope that the Minister will address that point and highlight what the Government are doing to get a clearer picture of the state of maternity care.
There is no one driver of the racial disparities in maternity care and outcomes. The causes are multifaceted, but overwhelmingly they are the result of a combination of structural racism, unconscious bias, gaps in culturally competent care and socioeconomic inequalities. The first two are incredibly important to highlight. Without acknowledging that the NHS has an issue with institutional racism and unconscious bias, we cannot address the problem. Those issues feed into the quality of care being delivered for black mothers and their babies. The inaccurate and dog-whistle assumptions around black women’s pain tolerance, for example, can lead to women being denied pain medication during childbirth, or misbelieved when raising concerns about pain felt that signals a severe medical condition. Those beliefs are not taught in medical school or during training, yet so many black women have come across a nurse, midwife or doctor who holds them. They are a direct result of institutional racism in the NHS and have a direct impact on the care that women receive.
It is important to note that, although racial disparities in maternity care are experienced regardless of class, occupation, education or geography, socioeconomic inequalities are still a very important factor in determining health outcomes and experiences. Women living in the most deprived areas have a maternal mortality rate more than twice that of women living in the least deprived areas. Black and minority ethnic people are 2.5 times more likely to be in relative poverty and 2.2 times more likely to live in deep poverty.
The combination of socioeconomic inequalities and institutional racism in the NHS is having a dual impact on black mothers’ experiences of maternity care and health outcomes. Much of the previous Government’s work to improve maternity care was focused on co-morbidities and socioeconomic drivers of poor health. Indeed, it is crucial that those areas are addressed, but without looking at the structural racism and unconscious bias in the NHS, the problems will persist.
I want to recognise the campaign groups that are pushing the issue up the political agenda. In the absence of concrete Government or NHS action, advocacy groups have stepped in to offer their solutions and recommendations. Where they can, they also offer alternative care and training. First—always first—I commend Five X More, which established Black Maternal Health Awareness Week in 2019. Its work empowers black women to make informed decisions during pregnancy, and it advocates for systemic change. It is currently conducting its second national survey, building on its impactful 2022 research.
Five X More is calling for a measurable Government target to end racial disparities in maternal death, a commitment that the Labour Government support but have yet to implement. I hope that the Minister will confirm today whether such a target will be set, how it will be measured and when we can expect it. Five X More also advocates for mandatory annual maternity surveys focused on black women’s experiences, compulsory anti-racism and cultural competence training for all maternity professionals, and improved data collection on ethnicity and outcomes.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Given the complexities and interchangeable disparities that affect maternal health for black women, does she agree that without a national target or framework we are doomed to make the same mistakes again and again? This travesty needs to end, because no mother or child’s health outcome should be determined by the colour of their skin.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These figures have been circulating for decades, but it was only after a successful parliamentary petition launched by Five X More that we first debated them in the House. We are now five or six years on and we are still in the same situation. Things have to change.
I will continue to pay tribute to the amazing groups that have been pushing for decades to put the issue on the agenda. Mimosa Midwives is another remarkable group that offers culturally safe, continuous maternity care. It campaigns for a culturally appropriate care model in the NHS and for inclusive training in midwifery education to reflect diverse maternal experiences, because much of our medical training remains centred on white women.
The Motherhood Group is a social enterprise supporting black mothers with peer-led services, training workshops and national campaigns. Its annual black maternal health conference brings together researchers, clinicians and service users to tackle disparities. It also launched the Blackmums app to connect mothers navigating similar challenges.
Other charities such as Bliss, Tommy’s, Birthrights and the Royal College of Midwives also highlight racial disparities in their broader efforts to improve maternity care. Where the Government and the NHS have fallen short, they have taken the time to campaign and to step in.
I will, however, acknowledge the positive steps that the new Government and the NHS have taken. In response to my written parliamentary questions last month, the Government outlined some ongoing measures. Every local maternity system must now publish an equity and equality action plan that sets out tailored actions to reduce disparities, especially for ethnic minority women and those in deprived areas. I welcome the roll-out of version 3 of the Saving Babies’ Lives care bundle, which aims to reduce stillbirth, neonatal death, pre-term birth and brain injury.
Maternal medicine networks are being established to ensure equitable access to specialist care for women at heightened risk. Those efforts are supported by the NHS equality, diversity and inclusion improvement plan, which was launched in 2023. That plan requires NHS organisations to tackle workforce discrimination, improve leadership accountability and foster an inclusive, harassment-free environment. I am also pleased to note that NHS England is developing a respectful and inclusive maternity care toolkit to support inclusive and culturally competent practice. Those are all really welcome developments, but much more is needed.
I will close with four questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit to a statutory inquiry into racial disparities in maternity care, including testimony from affected families and frontline providers? Secondly, will the Government fund dedicated research into the medical complications disproportionately affecting black women during pregnancy and childbirth? Thirdly, will the Government commission a review of maternity training across all medical professions, to better equip practitioners in recognising complications and symptoms in black women and babies? Finally, do the Government acknowledge the presence of systemic racism within the NHS? If so, what steps are being taken to confront and eliminate it? It is good that in the past few years, the House has taken the time to acknowledge these issues and allow us to debate them, but even though the Government stated in their manifesto that a target will be set, we now need to see action. We cannot continue to see gaping inequalities in maternal outcomes.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on securing today’s important debate. She has highlighted that black women often receive a worse standard of care and that their risk of maternal death is three times higher than for white women.
The situation in Nottinghamshire demonstrates why change must happen quickly. As some in the Chamber will know, there is currently an independent review into maternity services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS trust, led by Donna Ockenden. I first called for this review when I was a councillor after my experience of giving birth to my son in 2020. I knew then, as I know now, that women accessing services at NUH do not always receive the care they deserve, nor are they listened to when they raise concerns. Ahead of today’s debate, I reached out to Donna Ockenden and her team for their perspective on black maternal health in Nottinghamshire so that I could highlight it here today.
When the Donna Ockenden review was established in Nottingham two years ago, the Nottingham University Hospitals trust could not share a single named contact within the black community, nor did the trust have any meaningful engagement with the many groups across Nottinghamshire. It had no way of reaching into groups of black women who might have been affected by poor maternity care. The translated resources provided by the trust were also very limited. It is therefore unsurprising that trust between black communities and Nottingham University Hospitals trust was at an all-time low.
As Donna Ockenden rightly emphasised to me, that only increased the risk that women and their families would disengage from vital health services and be unable to give informed consent to treatment through their maternity programme. I am pleased to say that the review’s work so far is leading to some improvements in the NHS, and I believe it is important to acknowledge that progress even if there is still so much further to go.
Since the review began, Donna and her team have met many community groups across Nottinghamshire and attended numerous church services and meetings in the majority black-led churches. They have also appeared on the famous Kemet FM, a local community radio station that focuses on the music, wellbeing and culture of Nottingham’s African and Caribbean communities, broadcasting across the east midlands and the Caribbean.
Following that outreach, many black families have come forward to the review, and community engagement has strengthened as the review has progressed. I am pleased to report that these learnings are shared with the trust in bimonthly learning and improvement meetings, although it has taken years to build that relationship with local communities and to establish trust. That is essential not only in providing safe care that is reflective of the population’s needs, but in ensuring that the voices of black women are no longer ignored. It is clear that there had been little or no communication for so long.
However, it is important to acknowledge that not every trust has a Donna Ockenden. They do not have somebody reaching out to black communities and black women to find out what is happening and how they are affected by health services.
I know that the last 14 years have had a hugely detrimental impact on maternity services across the country. The only way we can begin to fix them is by tackling the underlying issues in the culture of the NHS. It is important to note, as I have just said, that not every NHS trust has a Donna Ockenden and the level of scrutiny that happened in Nottingham.
As the newly elected chair of the all-party parliamentary group on maternity, I am committed to working with the Government on a health strategy for maternity services that recognises how inequalities have a huge impact on the care that people receive. I therefore urge the Minister to ensure that the experiences of black women are at the heart of any forthcoming maternity strategy, and that trusts are strongly encouraged to engage with communities so that their voices are no longer ignored. If inequalities are to be addressed, we require a national framework and a maternity strategy that is fit for the future.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on securing today’s important and timely debate, following Black Maternal Health Awareness Week earlier this month. Her opening remarks were comprehensive and thoughtful. I am always pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), who is a passionate advocate for improved maternity services in Nottingham and across the UK; I am pleased to serve on the APPG with her at the helm.
Women are at their most vulnerable during pregnancy, as they carry another human life, and they deserve the very best care. They have more touchpoints with the NHS than they will have for most of their lives. We engage with the NHS when we are born and when we need to access care at the end of our lives. When we are carrying a child, we have more moments in front of medical professionals than for the majority of our lives.
Following its inspection of 131 maternity units, the Care Quality Commission found that 65% were not safe for women to give birth, 47% required improvement on safety, and 18% were inadequate. The commission warned that it is concerned about the potential normalising of serious harm in maternity care. Those risks are particularly stark for women of colour in this country, for whom pregnancy continues to carry an unacceptable level of danger. As the Darzi report highlighted, black women are almost three times as likely as white women to die during childbirth, while neonatal mortality among the most deprived quintile is more than double that among the least deprived. That is nothing less than a national scandal.
Maternity care is an issue close to my heart, having had two very different experiences giving birth in my local hospital in Chichester. I tabled an early-day motion on maternity care and secured a Backbench Business debate in this Chamber on that subject just two months ago. Like the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest, I am in regular contact with Donna Ockenden, who produced the Ockenden report. Her findings, along with those of Dr Bill Kirkup, show that the problems identified at the Shrewsbury and Telford trust and the East Kent trust are not isolated incidents. The same issues are systemic and widespread across many NHS trusts up and down the country.
In preparation for the previous debate on maternity services as a whole, I spoke to families across the country who had experienced devastating failures in the system. They went into hospital expecting the joyful outcome of going home with a child, but instead they had to return without their baby, carrying the trauma of that experience for the rest of their lives.
As the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill mentioned, the MBRRACE-UK report for 2021 to 2023 confirms that inequalities in maternal mortality rates persist, with a nearly threefold difference among women from black ethnic backgrounds, and an almost twofold difference among women from Asian ethnic backgrounds, compared with white women. Women living in the most deprived areas continue to experience maternal mortality rates that are twice those in the least deprived areas. Care for black women who experience stillbirth or neonatal death is often inadequate.
Ethnicity is still not routinely recognised as a risk factor in, for example, the screening and prevention of conditions such as gestational diabetes. Births to black mothers are almost twice as likely to be investigated for NHS safety failings, and black mothers are twice as likely to suffer from perinatal mental illness compared with their white counterparts.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has long talked about these disparities. She introduced the Miscarriage and Stillbirth (Black and Asian Women) Bill in 2022, which sought to require the Secretary of State to lay annual reports before Parliament on efforts to reduce miscarriage and stillbirth rates among black and Asian women, but unfortunately it was not carried over into the next Session.
When so many of our conversations in this House and in the other place are about the economic pressure we are under as a country, it is worth reflecting that, on top of the enormous human toll of this issue, failure also has a financial cost. Obstetric claims make up just 13% of clinical negligence cases handled by NHS Resolution, but they cost more than £1 billion a year, which is nearly 60% of the total cost.
Across the country, families face unbearable grief and trauma because of failures in maternity care, and that burden is falling disproportionately on black women and families. We Liberal Democrats are committed to transforming maternity services to make the UK the safest place in the world to have a baby, and we fully support the work of Black Maternal Health Awareness Week in drawing attention to these critical issues. Our general election manifesto pledged to revolutionise perinatal mental health support, not only for those currently pregnant and for new mothers but for those who have endured miscarriage or stillbirth.
We have been clear that the Government must, as a priority of the highest urgency, implement all the immediate and essential actions recommended by the Ockenden report. It is deeply concerning that, years after the tragedies at the Shrewsbury and Telford trust and the East Kent trust, failures are still widespread and efforts to address them appear piecemeal.
When my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) recently questioned the Department on the implementation of the Ockenden recommendations, it was alarming that it could not confirm whether the actions had been implemented, nor did it appear to have a system for centrally monitoring the progress. The Minister pointed to the three-year delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services as the Department’s main response.
Deeper analysis shows serious shortcomings. Many measures in the plan have no meaningful numerical targets, which makes real accountability for the difference made by the plan very hard to track. Targets for expanding access to perinatal mental health support are being missed, even as some improvement is noted, and staff satisfaction indicators remain worryingly low, with some measures still recording fewer than half of staff expressing confidence in educational opportunities or in their management’s response to unsafe practices.
The target set in 2010 to halve maternal mortality looks increasingly out of reach. Maternal mortality rates did not fall for a decade, and they actually increased between 2021 and 2023. Worse still, no updated data has been published for the last two years on the rates of serious brain injury, stillbirth, neonatal mortality or preterm birth. Without transparency and accountability, women will continue to be failed, and black women, who already bear the brunt of the disparities, will continue to be disproportionately harmed. That is why I ask the Minister to commit to reviewing these issues urgently, to meet me and my colleagues from the Liberal Democrat health team to discuss a more effective plan to improve maternity safety, and to set out a clear path to address the deep disparities in black maternal health.
Alongside that, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cross-Government strategy, led by the Department of Health and Social Care, with annual progress reports on reducing miscarriage and stillbirth rates among ethnic minorities. We also call for increased funding for public health initiatives, with a portion earmarked to allow communities facing the worst health inequalities to co-produce solutions tailored to their specific needs. We propose the establishment of a health creation unit in the Cabinet Office to lead work across Government to improve health and tackle inequalities.
Black women have waited too long for their concerns to be heard, for the system to change and for justice to be done. We owe it to them and to every woman, family and baby in this country to get maternity services right. No woman should fear for her life or her child’s life because of the colour of her skin or the postcode that she lives in. We have to do better.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) on securing this important debate today. As she said in her opening speech, the UK enjoys some of the best outcomes in the world when it comes to maternity health, but there is always more work to be done to improve our outcomes further. I hope we can all agree that equal access to the best care, for all across our society, should always be our target. That should be based on excellence across the board as standard.
We are considering Black Maternal Health Awareness Week, which is part of National Minority Health Month, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss this topic and exchange views with colleagues from across the House. Colleagues will know that as a clinician myself, I am always guided by data when assessing current healthcare practices and new policy proposals. A 2023 report by the maternal, newborn and infant clinical outcome review programme found that in the period from 2019 to 2021, 241 UK women died during pregnancy or up to six weeks after the end of pregnancy. That equates to a rate of 11.7 women per 100,000 giving birth. Each of those cases represents a tragedy for the woman and baby involved and their family and loved ones, and we must do all we can to prevent them.
The data does, as has been mentioned, also show that women from black backgrounds face a mortality rate much higher than the average; it is equal to 37.2 per 100,000. Women from Asian backgrounds also face a higher rate, at 17.6 per 100,000. Clearly, those figures present a pretty stark picture, but we must exercise care in the interventions that we make, and balance our desire to solve the problem with ensuring that we do that in a way that resolves the problem without risking creating others.
At the outset, it is crucial to ask what the Government are doing to understand the specific causes of these outcome disparities, because if we understand the causes, we will be better able to manage and treat them. The Kirkup and Ockenden reports have already been mentioned. What are the Government doing to ensure that those recommendations are fully implemented, and to develop a strategy to ensure that all women have the opportunity for a safe pregnancy and birth? What kinds of data held by the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care might cast light on other demographic, economic or geographical patterns that contribute to these numbers, which we may be able to help to resolve?
We know that the most significant factor in predicting death during the maternity period is a pre-existing medical condition, and we know that disparities exist in the incidence of some pre-existing conditions that are relevant between some ethnic groups in the wider population. For example, a 2018 research paper in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases found that rates of heart disease were 20% higher among the black community than those from white backgrounds, and rates of stroke were a remarkable 40% higher. Do the Government know how the rates of pre-existing conditions among ethnic groups are influencing the figures on maternal health, and how are they going to work to reduce the risks of such conditions among these groups to try to improve the care not just during maternity, but during the whole of black ladies’ or ethnic minority ladies’ lives?
Maternal mortality itself arises from a number of conditions and causes. In the period from 2019 to 2021, for example, 14% of maternal deaths were attributed to cardiac disease, 14% to blood clots, 10% to sepsis and 9% to epilepsy or stroke. What are the Government doing to understand the prevalence of those conditions among ethnic groups, how the conditions can be prevented, how they can be identified in black women—indeed, in all women—how they can be better treated to save lives, how they can be better managed to save lives, and what research can be done to ensure that they are, if possible, prevented?
Socioeconomic deprivation has also been mentioned, and it is important to consider the impact of deprivation. In the period from 2019 to 2021, 12% of women who died during pregnancy or in the year afterwards were at severe and multiple disadvantage. That included, in particular, women who had suffered mental health conditions or domestic abuse, or had a history of substance abuse. How do the Government understand these factors and their influence on mortality rates, and what are they doing to help to resolve those issues?
Closer to home, in February 2022 the NHS Race and Health Observatory published “Ethnic Inequalities in Healthcare: A Rapid Evidence Review”. The authors of that report noted:
“Tackling poorer care and outcomes among ethnic minority women and babies continues to be a focus within the…NHS England and NHS Improvement Maternity Transformation Programme Equity Strategy, which includes pledges to improve equity for mothers and babies and race equality for staff.”
The Government’s abolition of NHS England risks placing that ongoing programme of work, like many others, in jeopardy. Will the Minister tell us the current status of the maternity transformation programme and the implementation of the equity strategy under the NHSE and DHSC reorganisation? How is that work being prioritised, given the many other demands on the Department’s time and resources—not least from the reorganisation—that might previously have been spent on improving care?
The previous Government improved the number of midwives per baby and made progress towards the national maternity safety ambition of halving the 2010 rate of stillbirths, neonatal maternal deaths and brain injuries in newborn babies. When will the Government set out their ambition for the next decade? The Labour Government promised more than 1,000 new midwives in their manifesto last year. Will the Minister update us on how many of those 1,000 midwives are now working for the NHS?
The Minister for Care recently stated that the 41 maternal mental health services are now live and will be active in every integrated care system by the end of 2025-26. How will the Government ensure that access to those services can continue when ICSs face such high cuts in funding?
Colleagues have mentioned the possible influence of systemic racism or unconscious bias in maternal outcomes. The NHS has an employed population of 1 million, and it is likely that some bad apples will be found within that overwhelmingly brilliant staff cohort, but I dispute that the NHS overall is a racist organisation. I work in the NHS—I should declare that interest—and I have not seen evidence of structural racism.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reported that, as of 2024, 45% of obstetric and gynaeco-logical doctors identify as of a black, Asian or minority ethnic background, and 26% of births were to women of black or other minority ethnic backgrounds. Figures for midwives are harder to assert, because they are collated with nursing staff, but the proportion among nurses is 22%.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I just want to check whether the hon. Lady understands that structural racism is about not the number of people within an organisation, but the way the organisation is set up and treats different people. Does she understand that having a high proportion of ethnic minority people does not necessarily mean that an organisation such as the NHS—which, I might add, in its senior levels is run by people mostly not from ethnic minorities—does not discriminate against people in a certain way?
Dr Johnson
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. I do not dispute that some women, men, boys or children have awful experiences at the hands of bad apples. That will happen within any organisation of that size—the NHS employs more than 1 million people. That is wrong and should be rooted out; it is absolutely clear that that should stop. However, I work in the national health service, and I think the vast majority of people who go to work in it do so to care for the patients in front of them as best they possibly can. Care should be provided on the basis of clinical need and should not be affected by the ability to pay or by any other socioeconomic, ethnic or other demographic data. Although I accept the point that some individuals will have experienced poor care, which is reprehensible, I do not think that is the majority situation by quite some margin. I think most people receive extremely good care in the NHS, and care that is delivered on the basis of their clinical need, not the colour of their skin.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Does the hon. Lady accept that, given that she is not of an ethnic minority and has not looked at the information given by a number of women from ethnic minority backgrounds who have experienced this, she is not really in a position to say that what they say they experienced does not exist?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I am just challenging her point. Just because for one or two reasons she may not have seen any institutional racism in the NHS, that does not mean it does not exist. Further, the figures for black maternal mortality are the same in the United States, which has a completely different healthcare system from ours, but they are not the same in countries in Africa or the Caribbean, where black women are the majority. Does she see why that can point only to institutional racism? It is a completely different healthcare system in United States. The only difference is that we are both living in societies where institutional racism is known to be a problem.
Dr Johnson
I think we can both agree that any examples of racism are reprehensible and should be rooted out and that, in the examples given, people are speaking truthfully of their perceptions and what they have experienced. No one is denying the experiences of individuals or groups who have experienced poor care and that that poor care should stop. I just do not think that that suggests the NHS itself is a racist organisation, because I do not believe that it is. That is our point of difference. I think the staff who work in the NHS are overwhelmingly not racist. They want to care for people on the basis of clinical need to the very best of their ability, regardless of any ethnic minority status.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I did not say that the people in the NHS are racist; I said the NHS has a problem with institutional racism. I hope the hon. Member will accept that there are distinctions between those two things.
Dr Johnson
I think we have both made our positions clear. I accept that some people will have received poor care and that the people who delivered that poor care need to be hauled over the coals. They need to be called out for what they have done and we must ensure that such care does not happen again. But I do not accept that the NHS is a racist organisation.
Another issue is language barriers. It is well recognised that it is difficult for people who have a language barrier to access health services. Can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to help with that? In recent years in my medical career I have seen improvements in the delivery of language services, but when I was a more junior doctor an appointment needed to be booked in advance and an interpreter had to attend in person. Sometimes they were available and sometimes they were not. Sometimes other members of staff or family members would be used to interpret, which is a poor standard of care, relatively speaking.
Michelle Welsh
Is it possible for the hon. Member to highlight what part of the NHS she worked in? The reported experiences of interpretation and translation nationally are very different from what she is describing, which does not reflect the factual accounts and certainly does not reflect what has been happening in Nottinghamshire.
Dr Johnson
I did the junior part of my medical career in Nottinghamshire. I am describing what happened in the junior part of my career, which is about 20 years ago now. My experience 20 years ago was that it was very difficult to get interpreters, and that the people used to interpret were not proper interpreters and not the appropriate people. That should not be happening.
The service is still not perfect, but over time we have seen translation services improve. Many hospitals have instituted new iPad systems where one can choose a country of origin or the language that the person speaks, and a dial-up system of interpreters working from home is used to provide an interpreting system. That is much better—it is more available to the patient than the services we had in the past, which required someone in person—but it is still not perfect. We still see areas across the country where those services and that interpretation are unavailable to people. How will the Minister ensure that women who have difficulties with the English language are able to access interpreters when they need them—not just for appointments, but for out-of-hours emergencies? That is when interpreters are most difficult to obtain, particularly for languages spoken by fewer people in the United Kingdom.
I want to ask about the Government’s plans. The previous Government instituted a three-year plan, which comes to an end next year. When will the Government produce the plan? They talked about their 10-year NHS plan, which they said they would produce in the spring. I believe we are in the spring now—if we look outside, it is a beautiful day; the flowers are out and the lambs have been born. Where is the plan that the Government promised? What targets are they going to set, and when, to improve maternity care for all women, and specifically for black women?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Before I begin, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for securing this important debate during Black Maternal Health Awareness Week. It is so important that we raise awareness of the disproportionate challenges faced by black mothers during pregnancy and after childbirth; debates in weeks such as this are critical to that.
I want to pay tribute to the charities that do so much vital work in this space: the Motherhood Group, Five X More, Black Mums Upfront, which is part of Bliss, and Ebony Bonds, to name just a few. I am taking this debate on behalf of the Minister for women’s health and patient safety, Baroness Merron. I also want to thank all hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I will seek to pick up and answer all their queries, but if they feel I have not done so by the end of the debate, I ask them to please get in touch and I can ensure we respond.
I want to thank the charity Sands for shining a spotlight on some of the most heartbreaking cases of baby loss in the UK, and for giving a voice to so many black and Asian women who have gone through the nightmare of losing a child. One such case was Amber Lincoln from Woolwich in south-east London. She was miscategorised as low risk when she was pregnant, and nearly died from undetected complications after her delivery. A series of individual and systemic failings led to cancellations and delays, and her twins, Anaya and Mael, were born and died at 22 weeks in November 2022, before she could access the care she needed. Amber said:
“If the NHS just listened to me. And just put my appointment through when I was constantly asking. If they had the notes there properly I wouldn't have been treated that way.”
She said the fact she was mixed race led midwives to focus on diabetes and high blood pressure rather than other high-risk indicators. I wish I could stand here and say that Amber was an isolated case, but her story will sound familiar to black women up and down the country, and it shows in the figures. The latest data from MBRRACE-UK shows maternal mortality rates for women from black ethnic backgrounds are more than double those for white women. Black women and their babies are also at higher risk of stillbirth, neonatal death and miscarriage. That should shame us in modern Britain.
Tackling inequalities and racism in maternity services is an absolute priority for this Government. Our manifesto committed to setting an explicit target to close the black and Asian maternal mortality gaps. That commitment has not wavered—we are working hard not only to set a target but to set the actions that will help deliver it. It is crucial we set the right targets and ensure the system is supported to achieve them, which is why the Government are currently considering the action needed that would drive change on the ground, ensuring that targets set are evidence-based, and women and baby-centred.
Our ambition is not just to improve maternal outcomes; we want to improve black women’s experiences of maternity care too. We know that too often black women are not listened to and experience racism and bias. That is completely unacceptable. Importantly, our ambition must also extend beyond maternity services, so that we can tackle wider health inequalities, including the determinants of ill health. I know that health inequalities do not start at the door of maternity services, and nor do they end when women go home.
Here is what we are doing and where we need to go further. We are aware of calls for a national inquiry into maternity care, which we will carefully consider. There have been a number of reviews, inquiries and wider research in recent years that have provided a shared and clear sense of the issues in maternity and neonatal care. The most important priority must remain for us to target resources and efforts to address the existing issues identified and avoid any further delays. The focus must be to address inequalities and the action taken to do so for women and babies.
NHS England is now in the final year of delivering its three-year plan to improve maternity and neonatal services. Central to the plan is the objective to reduce inequalities for all in maternity access, experience and outcomes, and taking steps to tackle and address inequalities for black women. To achieve this objective, all local areas now have in place and are implementing their equity and equality action plans. Those plans detail local interventions tailored to population needs, in order to tackle inequalities for women and babies from ethnic minorities and those living in the most deprived areas. There have been some great examples of local best practice within those plans, ranging from targeted pre-conception health support to tailored support to ensure equitable access to care, and bespoke communications for pregnant asylum seekers and refugees.
As part of the three-year delivery plan, all local areas are working to implement version three of the Saving Babies’ Lives care bundle, which provides maternity units with guidance and interventions to reduce and tackle the inequalities in stillbirths, neonatal deaths, brain injuries and pre-term births. Those local and national interventions are essential steps to improving equity and equality in maternity care.
In parallel, however, it is vital that we continue to work to foster a culture of safety, compassion, honesty and one that is actively anti-racist, which must be led by outstanding leadership. I am pleased that all 150 maternity and neonatal units in England have signed up to the perinatal culture and leadership programme.
For clarity, and I think particularly for the shadow Minister, we recognise that racism and unconscious bias need to be tackled, that they are unacceptable and must be tackled in the NHS.
Ashley Dalton
I will finish what I am saying and then I will give the shadow Minister an opportunity to come back to me.
To clarify, this work is not only about the behaviours that we must tackle in the NHS; it is also about the systems that we create in the NHS and ensuring that those systems do not consciously or subconsciously discriminate against people on the grounds of their race. That is what we mean and that is why we are putting in place training for leaders in our maternity units. We will ensure that they are signed up to the perinatal culture and leadership programme, to ensure that those systems are as equitable as they possibly can be.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for giving way. I think we all agree that racism is wrong and must be weeded out wherever it happens. Could she say, in answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) at the beginning of her speech, whether she believes that the NHS is structurally racist?
Ashley Dalton
The shadow Minister will know that that is not actually the question that my hon. Friend asked. She asked about systemic racism. We recognise that racism and unconscious bias can play a part both in the behaviours of some people, which must be tackled, and in the way that systems are structured. That is why the training that we are introducing will help to tackle racism. It is not necessarily the case that there is racism throughout the NHS, but we must do everything we possibly can to make sure that NHS systems are as equitable as they can be.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I confess that I thought I heard the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill say “structural”. However, if the word she used was “systemic”, does the Minister think the NHS is systemically racist?
Ashley Dalton
I think that we have to do everything possible to make sure that all the systems in the NHS are as equitable as possible.
We have set clear expectations for escalation and accountability through the three-year plan, and all 150 maternity and neonatal units in England have signed up to the perinatal culture and leadership programme. We are supporting staff to hold up their hands when things go wrong through the Freedom to Speak Up initiative. Our approach to tackling inequalities in maternity and neonatal care must be underpinned by evidence, research and—critically—working with women and their families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) pointed out, it is crucial that women’s voices, including black women’s voices, are heard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill mentioned funding for research. The National Institute for Health and Care Research has launched a £500 million funding call that challenges researchers and policymakers to come up with new ways of tackling maternity inequalities and poor pregnancy outcomes. The NIHR has also invited applications for funding of up to £500,000 for a research project to understand how biases in medical devices used during the pregnancy and neonatal period might be contributing to inequalities for women and babies.
NHSE is working closely with the NHS Race and Health Observatory on the outputs of the learning and action network programme, which aims to address inequalities for women and babies from black, Asian and other ethnic minority backgrounds. Local maternity and neonatal voices partnerships bring together the voices and experiences of women and families to improve maternity and neonatal care. More than a quarter of the partnership leads are from ethnic minority groups. Women’s voices must continue to be at the heart of our improvements to care.
I will be frank with colleagues: although the measures I have set out are important, I do not believe they will be enough to meet the scale of our ambitions. The Government are committed to ensuring that all women and babies, regardless of their ethnicity, background or location, receive the high-quality, equitable care they deserve. Many of these initiatives began under the previous Government, and although there has been some progress across maternity and neonatal care—for example, good progress has been made in reducing the number of stillbirths and neonatal deaths—we have much further to go to improve care and tackle inequalities.
Looking forward, we are clear that we want to see high-impact actions to tackle inequalities and racism in maternity services. Baroness Merron and the Secretary of State are working closely across the sector to identify the right actions and interventions to deliver the required change.
The shadow Minister asked about data collection. Data on women’s ethnic background is routinely collected by services at multiple points throughout maternity care. The data is used to disaggregate reporting of adverse outcomes, such as maternal mortality, by ethnicity. Differences by ethnicity are also reported as part of the Care Quality Commission’s annual survey, which asks a sample of pregnant women and new mothers about their experiences of NHS maternity services. NHS trusts are incentivised to collect this information through the maternity incentive scheme, which is a financial incentive programme that is designed to enhance maternity safety in NHS trusts. Safety action 2 of the maternity incentive scheme incentivises trusts to submit digital information, including ethnicity data, to the maternity services dataset.
Some of our processes will take time to implement, but we need to understand the immediate actions that can begin to deliver change here and now. I therefore reiterate our commitment to setting an explicit target to close the black and Asian maternal mortality gap. We must get this right. Targets must be evidence based, and that is why it is so important that the data is collected, as I have said, that our targets are women and baby-centred and, crucially, that the system is supported to meet the targets that are set. To this end, NHS England has undertaken a review of the evidence base and conducted extensive stakeholder engagement to identify the key drivers of inequalities for black and Asian women and babies—again ensuring that black women’s voices are heard.
Dr Johnson
The Minister talks about the importance of setting an achievable target and working on how it will be delivered, but the Government have now been at this for 10 months, and it was a manifesto commitment. Will she at least commit to a date by which it is likely to be set? Nothing will happen until there is a target and a plan. The Government are spending time deciding when to make a target, and all the while women are waiting.
Ashley Dalton
We are working at pace, ensuring that what we do is right and that it is achievable. The shadow Minister will be aware that the Government are developing a 10-year plan for health, and women’s health, including maternity health, will be at the centre of it. We want to ensure that whatever we put in place dovetails with all the other interventions and actions that the Government are putting forward.
The areas identified for intervention so far include the improper management of existing conditions, racism and discrimination, and access to care. We are clear that we want to see innovative and high-impact ideas that will shift the dial. We want to make sure not just that we are coming up with some sort of plan, but that it can be delivered and will be impactful.
Let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill that this issue keeps us up at night. I know that she will continue to hold us to account. I began my speech by referencing Amber’s story. She asked how she could put her trust in a system that let her down so badly, and I completely understand why she felt that way. It is our duty to make sure that women like Amber can trust the system with something as precious as their children, and to prevent what should be one of the most joyful days in their lives from becoming a tragedy.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I thank all Members present in this afternoon’s debate for their thoughtful and balanced contributions. It is not very often in the House that we are generally in agreement, so I am heartened to be joined by Members from different political backgrounds calling for us to improve the state of maternity care.
I was grateful for the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan), who talked about the lack of spaces where black women feel supported and the importance of increasing those for all women in maternity care. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) pointed out the need for a national target and framework to challenge these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), the chair of the APPG on maternity, gave a fantastic speech on the significant concerns about the quality and safety of maternity services in the Nottingham University Hospitals Trust. She made very important points on tackling the underlying issues of culture within the NHS. I was also pleased to hear the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), rightly pointing out that this disparity is a national scandal. We are at risk of normalising these issues, and it is so important that we continue to challenge them. Although I do not agree with the shadow Minister on much, she made a very good point about language services.
I thank the Minister for her response and for detailing the steps that the Government are taking to tackle this. I know that the Government have committed to setting a target to end racial disparities in maternity care, and I was pleased to see it as a manifesto commitment, but at times, it can feel as though the issue is being kicked into the long grass, as the target has not yet been set. We are looking forward to that, and there are several campaigns watching the debate this afternoon that will have rejoiced when they heard that the Government have committed to setting a target. Like me, however, they continue to wait in eager anticipation to hear what it is. I hope the Minister will take that on board, and that we will not wait too much longer for the target to be announced.
Should there be a national inquiry into maternity services, we would hope that black maternal health would be considered as a clear element of the problem, with stand-alone recommendations on what should be done to tackle the disparities. That would be extremely important. I also thank the Minister for acknowledging the need for anti-racism training, that systemic racism exists, and that there are various things that we must do to tackle it. One of the worst things that can happen to women in this situation is being gaslit into thinking that their experiences did not happen. Women not being listened to purely because of what they look like, where they are from and their ethnic origin, is causing so many problems and even leading to deaths. We must acknowledge them and, instead of burying our heads in the sand, tackle issues of racism and discrimination in our health service.
Finally, I thank all the campaigners listening to the debate today again for their hard work and tireless campaigning. Many of the women in the campaign are involved because of their own experience in maternity care or that of a loved one. Many who have dedicated their time to campaigning on the issue do so because they do not want anybody else to go through what they did. It can be exhausting to re-live past traumas and continue to push the cause, but it is through their hard work that we are having the debate today and that we have a Government willing to address the issues.
In my opening remarks, I mentioned the worrying findings from the recent MBRRACE-UK report, which revealed that the overall maternal death rate is increasing. That is outrageous. That should be alarming to all of us and should spur us into action. I say this each time we have this debate: improving the state of maternity care for black and ethnic minority women and babies will improve the overall quality of maternity care for all mothers and babies. I hope we can agree that that is certainly worth doing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Black Maternal Health Week 2025.
Antisocial Behaviour: Dudley
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I will call Sonia Kumar to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make only a very short speech with the prior permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of anti-social behaviour in Dudley.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss; I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on antisocial behaviour in Dudley.
Antisocial behaviour strikes at the heart of every community in the UK. In Dudley, residents are increasingly concerned about vandalism, intimidation, dangerous driving, off-road bikes, groups engaging in persistent disorder, theft, drug dealing and—my pet hate—fly-tipping. Antisocial behaviour erodes community confidence and makes people feel unsafe. It not only undermines trust among neighbours but hinders our local businesses and tarnishes our towns’ reputations as vibrant, welcoming places to work and live.
The impact on our high streets and businesses is significant. Some estimates show that the cost to businesses and individuals of the heightened fear of crime is in excess of £70 billion a year. That is simply unacceptable. We must be better at reducing the cost and consequences of antisocial behaviour.
Why do we have antisocial behaviour? It is a complex issue with social, psychological and economic factors. Poverty and deprivation are consistently identified as primary root causes. High levels of poor mental health, including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress, especially among teenagers, can contribute to it.
This issue is not just for the Minister here today; it should be tackled cross-departmentally. If people in my constituency thought that they had a genuine say in their community and equal opportunity for jobs, housing and a better quality of life, they may feel differently.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I recently spoke to one of my Halesowen constituents who faced problems with antisocial behaviour. Somebody frequently smoked cannabis outside her property, and although she reported it to Dudley council and the police, little was done. In fact, it was only after my office became involved that something happened. Does my hon. Friend agree that although that might seem a minor incident to the authorities, it is really important for our constituents, and it is absolutely imperative that they strive to tackle antisocial behaviour?
Sonia Kumar
I agree. Many people have said to me that the smoking of cannabis and drug dealing across the constituency is causing them not to want to go out, and they are really worried about their children. It is also just wrong, and we need better rehabilitation services.
A question we should reflect on is why people have such high levels of antisocial behaviour. I would like to highlight the crucial role of prevention in tackling antisocial behaviour. Effective prevention is about not just responding to incidents after they occur but addressing the root causes and stopping them before they start.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We all have, in our constituencies, the antisocial behaviour issues to which the hon. Lady refers. Does she agree that the prevalence of antisocial behaviour throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland suggests that we need to do more to engage with the youth and give them a stake in the community? I believe that that is the thrust of her ideas. In my constituency, church organisations such as the Boys’ Brigade, the Girls’ Brigade, campaigners and other church youth groups have given young people routes to greater support to ensure that more young people are taught skills, thereby improving social cohesion. Churches have a role, and if we let them play it, we will all benefit.
Sonia Kumar
I agree. Engagement in all aspects of the community is important, whether we are talking about the church, the gurdwara, the mosque or the synagogue. It does not matter what the community forum is—it could just be the youth centre—but if youth are engaged in that, we should pursue those routes to get them to take a more active role in society.
Early engagement with young people in schools to address adverse behaviour before it escalates is paramount. We should look particularly at regular, high-visibility foot and vehicle patrols in hotspots to deter offenders. Close collaboration with local businesses and residents to identify persistent offenders and intervene early is essential. It is about building community cohesion and providing job opportunities and rehabilitation for people who have committed antisocial behaviour offences. Too often, there is a lack of outlets where our youth can enjoy safe and entertaining activities, including participating in sport.
Without sports, youth or activity centres, young people are left with limited options, which can lead to antisocial behaviour. This is why I am fighting to bring back Dudley Town football club and why community assets such as Sedgley library must be saved. These assets are essential for our community, and that is also why I oppose the closure of Meadow Road youth centre in my constituency.
I am hugely grateful to the Mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, for securing the west midlands as a youth guarantee trailblazer area, focusing on supporting young people who are not in education, employment or training. That programme is just part of the solution and will reduce antisocial behaviour over the long term. This is why I am fighting for it to be in Dudley.
There are other reasons why antisocial crime has proliferated in Dudley. Like much of the west midlands, Dudley has seen crime increase dramatically over the past decade. We have witnessed a 76% increase in crime locally, while the west midlands as a whole has seen an increase of 79%. That trend is deeply worrying. Chronic underfunding and a significant cut to police numbers over the past 14 years have hampered our police forces, with 700 fewer deployed police officers in the west midlands compared with 2010.
Despite these challenges, our police officers continue to do a fantastic job, and I want to take this moment to thank them for their unwavering commitment to keeping us safe, even under the most challenging circumstances. I firmly believe that by supporting our local police, we can turn those troubling statistics around.
Alex Ballinger
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is delivering an excellent speech. Does she welcome the fact that 150 extra neighbourhood police officers are coming to the west midlands as part of the Labour party’s commitment to providing 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers? Will that not help us to tackle the antisocial behaviour we are seeing across Dudley?
Sonia Kumar
I thank my hon. Friend. That is why I welcomed the Government’s announcement of £200 million for neighbourhood policing as part of the wider £1 billion boost. This investment will reassure communities as they once again see local police officers patrolling our streets. By supporting our local police forces, we will turn around the worrying trend in crime statistics.
I was delighted to see locally that our police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, secured an extra 150 neighbourhood police officers for the west midlands, alongside a further 139 officers redeployed into neighbour-hood policing. Neighbourhood policing must be at the heart of our approach. The actions taken by the PCC are exactly what we need to ensure policing once again serves our community. That is part of the PCC’s new police and crime plan, which I wholeheartedly support, but we can and must go further.
We in this House must demonstrate that we take the concerns of our constituents seriously when it comes to antisocial behaviour and tackling crime in the 21st century. That is why I was delighted to support the Crime and Policing Bill on Second Reading earlier this year. The Bill introduces respect orders, which will allow police and local authorities to target persistent offenders through tougher restrictions. It extends closure powers to help to shut down premises that are a magnet for crime and disorder, and increases the penalties for repeat offenders, ensuring that those responsible for making people’s lives a misery are held to account.
Crucially, the Bill ensures that victims’ voices are at the heart of the process and are heard. When reporting incidents, victims can feel confident that authorities will act and take their voices seriously with the introduction of new reviews of antisocial behaviour complaints. That is particularly important for housing estates and high streets in Dudley, where persistent disorder can drive businesses away and disrupt families trying to go about their daily lives. The Bill will also support local authorities to search and seize vehicles linked to fly-tipping.
Antisocial behaviour in Dudley is an issue that I receive emails about every single day. One case that stuck with me happened on Oak Street, where a resident wrote to me about drug dealing, vandalism and threatening behaviour by gangs who frequently gather near Silver Jubilee Park. Residents became so worried that they remained in their homes, frightened to go out and complain for fear of retaliation. Sadly, when those issues were raised with the council, it refused to reinstall temporary CCTV. That was incredibly frustrating and disappointing. I hope that my Conservative council is listening and will change its decision.
Regrettably, that is not an isolated issue. In Upper Gornal, there are repeated incidents of joyriding on motorbikes late at night around the green, disrupting local residents and making roads too dangerous to use in case of an accident. Fly-tipping is also a constant issue for my constituents, with Kates Hill in Dudley singled out to me as a significant problem area for residents.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. This issue affects not just Dudley but the whole of Dudley borough, an area that covers the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and my Stourbridge constituency. Fly-tipping is absolutely prolific in the Lye ward of my constituency, and the council is really struggling to enforce against much of it because a lot of it associated with organised crime. Does she agree that we need to support and resource councils to tackle this antisocial environmental crime in collaboration with stakeholders?
Sonia Kumar
I agree with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. We need to ensure that the local council is engaging with residents in community forums and working with local police, and that we have more police on our streets.
Car theft is another serious issue. In my area in particular, I am too often told by email about cases of car theft and burglary. People send me emails and Facebook messages saying that, time and again, those issues are not being properly reviewed. Constituents are frightened, and it adds unnecessary stress for local residents.
I could go on and list the issues that residents have raised with me through email and social media, whether that is racial slurs being shouted, public urination, vandalism of public gardens, drug dealing or roads covered by litter. It is entirely unacceptable, and that behaviour is a blight on the communities of Dudley. It causes terror, particularly for elderly and vulnerable residents, causes damage to our communities, undermines pride of place and breeds a culture and perception of lawlessness, which ultimately leads only one way.
I am grateful for the work that the Government have already done and their plans to increase police numbers and tackle antisocial behaviour. My concern, however, is that when announcements are made about resources being allocated to the west midlands, Dudley often does not get its fair share. Can the Minister reassure me that any extra police officers, resources for youth centres, and support for young people that are directed to the west midlands are fairly shared with towns such as Dudley? We can reassure residents that not just big cities, but our towns, get the funding, and that they will not miss out. Can she also reassure me that Dudley will have the opportunity to be home to a youth trailblazer?
Antisocial behaviour is a multifaceted issue that demands a comprehensive response. We must invest in prevention, support our police, ensure the fair distribution of resources and give our young people hope and opportunities. Only then can we restore pride, safety and confidence in Dudley’s communities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss—I always say that, but it actually is a pleasure. Let me start by thanking all the Members who have come today and contributed. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for securing the debate. As a fellow midlands MP, I am delighted that her constituents have someone fighting so diligently on their behalf.
Just because I have a bit of time, I have a good Dudley-related antisocial behaviour story from my childhood—or rather, from the ’70s, before I was born. My mum and dad lived in the Black Country at the time. When the younger of my two older brothers bit my elder brother, my mum said that if he was going to behave like an animal, he would have to go with them, and she drove him to Dudley zoo and left him there. It was the ’70s, Ms Furniss—things were different in the ’70s. He is fine, to be clear, but I like my mother’s direct action with antisocial behaviour, doling out immediate action to prevent it. I do not think he ever bit my brother again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley and others have powerfully set out how antisocial behaviour remains a constant menace in communities around the country. Whether in Dudley or anywhere else, it has a damaging effect on people and places, which is why we are pushing strongly to tackle it. I know this is an area of focus for the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson). My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley mentioned her support for some of the efforts in the Crime and Policing Bill; the Policing Minister will currently be on her feet in that Bill Committee, which is why I am here today and not her—it is not just because it is a midlands matter.
Antisocial behaviour has a strong local dimension, which came through in various contributions from my hon. Friend and colleagues in neighbouring areas, and it manifests itself in different ways. I will come to specific points shortly, but before I do, I want to set out the national context, because it is such a widespread problem. We heard, as we so often do, from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, that this is a problem in Northern Ireland, as it is in Wales, the west midlands and everywhere. We all know from our interactions with constituents that antisocial behaviour causes distress, concern and fear among residents, communities and businesses. It plagues town centres and neighbourhoods. It spoils people’s enjoyment of parks and other spaces.
Let us get it right: antisocial behaviour is not low level, trivial or minor. To minimise it in that way is an insult to the many people who suffer every day as a result of the selfish actions of others. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I am not sure that anything is brought to me as much as antisocial behaviour. It could come from a neighbour—I especially like it when both neighbours come to me, although that is tricky to deal with at times—or from other people in the local community. This is genuinely a problem that can make people move out of their family homes. This not low level: it is incredibly serious. Antisocial behaviour eats away at people’s sense of security and local pride, and it needs to be dealt with as the serious threat that it is.
For too long, the response has been weak and ineffective, and this Government are putting that right. The Prime Minister has placed safer streets at the heart of his plan for change. Through that mission, we are determined to address the scourge of antisocial behaviour. We are backing up our words with action, including by restoring and strengthening neighbourhood policing, which has been badly eroded in recent years. We are also introducing the respect orders mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) mentioned cannabis. I am sure that everybody here has heard the same complaints about kids and adults constantly smoking cannabis outside their houses. That is why tackling illegal drugs is key to delivering the Government’s mission to make our streets safer, to halve knife crime, to crack down on antisocial behaviour and to go after the gangs who are luring young people into violence and crime.
We know from the crime survey for England and Wales that people using or dealing drugs is among the top three antisocial behaviour issues that people most commonly think is a problem in their area. I have been door-knocking in streets not too far away from Dudley where people were openly dealing drugs. For quite some time it has felt like there is no deterrent, and that has to change. Half of crimes such as shoplifting and burglary are driven by drugs, which is why the Government are determined to crack down on ASB and drug misuse.
The police have a critical role to play in cracking down on drug misuse and antisocial behaviour, and when individuals are found in possession of drugs, they must face appropriate sanctions. We are working with the police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to support and increase voluntary referrals into treatment. We firmly believe that diverting those who use illegal drugs into interventions such as drug treatment services is the key to reducing drug misuse, drug-related crimes and reoffending.
We support the use of drug testing on arrest and out-of-court resolutions, to ensure that individuals who commit drug-related offences are given the opportunity to change their behaviour by diverting them to meaningful and appropriate interventions. The whole tone of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley was not about demonising some of those who might perpetrate such crimes, but about recognising that this is a societal problem that requires a multifaceted approach. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we are taking forward proposals to expand both the trigger offences that can lead to a drugs test and the range of drugs that can be tested for—I was in the Bill Committee as we discussed that this morning.
Beyond enforcement, we know that treatment works to reduce reoffending. Giving offenders greater access to treatment services helps to break the underlying cause of their reoffending and increases public safety. We are committed to ensuring that anyone with a drug problem can access the help and support they need, and we recognise the need for evidence-based, high-quality treatment. The prevention of drug and alcohol-related harm is vital for saving lives and making our streets safer. As my hon. Friend said, this work will not be done by just the Home Office—it has to be a cross-Government endeavour—and the Department of Health and Social Care continues to invest in improvements to local treatment services for children and young people, and for adults with drug or alcohol problems, to ensure that those in need can access high-quality help and support.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the need for hotspot policing. If we are to make preventing crime and antisocial behaviour a top priority, we have to put our money where our mouth is. That is why I was very impressed to hear about the great work being done through the hotspot action funding, such as deploying police and other uniformed presence to target areas with the hottest crimes in order to clamp down on antisocial behaviour and serious violence. As part of the Government’s plan for change, and to support making the country’s streets safer, £66.3 million has been available for hotspot policing action in 2025-26, and West Midlands police have been allocated £3.7 million of that funding. This will ensure an enhanced uniformed presence in the town centres and neighbourhoods across the country with the densest concentration of knife crime and ASB.
Young people were mentioned a number of times. I used to do some youth work in Upper Gornal, and I got really good at table tennis—I have lost the skills now, I am afraid to say. We understand that no single agency holds all the levers to tackle antisocial behaviour, and that effective multi-agency working is crucial. We are committed to intervening earlier to stop young people being drawn into crime, and an essential part of achieving that will be carried out through the Young Futures programme. We will establish a network of Young Futures hubs and prevention partnerships across England and Wales, to intervene earlier and to ensure that children and young people are offered support in a more systematic way, as well as creating more opportunities for young people in their communities through the provision of open access to mental health and careers support.
My hon. Friend mentioned the trailblazers scheme. I, too, hope that it will come to Dudley and that the west midlands will be able to exhaust all the support we can. I cannot make her any promises about Sedgley library from the Dispatch Box, but I am with her in her campaign to maintain the library.
My hon. Friend also talked about respect orders. We recognise that the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 do not currently go far enough, so we are putting that right by introducing respect orders in the Crime and Policing Bill, to help to ensure that our communities are free from harm. Under the new measures, persistent adult perpetrators of antisocial behaviour will face tough restrictions, including bans on entering the areas where they have behaved antisocially, such as town centres or other public places.
On the questions my hon. Friend asked towards the end of her speech, in expecting the Policing Minister to respond to the debate and not me, I suspect she might have been more explicit in stating that Birmingham gets all the money in the west midlands. [Interruption.] I hear from a sedentary position that that feels true to other people. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s diligent diplomacy because I am the Minister. It is funny: I spend a lot of time in my day job bashing London for getting all the money, so it is nice to get some just deserts. When it comes to the metrics that get used to ensure that funding is given out fairly, I can imagine what it feels like in a town next to a large city. When there is a behemoth like Birmingham next door, I imagine it can feel as though Birmingham gets the money.
While I am in the Home Office, I will always use my voice to stand up for extra resources for the whole of the West Midlands police force area. It is safe to say that the Home Secretary, a Member of Parliament who represents towns that surround a big city, is only too aware of the plight of towns. I absolutely hear the calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, although obviously I also think Birmingham should get some money for services. I am not suggesting we should get rid of all of our resources and give them to Dudley, but I am happy to share.
I will wrap up by thanking everyone who has contributed to the debate, which has been yet another reminder of the strength of feeling around this issue and the harm that antisocial behaviour causes in communities across the country. It has been a pleasure for me to be among those who sound like me, which is not an experience I often get; it has been a pleasure to take part in this wholly west midlands-related debate. Whether in Dudley or anywhere else, decent, law-abiding people rightly want this problem gripped. The Government agree with them and we are determined to deliver the safer streets that they want and deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Staffordshire: Cultural Contribution
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cultural contribution of Staffordshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss, and I thank everyone for their interest in attending this Westminster Hall debate. Staffordshire is a county where culture is carved in clay, sung on local stages and carried proudly in the stories of its people. Its legacy is rich and alive, and today I rise to champion our region and its contribution.
Our future links us to our past, but we are not bound by it. That future speaks to the potential of every single one of Staffordshire’s communities—from Stafford, my proud county town, and the vibrant city of Stoke-on-Trent to the quieter, more rural parts of the county such as Eccleshall, Derrington and Church Eaton. Much like our county symbol, the 15th-century Stafford knot, we are all interlinked.
I secured this debate to celebrate Staffordshire’s legacy and to mark Staffordshire Day on Thursday 1 May, which is another important day to vote Labour and champion our community’s future. The debate is an opportunity to discuss tapping into our heritage, building on our creativity and ensuring that our proud traditions and culture continue to be a force for positive change in Staffordshire and beyond.
Staffordshire is known for many things. It is perhaps best known for its ceramics, which I will leave to my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) to discuss in detail, and for its brewing, which I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) will discuss at great length.
Those are just the most famous examples of Staffordshire’s skilled craftspeople and their impact on our country’s industrial and creative landscape. As a pioneering industrial county, many of our more modern organisations—such as Bostik, which makes adhesives; Perkins, which makes engines; and GE Vernova, which makes transformers—have grown from roots in more traditional work with metal, clay, leather or textiles.
Much of Staffordshire’s history, which is encapsulated in archives, can be found at the new Staffordshire History Centre in my constituency. At that amazing new facility, over a thousand years of Staffordshire’s history have been brought to life in some fascinating displays. The archives include rare items such as Anglo-Saxon charters confirming the foundation of Burton abbey and a letter written on the eve of the American revolution. A key part of the centre’s collection is the rare books and manuscripts collected by William Salt. For anyone looking for more information about Staffordshire’s past after this debate, the centre is a very good place to start.
As a proud county town, Stafford has a key story to tell in Staffordshire’s cultural history, and it echoes through to today. In its town centre, people can stop for coffee and cake at the Soup Kitchen, which dates to the 16th century, enter the historic churches of St Mary’s and St Chad’s, and take in the interior and exterior of the Ancient High House, which is haunted by a ghost called George and is known for being the largest surviving timber-framed townhouse in England. We also have Stafford castle, which has dominated the skyline in Stafford for over 900 years.
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for theatre, I will also talk about theatres. There is the Stafford Gatehouse theatre, famous for its Shakespeare festival and for its hilarious pantomimes every Christmas, which bring audiences from across the county to Stafford. The Gatehouse also provides a space for actors, artists and writers to hone their craft with its hugely popular youth theatre. I was lucky enough to meet some of those actors, artists and writers last Friday before the opening night of “Carrie: The Musical”.
Across the county, we have other wonderful theatres such as the New Vic in Newcastle. It stands out as a theatre in the round and creates an innovative, immersive style of theatre that makes audiences feel as if they are part of the performance. There are also the Regent theatre and the Garrick theatre, which is in Lichfield. They host productions by flagship companies from around the country.
Of course, theatre is not always confined to traditional stages. The Claybody theatre company is based at the former Spode pottery works in Stoke-on-Trent Central. That is a brilliant example of how our county’s cultural history can inspire its present. Its work is fuelled by the stories of the area, and it regularly integrates members of its community company into its productions alongside professional actors. As well as performing in its current historic home, it uses found spaces such as Fenton town hall, which hosted its production of “The Card”, based on the novel by one of Stoke’s most famous sons, Arnold Bennett.
The connection with our past does not extend just to the theatre. Many of our communities come together to celebrate our history, with the Gnosall canal festival being a really good example. Centred on the historic canal boats, that event tells the stories of the village’s past, while bringing people together for live music, entertainment and more.
I also want to talk about the future. Although our past and heritage are a source of pride, Staffordshire’s culture is far from static. It is living, breathing and evolving every single day. Staffordshire remains a county of skilled tradespeople and of artists, and it is vital that we nurture and develop that talent. We must ensure that arts and culture are part of our everyday lives, because that is where we find connection, community and identity.
Last weekend, I spoke with Johny Todd, whose business in Woodings Yard Studios stands as a proud reminder of Stafford’s history in the leather industry. We discussed how artists today face many challenges and the opportunity that this Labour Government have to support our creative industries as a way of building community and supporting our local economies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for putting such a shine on Staffordshire, and she is right about the creative industries. It is important that those skills of our forefathers—our grandfathers and fathers—are passed on, but I feel that they are being lost. Does she agree that the Government should step in to ensure that a training system is in place so that those skills are not lost?
Leigh Ingham
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: it is important to pass that skilled heritage on to new generations. That is exactly what Johny was talking to me about at the weekend—making sure that artists have the spaces to develop those skills, because without those spaces, as the hon. Gentleman says, the skills would be lost. We must continue to support the creation of new spaces, new opportunities and new partnerships that can nurture the next generation of artists, performers and thinkers.
Finally, I want to mention Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group, which is based in my constituency as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). It is rated outstanding and is crucial to our local talent pipeline; Members will know how often I raise its excellent work for all our constituents. Very recently, I celebrated the news that Stafford college has been allocated £2.6 million of funding by the Government, which will be used to restore its Tenterbanks building in Stafford town centre. As I mentioned, we must look not only to our history but to our future, and it is by investing in our young people and restoring the crumbling buildings in which they will be doing their learning that we will build their future.
We have an opportunity to build on the strengths of Staffordshire’s past and invest in our cultural infrastructure for generations to come. I urge the Minister to stand behind our county, believe in our culture and invest in it.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and a pleasure to see so many of my county neighbours, not least those who border my constituency: my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). I say “neighbours” because “everybody needs good neighbours”, as the song from the hit—[Laughter.] Hold on: there is a link. Those words were in fact written by Jackie Trent, who was born in Newcastle-under-Lyme and lived in Stoke-on-Trent. She penned the famous words that were on our television screens for so many of our childhood memories.
That sums up the diversity of cultural and creative activities that we have in Staffordshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) pointed out, we have a plethora of things to offer. I will not go into the territory of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on breweries, but I will make special mention of Titanic Brewery, a brewery in Stoke-on-Trent with pubs across the area. It is named, of course, because one of the famous sons of Stoke-on-Trent was the captain of the Titanic. We do not necessarily want to parade that around too much, but it is a link to a historic event. More importantly, the tableware on the Titanic was also made in Stoke-on-Trent, and that has a much better story. The backstamps can still be seen at the Spode Museum in Stoke.
It would be remiss of me not to briefly mention ceramics. We in this House talk a lot about ceramics—well, I certainly do—and they are part of who we are. In many parts of the country, if people go to a high-end restaurant or a big hotel—or if Members go to the Tea Room—and turn over the plate, they will probably see something that was made by artisans in Staffordshire, most likely in Stoke-on-Trent, but also in parts of Staffordshire Moorlands, Stone and Stafford.
Those delicate pieces of tableware, the bricks that we see in our buildings, and the tiles on our roofs—indeed, the tiles in the Central Lobby of this Palace—have all been made from the sweat, toil and tears of Staffordshire artisans. It is those things of beauty, made from dirty clay, that I often think demonstrate the power and the ability that we have in-county.
We are more than a city and a county of ceramics, and we are more than just the sum of our parts and our pottery. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, the well-known author Arnold Bennett very pithily and wittily accounted for parts of public life in north Staffordshire through his books. One of his most famous works is “The Card”, which I saw when it was on at the New Vic in a wonderful adaptation. The fact that it had local people in the cast telling the stories of our history made it special.
One of Arnold Bennett’s other most famous works is “Anna of the Five Towns”, but of course everyone knows that Stoke-on-Trent has six towns. I do not want to mislead the House, but it is potentially true—I believe it to be true, so I am comfortable saying it—that Arnold Bennett’s mother-in-law lived in Fenton and apparently he was not a great fan of his mother-in-law, so when he wrote “Anna of the Five Towns”, he left out one of the towns as a long-lasting snub to her. I would not suggest any of us recreate that—I happen to be quite fond of my future mother-in-law—but those small bits of our history permeate through different literary and cultural activities. Many people around the country will not realise that they come from Staffordshire.
I want to talk about a couple of smaller things that are not ceramics. One of the things that I am most proud of relates to a name not well known to history. There was a gentleman called Oliver Lodge. He was from Penkhull, a beautiful part of my constituency, and he was a physicist. Long before it was publicly accepted, and long before Hertz, he discovered electromagnetic radiation. He was a pioneering physicist and scientist who, through his work in north Staffordshire, was able to identify some of the fundamental energy sources of our universe. Sadly, his name is lost to history in a way that Hertz is not. There is a Lodge Road and an Oliver Road in my constituency, which are of course testament to him. He is another Staffordshire-rooted individual who made a rich contribution to our scientific and cultural understanding.
On the other side, we have Thomas Twyford, who was born in Stoke-on-Trent. His contribution to our public life is somewhat more comical, some might say—he invented the first single-piece ceramic flush toilet, which revolutionised public hygiene in this country. It is a toilet, but it revolutionised the way that people lived their lives and the way they looked after themselves. It was a huge contribution to the reduction of unsanitary conditions in public areas and brought down disease rates. Again, it is something that happened in Staffordshire that changed the world, but sadly is now a bit lost to history.
Finally, not to test the patience of the House too much, I want to make a pitch for what comes next. Our contribution has not ended with the history of the things we have done. It is not about the litany of wonderful collective stories that we will all share about the great things that have happened in our county, but about what is coming next.
I want to highlight the fascinating and brilliant work that the University of Staffordshire is doing around gaming and game design. According to The Independent Games Developers Association it is the No.1 destination in the country for students who want to learn game design. I was told that one in five of those who now work in the industry in the UK are graduates of the University of Staffordshire. It is a huge piece of our creative history becoming our creative future, turning real-life ambition into good quality jobs for people, mainly from my city and my county.
While I know there will be more contributions to this debate, the fact that we have been able to come together in the spirit of comradeship and collegiality two days before Staffordshire Day is a wonderful thing. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on securing a debate that allows us to talk about the place that we love and call home.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I will have to limit speeches to three minutes, as so many Members have asked to speak.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is an honour to stand before you, Ms Furniss, ahead of Staffordshire Day on Thursday, to talk about the hidden gems that make South Staffordshire such a unique and culturally rich area.
I will begin with Codsall, where the past and present meet beautifully. The charming high street lined with historical buildings offers a snapshot of centuries gone by. It is not just about history, however; Codsall has a lively arts scene, with the Codsall community arts festival buzzing with local performances and workshops. It is a place whose creativity flows just as freely as its heritage.
Next door, the village of Bilbrook offers a different kind of charm. It is a village where modern industry and natural beauty co-exist. The partnership between Jaguar Land Rover and the local community to protect Jubilee wood is a perfect example of how local heritage and industry can work hand in hand. A commitment to environmental conservation is a core part of the village’s identity and a fantastic backdrop for many of the cultural activities.
Swindon may seem small, but its contribution to our cultural heritage is anything but. Chasepool in Swindon was mentioned in the Domesday Book, and is now an important part of that industrial heritage. Swindon forge—originally a fulling mill and then a corn mill—was converted into a finery forge in the 1620s, producing the wrought iron that drove the early industrial revolution.
Then there is Himley—a village with a story to tell, which boasts the beautiful and culturally significant Himley Hall and Park, and holds a fascinating piece of British history: on the dark night of 5 November 1605, the gunpowder plot conspirators fled through Himley woods. In Kinver, we have something truly unique: rock-cut houses that have stood the test of time. These homes, carved into sandstone, are a testament to the resourcefulness of past generations and are now a major tourist attraction, with thousands visiting to step inside a piece of living history.
Enville is a quiet, yet rich corner of South Staffordshire. Known for the impressive Enville Hall and the Enville Brewery, this village blends rural charm with modern industry. The brewery’s award-winning ales are a nod to the past, while its ongoing role in the community keeps Enville firmly in the present. The village of Pattingham exemplifies how culture and nature can co-exist beautifully. Patshull Park was designed by Capability Brown. Trysull might be small, but its legacy is enormous. This village is home to the arts and crafts-inspired Trysull Manor, a reminder of the region’s creative spirit.
Then we have Bobbington, a village with a fascinating industrial past, and Lower Penn, with its surrounding areas offering a tranquil setting for outdoor enthusiasts. Perton is a village that has grown rapidly in recent years, but it has not lost sight of its roots. Finally, the village of Wombourne bridges past and present in the most remarkable way. Its roots go back to the middle ages, and it is home to some of South Staffordshire’s most iconic landmarks, such as the Bratch locks and the Victorian-era Bratch pumping station.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages (Leigh Ingham) for securing the debate.
In my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South and the villages, we are proud of our heritage. My constituency links the city of Stoke-on-Trent with the rural villages of north Staffordshire. Staffordshire’s cultural contribution cannot be truly understood without recognising the leadership role that Stoke-on-Trent has played, not just as the beating heart of the county’s industrial past, but as a city of craft, creativity and resilience that is still shaping culture across the region and beyond.
Stoke-on-Trent is a city forged in clay and coal. Our pottery industry ships British products all over the world, and our famous tableware names have been household staples for centuries: from Duchess China, Wedgwood and Aynsley China, which sits in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), to the mills in the villages of Moddershall and Checkley, which ground flint and bone for the Potteries, the cultural links between town and country in my constituency reveal deep ties.
In Longton in my constituency, our iconic potbanks now form beautiful heritage sites; with the right investment, they could be repurposed as community spaces. Obviously, I must mention Gladstone Pottery museum, a working monument to our industrial history and now home to “The Great Pottery Throw Down”. Urban Wilderness is reviving and regenerating Longton town centre with art, and also runs the Longton Pig Walk parade, which I recently led as a white swan. Today, Launch It Stoke-on-Trent has opened in Longton town hall. It will help entrepreneurs and young makers and creators continue to harness Longton’s creative energy.
In 2024, Stoke-on-Trent was awarded world craft city status, a sign that our city is recognised globally for its pottery. That is why today I ask the Minister to support our ambition for Stoke-on-Trent to be recognised as a UNESCO creative city for craft—or for design; there are options. Only one city in the midlands holds that prestigious title, and Stoke-on-Trent is uniquely placed to join it. UNESCO recognises cities that put culture and creativity at the heart of local development; with greater local powers and investment, Stoke-on-Trent can lead Staffordshire’s cultural and economic renewal.
I must also mention that our cultural legacy includes Belstaff, the Longton-born fashion house, and the famous Shelley’s Laserdome nightclub, which helped to define an era of British dance music in the late ’80s and early ’90s; it would be remiss of me not to mention Lemmy and Robbie as well. Thank you to everyone for listening to me—I will cut my speech short there because I am running out of time.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I congratulate my neighbour the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham). It is a real insult for you to try to restrict us to three minutes, Ms Furniss—how can we get all the beauty of Staffordshire into three minutes?
Staffordshire is a proper county. It is not like the west midlands, Merseyside or Humberside, which is a late ’70s creation. It was forged in the Anglo-Saxon era when Queen Æthelflæd, the Lady of the Mercians, created the forts in Tamworth and Stafford. We forget that that was part of Staffordshire, as was Wednesbury, because what we see as the Black Country was all part of a great historical county of Staffordshire.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I have heard reports that the Staffordshire bull terrier may not be from Staffordshire because it is from Wednesbury. Can we confirm that Wednesbury has always been in the historical county of Staffordshire?
Sir Gavin Williamson
I can absolutely confirm that Wednesbury has always been in the great historical county of Staffordshire, and of course the Staffordshire knot comes from that great Queen of Mercia, although there is sometimes speculation that it actually comes from the hangman at Stafford castle: there were three prisoners and there was an argument over who to hang first, and to find a compromise he hanged all three at once. However, I think we all take the view that it is much more beautiful to think that it is part of the Queen of Mercia’s insignia that is used on our county flag.
We have a great cultural heritage in Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. I always say that we have got the very best of everything in Staffordshire in my constituency, not the other constituencies that make up the lesser parts of Staffordshire. We have so much: Dunoon pottery, which makes some of the finest mugs to be found, and wonderful breweries—we draw our water from the great River Trent, River Penk or River Sow, so we have great brewers in my part of Staffordshire.
We have great cultural events and institutions. For me, Christmas is not Christmas if I do not go to the Wyrley Pretenders pantomime to see the amazing work that the volunteers do every year to entertain and bring the community together for Christmas. We have the newly opened Crown Wharf theatre in Stone, which is going to be there for generations to enjoy productions that I have no doubt will be far better than anything else put on in other people’s constituencies.
We are a source of inspiration to artists, such as Peter De Wint, who was born and grew up in Staffordshire. The Great Wyrley outrages inspired Arthur Conan Doyle to write his famous book about them. If I invade my former constituency, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), and go down to Kinver, there are the Kinver rock houses, which he mentioned and which were the inspiration for the Shire in Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings”. We have so much to offer.
On 9, 10 and 11 May, people can come to the Stone food and drink festival. Stone is the food capital of Staffordshire, and people can truly appreciate that and enjoy an amazing day out there. I look forward to welcoming hon. Members to the great constituency of Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, and to welcoming so many people from around the country to our great county of Staffordshire.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate on the cultural contribution of Staffordshire to our economy and country. I am probably the only hon. Member present who has a constituent sitting in the Public Gallery, so I shall be on my very best behaviour. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham)—the county town, where my mother was born—on her excellent speech. She set herself up nicely to be the first honorary patron of the Staffordshire tourist board—run a close second by the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson).
On Thursday 1 May, people across Staffordshire will be marking Staffordshire Day, and I look forward to being back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme to mark this important day in our collective calendar with a nice cold drink at one of our wonderful local public houses—there are plenty to choose from—as well as getting out the vote with our excellent Labour candidates. In my maiden speech last July, I said:
“While some might look north of the Watford Gap and see a cultural desert, I see vibrancy.”—[Official Report, 29 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1120.]
I went on to champion the wonderful New Vic Theatre, which attracts locals from far and wide, including hon. Members who have been seen walking through its doors. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about how wonderful the New Vic is. We have the wonderful Apedale museum and the light railway, which is an excellent day out. We have the fantastic Brampton museum, which tells the story of our ancient and royal borough. We have the award-winning Newcastle College, which has many brilliant young people engaging with arts and culture, as my hon. Friend said—we do share it, but I have the headquarters in my constituency.
Just a few weeks ago, I was at the Philip Astley Centre, which is in our town centre—a great community asset, dedicated to the memory of the creator of the modern circus, Phillip Astley, who was born and raised in God’s own community of Newcastle-under-Lyme. From eating to horse riding, and from walking to a brilliant higher education institution in Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme packs a punch.
This is an important year for the 1st Newcastle Brownies and Guides. The 1st Newcastle Guides is one of the oldest surviving units in the country, and the oldest in the midlands. The Brownie unit turns 105 years old this year and the Guide unit turns 110. As part of the celebrations, they are fundraising so that both units can open the eyes and ears of their young women.
Our faith groups do much for the arts. Just on Saturday, St Mark’s Basford, which is not far from my house, had a fundraising barn dance—I did not dance. Father Tommy, the vicar, is moving on to pastures new; we wish him well and thank him for his service to our community.
As we address the cultural contribution of Staffordshire, however, we must rededicate ourselves to the fight for our fair share of investment in housing, transport and, yes, the arts and culture. There is so much good happening in all parts of Staffordshire, as we have heard already, and today is an opportunity to touch briefly on that in the House.
I could speak about Newcastle-under-Lyme all day, and at times since my election I have tried to do just that, but I will not test hon. Members’ patience this afternoon, and will simply say this: Staffordshire is at the heart of our country, and Newcastle-under-Lyme is at the heart of our county. Long may that continue, and a happy Staffordshire Day to all.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this important debate in the week of Staffordshire Day. As a proud resident of Arnold Bennett’s Axe and the representative of the head of the River Trent, which gives my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) and others such wonderful beer, it is an honour to take part in the debate.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who I will call my hon. Friend, talk about the contribution of the Minton tiles to Parliament, but I want to mention two other contributions that Staffordshire Moorlands has made to this Parliament. The first is a very obvious one: a big family that lives in Staffordshire Moorlands, the Talbots—including the Earl of Shrewsbury—had this very nice house at Alton Towers, and they had a house architect called Augustus Pugin, who designed and created many buildings in that area that are still standing today, including schools and the marvellous St Giles church in Cheadle. Anyone who visits them can see that they are the forerunners for what we see in Central Lobby and across Parliament.
Perhaps slightly lesser known is that Richard Norman Shaw—we know that name—is an architect who also operated in Staffordshire Moorlands. He was the architect of the All Saints church, Spout Hall on St Edward Street and, as we all know, Norman Shaw North and Norman Shaw South. We can all celebrate the fact that Staffordshire Moorlands, and Staffordshire, have played such an important role.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Of course, the Capitol building in the US has tiles made not in Maryland or New Jersey but in Staffordshire, here in the United Kingdom.
Dame Karen Bradley
Hear, hear—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have contributed not just to this Parliament but to Parliaments across the world.
Staffordshire Moorlands also contributed to much of our décor. The arts and crafts movement started at Leek college. William Morris lived and studied in Leek, and came up with many of his original designs there. We have the canals, because James Brindley, the creator and architect of the canals, was a resident of Leek, and it was the canals that allowed our pottery to get to market. If pots are put on the back of a horse and cart, quite a lot of them break, but the canals allow them to be transported to market. The very fine quality pottery that Staffordshire is famous for was possible only because of the canals that James Brindley created.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge said, three minutes is simply not enough time to talk about the whole of the cultural impact that Staffordshire Moorlands and Staffordshire have had in the United Kingdom. Culture is so important. I was a big advocate for Stoke-on-Trent when it was running to be the capital of culture, and it was a great disappointment to me that it was not chosen. I had to recuse myself from the decision. I was then the Minister who would have taken the decision, so I had to step aside and allow my deputy to take it.
I hope we can come together and build something more around culture. The cultural heritage and the feeling of place and belonging are incredibly important to us. That is why I was really pleased last year to run a year of reasons to visit Staffordshire Moorlands—not just Alton Towers, the biggest tourist attraction outside London, or the Peak Wildlife Park, with our fantastic polar bear residents, but the many artists, writers, food producers and others who contribute so much to our fantastic culture. That is why on 1 June I will be starting a year of the Moorlands village. I will not be doing 52 reasons; I will be focusing on a village and a parish every week. This week alone, I visited the Scrumbles cake shop up in Brown Edge, and then went up to one of our nature reserves. I went to see St Luke’s church in Endon, which has an incredible Burne-Jones stained glass window—a source of light of a kind that would not be seen elsewhere. We have so much to offer, and I want everyone to come and visit, not just to go on our rollercoasters, but to see the fantastic industrial heritage and the cultural impact that Staffordshire Moorlands has had. Happy Staffordshire Day.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I will now limit speeches to two and a half minutes.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this important debate. This week, we are celebrating Staffordshire Day, which gives us the perfect opportunity to reflect on the cultural contributions of our towns and cities. In my constituency of Tamworth and the villages, we are incredibly proud of our rich heritage—from its origin as the ancient capital of Mercia and the home of the iconic Tamworth castle to its pivotal role in the industrial revolution and the development of the modern midlands. We can all agree that Staffordshire is at the centre of the universe.
Tamworth stands as testament to centuries of resilience, innovation and historic significance. Cultural contributions from arts and heritage in Tamworth and across Staffordshire are essential in shaping our country’s identity, enriching our communities and supporting local economic growth.
As an arts graduate, I am proud that nationally the cultural sector contributed £35 billion to the UK economy in 2023 and supported around 700,000 jobs. I was saddened that under the previous Government, grants for the arts were cut in real terms, which made decisions challenging for arts organisations and cultural places. Despite those challenges, the sector has shown a remarkable resilience. Between 2019 and 2022, the arts and culture sector grew by 5% in real terms, which is more than double the growth rate for the UK economy.
The cultural sector also plays a really important role in promoting community cohesion, education and wellbeing across Staffordshire. In Tamworth, we launched a programme that focused on social cohesion with community-led initiatives, arts projects and educational programmes. Some took place at Tamworth castle alongside Community Together CIC, with heritage-focused workshops and a festival last year celebrating “Athelstan 1100”, which had arts exhibitions, live performances and heritage trails.
In conclusion, let me say how proud I am that Tamworth castle museum was awarded £1.7 million; as a museum, it needs funding to support it and the great work that it does. I am really proud to celebrate Staffordshire Day alongside my colleagues here in the House.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this debate. In my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter we have given, and continue to give, so much to the world. When His Majesty the King visited in February, he saw two of our greatest exports to the world: beer and yellow diggers. Burton is, of course, the brewing capital of Britain, and my constituency employs more people in brewing jobs than any other in the country. Burton ales are famous around the world, and those words “Burton Ales”, or the iconic red triangle of Bass, can be spotted all around the world.
Following the closure of the National Brewery Centre in 2022, I am working with the council and the National Brewery Heritage Trust as they bring life to plans for a new brewery centre and experience that will open up the Washlands area, and allow us to tell that story of Burton’s importance as the brewing capital of the world once more. Not only do we have the global brewers of Molson Coors and Marston’s, but also important independent brewers such as Tower Brewery, Burton Bridge, Outwoods Brewing, Gates, and the Uttoxeter Brewing Company. Our local club, Burton Albion, is better known as the Brewers, because of our brewing heritage. We are home to pub companies Punch and Greene King, both of which support pubs and hospitality across the country. Pubs and hospitality are in desperate need of support and I hope the Government will move forward at pace with business rate reform.
Uttoxeter is where Joseph Cyril Bamford made his very first tipping trailer, which would go on to become the iconic global brand of JCB, that is headquartered in Rocester. We have the racecourse in Uttoxeter, where the Midlands grand national takes place in March. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many charities and voluntary organisations in my constituency. In particular, I want to highlight Burton Addiction Centre, which leads not only Staffordshire but the country for drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Whenever I visit, I am amazed by the lifesaving work that takes place there.
Finally, I close by asking all of us to carry the motto of our county with us: “The knot unites”. Within our county and country there is so much hatred and division and, like today, we should remember the things that bind us together. Happy Staffordshire Day.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing the debate. It has been a real pleasure to hear colleagues pay tribute to Staffordshire, from our world renowned pottery to our vibrant theatres, diverse festivals and creative talent.
Although I might be a little biased, Cannock Chase, my own perfectly formed slice of Staffordshire, stands out as one of our cultural gems. Not only are we fortunate enough to have the chase itself, but we also have countless fantastic businesses, landmarks, museums, theatres and schools. I have had the privilege of visiting many of our fantastic schools, which are nurturing future artists and performers who will go on to contribute to Staffordshire’s cultural landscape. Despite the disadvantage of the national funding formula, we must support a broad, inclusive curriculum that includes the arts, music, drama and design: such a culturally rich education is open to young people in many parts of our country but not as open as it should be to our constituents.
Cannock Chase has raised renowned talent such as the hilarious Steve Edge, and our Oscar-winning film-maker Chris Overton, who scooped the Academy award for the beautiful short film “The Silent Child”. In more recent news, Jenii Luperi, the vocal coach of this year’s Eurovision entry, also hails from Cannock. It is clear that Staffordshire has always punched well above its weight culturally, and we must ensure that it has the support and resources to do so for generations to come.
Young performers who are just starting out, seasoned performers, and Oscar winners all need venues to support them. The Prince of Wales theatre in Cannock, a cornerstone of our local cultural life, had its final curtain call on Saturday night, though it is hopefully not closing for good. The emotional evening involved eight fantastic local musical theatre and amateur dramatics companies, who all managed to get to the theatre safely despite Staffordshire’s notoriously potholed roads.
We have also, with great sadness, seen the Museum of Cannock Chase close its doors. Such venues are not just buildings but homes for local talent, heritage and the collective memory of our communities. Thousands of schoolchildren have come through their doors to experience the rich heritage of our area; they leave with a sense of pride in where they are from, inspired to shape its future. I am supporting two incredible charitable groups who have been working non-stop for the last six months to reopen those venues. We are exploring what support might be available to them from the Arts Everywhere fund. That fund was announced in the inaugural Jennie Lee lecture, named for our first Arts Minister, in whose footsteps as an MP I am privileged to follow. Staffordshire’s cultural contributions are about not just the past but the future that we want to build: a future where our children can grow their creativity in schools, local groups, grassroots museums, and on stages big and small.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this important debate. Think of Robbie Williams, Josiah Wedgwood, Arnold Bennett, Alton Towers, “The Great Pottery Throw Down” and Rory Delap’s throw-ins, the Peak district, mile upon mile of canals, the area’s fascinating industrial past and present, and—who could forget it—the commentator’s favourite: “But can they do it on a cold night in Stoke?” The last is a cultural reference as old as some Members of Parliament in the 2024 intake. It dates to the bygone era of Tony Pulis, whose cultural contribution is perhaps best summed up by the descriptive Goldie Lookin Chain lyric in tribute to the man himself:
“Tony Pulis, one hell of a bloke;
Tony Pulis, he manages Stoke.”
Football hard men aside, Staffordshire has shaped the cultural texture of Britain for centuries, and not just with its famous ceramics, although I will start there. In the 18th century, visionary potters like Josiah Wedgwood revolutionised pottery, making Stoke-on-Trent a world-famous centre of excellence. Wedgwood was so good that he became known as the Queen’s potter, proof that even back then Staffordshire knew how to make a good royal impression. In literature, Hanley-born Arnold Bennett captured the working-class life of industrial Britain in a way that still resonates with readers. In the post-industrial era, Staffordshire has continued to enrich our culture. I am sure that Take That would never have reached such heights of success in the 1990s and 2000s were it not for Staffordshire’s own Robbie Williams.
Staffordshire’s cultural scene is alive and well today. The Lichfield festival continues to bring together music, theatre and literature in the county. Each year it draws crowds to historic venues such as Lichfield cathedral with world-class performances. Liberal Democrats are arguing for investment in extracurricular activities for children, such as sport, music and drama. Without that, we cannot expect the next Robbie Williams or Josiah Wedgwood to pursue a career in arts and crafts. Where will the next throw-in specialist come from if sports facilities in Staffordshire do not receive the necessary investment? We must recognise that much of our cultural sector is supported by local authority funding. Discretionary spending on culture is often the first spending to be cut, but that trend must cease if Staffordshire, and everywhere else, is to thrive culturally. We would protect the independence of arts funding so that it can no longer be exposed to political interference, as we have seen over the last few years, and we would introduce cultural creative enterprise zones to stimulate growth. Local authorities must be given the tools to protect their cherished heritage. In Staffordshire, that would mean protecting the county’s beautiful manor houses, mills, castles and so much more.
That brings me to tourism. Staffordshire’s theme parks offer a host of rollercoasters, including at Alton Towers and Drayton Manor, where my wife tells me she spent the best birthday of her life when she was seven. Thanks to Staffordshire, my annual efforts will never, ever be quite good enough. I am told that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) is particularly thankful for the contribution of theme parks to public life, although I understand that he has yet to visit Alton Towers—it is time to invite him.
These facilities are a major source of tourism for Staffordshire, and they support a considerable number of jobs in the local economy. The tourism industry needs and deserves proper support, so the Liberal Democrats would upgrade the Government’s tourism function with a dedicated Minister for tourism and hospitality. That would give a bigger voice in government to a sector that not only supports our global soft power, but contributes £58 billion to the economy each year.
With your indulgence, Ms Furniss, I will touch briefly on one telling contribution made by Staffordshire to the last general election. The Liberal Democrats are extremely thankful for the role played by the staff at Yarnfield Park, where we hosted a series of secret training briefings for our candidates between the pandemic lockdown and our successful 2024 general election campaign. If nothing else, that is surely a testament to how truly inspiring the culture of Staffordshire can be.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I wish you and every Member a very happy Staffordshire Day in advance.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing the debate, and I thank her for her opening remarks. She took us on an engaging tour of Staffordshire, as did a lot of Members from across the House. I particularly want to highlight the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), who was certainly not shy about his passion for his constituency.
It is vital that we recognise the cultural contributions that the many counties of Britain have to offer, and Staffordshire has made a wealth of contributions to our industrial, artistic and sporting heritage. It is therefore a privilege to have the opportunity to bring attention to a number of those contributions.
As we have heard, Staffordshire’s recorded history can be traced back to the early medieval period, when the area was first settled by the Anglo-Saxons. With Tamworth as the capital of the ancient kingdom of Mercia, the area quickly rose to prominence as a frequent battleground between the Anglo-Saxons and the invading Danes, before being settled by the conquering Normans. Tamworth castle was built on top of the remnants of this royal residence, and it continues to stand to this day, having seen nearly 1,000 years of the county’s history pass through its halls.
It would be remiss of me not to mention one of Staffordshire’s most recognisable cultural contributions, which we have heard a lot about today: the Potteries. As the largest producer of ceramics in Britain, Staffordshire housed hundreds of family businesses making all kinds of pottery, from humble tableware to the most intricate of decorative pieces, many of which still remain to this day. Although the industry may not quite be at the heights that it once was, local people have worked tirelessly to keep the heritage of Staffordshire’s Potteries alive through the many museums and art galleries dedicated to ceramics.
Equally historic is the county’s brewery industry, particularly the many breweries of Burton-upon-Trent. The town’s brewing industry dates back to the founding of Burton abbey in the 11th century and the early efforts of local monks to brew beer. Burton ales grew over the centuries into a thriving export and a global phenomenon, with even the Empress of Russia, Catherine the Great, said to have been “immoderately fond” of beer brewed in Burton. The industry went from strength to strength in the industrial age, with one of the town’s largest beer makers, Samuel Allsopp & Sons, becoming the first company to export Burton pale ale to India in 1822.
Although ceramics and brewing are two of Staffordshire’s most famous cultural contributions, there remains a wealth of other historical treasures that the county can be proud of. Chief among these is the court of minstrels, a medieval institution dating back to the royal court of John of Gaunt in the 14th century that brought together travelling musicians from across the region. This musical legacy can still be seen in the county to this day, with Friends of Staffordshire’s Young Musicians and other organisations continuing to promote local musical talent. Of course, Stoke-on-Trent was the birthplace of the iconic Robbie Williams.
In sports, Staffordshire has a living history of cultural contributions. Two of the country’s oldest professional football clubs, Stoke City and Port Vale, were founded in Staffordshire, with Stoke City having been one of the founding members of the football league in 1888. The two clubs continue to uphold a healthy rivalry.
My staff member Greg Ellis, who is in the Public Gallery today and who helped me to write my speech, is a disgruntled Stoke City fan. He wanted me to put on record that, although Stoke City’s recent performances leave much to be desired—by contrast with those of Port Vale, who have just been promoted to League One —I can offer no opinion on such matters as a tortured Manchester United fan. Staffordshire can boast an equally impressive record in cricket, as Staffordshire county cricket club has won the National Counties Cricket Championship more times than any other county.
All these contributions, and many more, are valuable additions to our cultural heritage. Culture is a living thing and requires the care and dedication of local communities to keep it thriving, so I pay tribute to some of the local elected representatives who in recent years have made significant contributions to the regeneration of this historic county.
We see this in the £17 million secured for the regeneration of Leek town centre by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands in the £56 million secured for the regeneration of Stoke-on-Trent by former MPs Jonathan Gullis, Jack Brereton and Jo Gideon, and delivered under the leadership of Councillor Abi Brown; and in the delivery of over £50 million of regeneration in Newcastle-under-Lyme under the leadership of Councillor Simon Tagg. And that is to name only a few. I also pay tribute to the outstanding work of Councillor Alan White and his Conservative administration in leading Staffordshire county council to deliver efficient services without the eye-watering levels of taxation that we see in other local authorities.
However, it is not only the inhabitants of Staffordshire who recognise the county’s cultural heritage; it is also recognised by the millions of tourists who visit Staffordshire each year. The most recent data available shows that 2023 was the county’s busiest year since the pandemic, with 37 million domestic and international tourists visiting the area. Tourism generated £2.3 billion for the local economy—
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
Order. I call the Minister to respond to the debate.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury (Vicky Foxcroft)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss.
I am pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant). I warned him that I might have to commit him to some stuff in responding to this debate. [Laughter.] At the moment, I am only committing him to writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) about Stoke’s bid to be a UNESCO city of crafts and folk art. I will make sure the Minister responds to her.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this debate and delivering a powerful speech that highlighted the wonders of Staffordshire. The number of contributors to this debate has also been extremely impressive.
Staffordshire is responsible for some truly significant contributions to the culture of Britain and beyond, both historically and in the present day. My hon. Friend gave a number of wonderful examples, and I will add to her reflections. The Staffordshire hoard, discovered in 2009, is the largest hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold and metalwork ever found, which shows the region’s historical importance even in early medieval times.
Samuel Johnson, the influential lexicographer and writer, was born in Lichfield. His dictionary of the English language, the first ever compiled, was a foundational work. He also rewrote the plays of William Shakespeare to ensure that all discrepancies were written out, which I find extremely interesting as somebody who studied performing arts at college, and drama and business at university.
Staffordshire is world famous for its ceramics industry, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) so eloquently described. Josiah Wedgwood revolutionised pottery in the 18th century with industrial methods and high-quality wares. His legacy is celebrated today at the Wedgwood Collection in Barlaston, which is operated by the V&A, one of our great national museums.
Perhaps more than anywhere else, Staffordshire, with its pottery, is a compelling example of how culture and creativity go hand in hand. This Government are committed to supporting culture and to making sure that arts and cultural activities are no longer the preserve of a privileged few. As part of our plan for change, we are committed to ensuring that the arts and culture thrive in every part of the country, with more opportunities for more people to engage with, benefit from and work in the arts and culture where they live.
Vicky Foxcroft
I cannot get through the speech if I do; I am sorry.
That is why this Government are proud to support the arts and culture. Only recently, we announced more than £270 million of investment for our arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage sector via the Arts Everywhere fund. And the £85 million Creative Foundations fund, which was announced earlier this year, will help arts and cultural organisations with varying scales of need to resolve urgent issues with their infrastructure.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The Minister makes a very important point about ensuring that areas outside London are able to get an important slice of cultural contributions. As the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism is not here, would she go back with representations on how we can bring some of those cultural institutions out of London to places such as Staffordshire—not just to Stone, Great Wyrley or Penkridge, but to many other communities across the county?
Vicky Foxcroft
The right hon. Member makes a really good point, and I will feed that back. I am missing out some of my speech and jumping ahead because I want my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford to have the opportunity to respond.
After preparing for and listening to this debate, I am tempted to ditch my beach holiday and instead take a trip to Staffordshire. I could join my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for a pint at the Titanic brewery or the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) to learn about the origins of the gunpowder plot. I could join my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South at the Longton Pig Walk before watching a pantomime with the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson). I could then join my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for some horse riding—maybe with the Father who is retiring.
Adam Jogee
When the Minister comes to Staffordshire, she will meet some very wise people, not least the folk who elected nine Labour MPs out of 12 at the general election. Many hon. Members had to scribble away half their speeches, so when the Minister goes back to her colleagues, will she encourage them to find Government time for a debate on these issues?
Vicky Foxcroft
I will make sure I raise that point, and good on hon. and right hon. Members for pressing me to get the Minister to commit to many things.
I will then join the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for a history lesson in architecture. She also mentioned Alton Towers, where I have very fond memories of going as a child. And who does not love a castle? I will also join my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) in visiting Tamworth castle. By that stage, I will probably be ready for another beer, so I had better pay a visit to the brewing capital of the world—Burton and Uttoxeter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) convinced me that we need to secure funding for our theatres. I feel very strongly and passionately about theatres, and I know the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism does too. I am certain there is nowhere else we need to be on 1 May, but if there were, it would be Staffordshire. I wish everyone a happy Staffordshire Day.
Leigh Ingham
I thank all Members for attending and participating in this debate. I did not know everything about all their constituencies, so it was wonderful to hear about them.
I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), and the right hon. Members for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), and for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson).
We are missing only two MPs, so today we have had great representation for Staffordshire from across the county. I think we have represented well the breadth of what is taking place, and our optimism for the future—for investing in our creative sector and our creative industries—has come through clearly. It is important that we nurture that talent and ensure that those of us based outside London, who have creative hubs in our constituencies, are able to cultivate it.
I thank the Minister for her response, and I appreciate the further responses she will provide. As I said, 1 May is Staffordshire Day—a day to celebrate. There are lots of things to do that day across Staffordshire, including going to the polling station. Thank you very much, everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the cultural contribution of Staffordshire.
BBC's Workplace Culture: Independent Review
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
On Monday the BBC published the outcome of the independent review it commissioned from Change Associates into workplace culture. The review concluded that the BBC does not have a toxic culture. While the review observed that the majority of people working at the BBC enjoy their work and uphold its values, it also said there are still examples of workplace misconduct by a minority, with damaging impacts for the whole BBC. Despite progress having been made in recent years, there remain significant challenges in relation to workplace misconduct that the BBC must address in order to build the trust of those working for the BBC, and the wider public.
The success of the BBC and the wider creative industries depends on the people that work in them—those who drive and shape all of its content and the services it delivers. Safety for all those working in the creative industries, as in any workplace, is of the utmost importance, and this Government consider it a moral imperative for employers to get this right.
BBC staff and the public rightly deserve the highest standards from their national broadcaster. As the report shows, there have been too many examples of a culture of silence in the BBC, with staff feeling unable to raise concerns or reporting that complaints are not dealt with quickly, effectively, or with the necessary transparency and communication about the process. This cannot continue.
Last Friday, I met with the BBC director general to discuss the findings of the review and stressed the importance of the BBC leadership taking action to address the findings at pace. The director general agreed. As the report also highlights, in order for staff and the public to have confidence in the BBC, transparency on BBC processes and progress is critical. I have also asked the BBC to share further information on how it will report on its progress.
The Government welcome that the BBC has publicly accepted the findings and recommendations of the report in full and has set out an action plan to address them with both immediate steps and further measures aimed at driving the long-term change that is clearly needed. Given its central role in the sector, this is now an opportunity for the BBC to show clear leadership and accountability in this area by learning from the findings, acting at pace across the corporation and working to drive change more broadly throughout the creative industries.
Of course workplace misconduct is not confined to the BBC; it is unfortunately an issue that is too prevalent across the sector, and due to the complexity of the creative labour market is not something the BBC can tackle alone. I recently met with the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority to discuss how the Government and industry can work together to improve workplace standards and behaviour in the creative industries. CIISA was established by the industry to create consistently safe and inclusive workplaces, and the Government believe that this is the best vehicle to address these issues. In order for CIISA to succeed, it needs proper buy-in, support and championing from across the sector. The Government are prepared to challenge the sector if this is not forthcoming.
The Government now look to the BBC to act on the recommendations of the workplace culture review in a focused, timely and transparent way. Together with and on behalf of licence fee payers and the wider public, the Government will closely monitor the BBC’s progress. We will also continue to work closely with CIISA and other relevant Government Departments to explore how best to ensure that the issues we have seen are not allowed to be repeated in future.
[HCWS609]
Service Complaints Ombudsman: 2024 Annual Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces annual report for 2024, on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
This report is published by Mariette Hughes and covers the operation of the service complaints system and the work of her office in her fourth year as the ombudsman.
The findings of the report will now be considered fully by the Ministry of Defence, and a formal response to the ombudsman will follow once that work is complete.
The Government commitment to supporting members of the armed forces to come forward to raise complaints, and to improve the way they are dealt with, is unwavering. That is why the Government are establishing the new independent armed forces commissioner, who will have the power to investigate any issues raised directly by serving personnel and their families.
[HCWS610]
NHS Prescription Charges
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
The Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has announced that NHS prescription charges in England will be frozen for the first time in three years. This builds on wider Government action as part of the plan for change to tackle the cost of living crisis, and will save patients around £18 million in 2025-26.
The single charge for prescriptions in England will remain at £9.90. The cost of prescription prepayment certificates will also remain the same, with three-month PPCs staying at £32.05,12-month PPCs at £114.50, and the hormone replacement therapy PPC staying at £19.80.
The charges freeze will also apply to NHS wigs and fabric supports; these prices will remain at current levels:
Surgical brassiere £32.50
Abdominal or spinal support £49.05
Stock modacrylic wig £80.15
Partial human hair wig £212.35
Full bespoke human hair wig £310.55
Around 89% of prescription items in England are already dispensed free of charge to children, over-60s, pregnant women, and those with certain medical conditions. This freeze will not impact current exemptions. All working-age adults who would normally pay for their prescriptions, which is estimated to be around 40% of the population, could benefit from the freeze.
In addition to the freeze on charges, the NHS low income scheme offers help with prescription payments; there are free prescriptions for eligible people in certain groups, such as pensioners, students, and those who receive state benefits or live in care homes.
The prescription charge freeze builds on wider government action to tackle the cost of living, including the roll-out of free breakfast clubs, expanded childcare through 300 new school-based nurseries, lowering the cost of school uniforms, and extending the fuel duty freeze—all aimed at easing financial pressures on families across the country.
This announcement also follows news last month of the Government agreeing funding with Community Pharmacy England worth an extra £617 million over two years. The investment comes alongside reforms to deliver a raft of patient benefits, as part of the Government’s agenda to shift the focus of care from hospitals into the community, so that people can more easily access care and support on their high streets.
Alongside action to rebuild the NHS, the Government’s plan for change is focused on growing the economy to improve living standards across the country. The charges freeze will help contribute to this.
[HCWS611]