Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
The unemployment rate is 4.7%—well below the historic high of 11.9% in 1984—but no one should ever be complacent about unemployment, especially considering the significant jump in economic inactivity under the Tories. That is why I am pleased to tell the House that employment is up by 725,000, to 75.3%, since July 2024 and inactivity is down by more than the rise in unemployment—a reduction of 400,000.
Alison Griffiths
On the House of Commons dashboard, the data for my constituency shows that universal credit claims increased dramatically by 20% in just one month. Claimants increased by over 2,000—from 10,344 to 12,415—from May to June this year. Given this recent increase in economic inactivity, what evidence does the Minister have that the Government’s employment support programmes are successfully moving people from out-of-work benefits into sustained employment?
Alison McGovern
The Conservative Government unified in-work and out-of-work benefits, so universal credit is also an in-work benefit. As I mentioned some moments ago, the legacy of the Tories on economic inactivity is now seeing a welcome reversal, with economic inactivity down by 400,000.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
As my hon. Friend knows well, improved employment is at the heart of our approach to child poverty, and that is why reductions in economic inactivity and improvements in employment will be part of our child poverty strategy that is to be published very soon.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Does the Minister accept that the Government’s increase in national insurance contributions has had a negative impact on employment in communities such as ours? Cumbria Tourism assesses that 37% of its businesses have cut staff as a consequence and 33% are freezing recruitment. Is it possible that the Government will get less from this tax rise than they expect, and that in doing this they are doing grave harm to the Cumbrian tourism economy and many other parts of our economy?
Alison McGovern
I speak to many businesses, and since coming into office, the Secretary of State and I have totally changed our approach with employers. That new approach includes a partnership with UK Hospitality, providing specific employment support to get into hospitality, and a hospitality passport so that people can evidence their qualifications, which we and UK Hospitality believe can help those people who really need a chance in life to get a good start in the hospitality sector.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
After visiting businesses in Newport East this summer, I know that there is a high demand for companies—including Thames Valley Construction, which I visited—to train more construction workers locally, and I was pleased to see the Government make the announcement in the summer on training 40,000 more people. Can Ministers tell me what conversations they are having with the Welsh Government on working together to do this?
Alison McGovern
We will not build the much-needed 1.5 million homes without bringing people into the construction sector. That is why, as part of our new approach for employers, we have partnered with the construction sector and set up specific schemes with them. We are also talking directly across Whitehall with other Government Departments and with the sector about moving people into great jobs in construction.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is good to see you back after the summer recess.
The hon. Lady can fling around the stats all she likes, but the facts are clear and bleak. Under her watch, youth unemployment has gone up; nearly a million young people, and rising, are not in work or education, including over 40,000 more young women. A generation of brilliant young people are going on to benefits, rather than into work. The Government’s jobs tax and their unemployment rights Bill were guaranteed to reduce opportunities for young people. We have had the winter fuel U-turn and the welfare U-turn; why not a U-turn to help young people?
Alison McGovern
The damage was done to the coming generation under the Tories. We failed the pandemic generation, who put a shift in—they stayed at home and gave up their social lives to save older loved ones. I could talk at length about our youth guarantee, our trailblazers and the work we are doing to expand youth hubs, but actually, it sticks in my craw to hear the Conservatives, who failed this generation, harp on about it from that Dispatch Box.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
This Labour Government believe that every young person should be able to fulfil their potential. Unlike Conservative Members, we will not stand by while almost 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. Our Get Britain Working trailblazer in the north-east is already helping young and neurodivergent people with supported work and training placements, including in Hexham. The local jobcentre is also working with Newcastle United Foundation to help young people build their confidence and develop their skills so that they and our country can look forward to a brighter future.
Joe Morris
For too long, previous Governments did not take into account the realities of life in communities across my constituency, which is incredibly sparsely populated and quite rural. The youth guarantee can and will make a considerable difference in communities all across it, from the Tyne Valley all the way out to the north Tyne and into Callerton and Throckley, too. Will the Secretary of State work with me to ensure that we continue to support young people in all those different, disparate communities to access the skills and opportunities they deserve?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is right that people have different needs in different parts of the country. We need to tailor employment support to the needs of individuals, so alongside measures like our youth guarantee, we are overhauling our jobcentres to provide that more personalised support and introducing measures such as mobile jobcentres to provide better help in rural areas.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Alison McGovern
Given the significant investment, the DWP has partnered with BAE and the nuclear sector to promote a variety of career pathways, including roles across its supply chains. We are also working within BAE’s new “The Bridge” hub in Barrow—a collaborative space offering employment advice and support from BAE Systems and a range of local employers and organisations to connect talent with locally based jobs. Further, in Barrow, our youth hub is run in partnership with Brathay Trust and Project John, supporting young people holistically to meet employers and develop their talents.
Michelle Scrogham
I have been impressed by the work being done in Drop Zone in my constituency. It runs a variety of projects for young people, including specialised education for those with additional needs, mental health support, and support for the transition back into education, employment and training. But young people in Barrow and Furness still face difficult challenges from a long legacy of underfunding. The youth trailblazer scheme is already making a difference in some constituencies after just a few months. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can tailor the scheme to specifically target young people in Barrow and Furness?
Alison McGovern
Barrow has unique circumstances, challenges and opportunities, and it is important that all parts of the Government address those unique opportunities and challenges in Barrow. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to further discuss what we are already doing and what more we can go on to do to ensure that young people in Barrow have the best possible chance in life.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in March that incapacity and disability benefits spending would be £90.7 billion in 2029-30. That figure will be updated at the Budget. Better employment support and removing perverse work incentives in universal credit are the key to getting more people into work.
John Lamont
Just two months ago, the Secretary of State was left humiliated after being forced to significantly water down her botched welfare Bill. If the Government had pressed ahead with the Bill as originally drafted, how much less would taxpayers be spending on benefits by 2030?
Sir Stephen Timms
As I have said, the OBR will update its forecast at the time of the Budget. We inherited a terrible situation, with record numbers of economically inactive people. Economic inactivity is down since the election, and employment is up. Those developments have been encouraging, but our reforms will go much further. The £3.8 billion that we are investing in employment support for people out of work on health and disability grounds—the biggest package ever—will be key.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we must invest in community mental health services if we are to reduce spending on mental health disability?
Sir Stephen Timms
I very much welcome the NHS 10-year plan published by our right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, which gives a new priority and commitment to mental health support. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important part of tackling the problems that we need to resolve.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is good to see the Minister back after the break, but I am sorry to hear that there are still no plans to reduce spending on personal independence payments. He has said that he is collaborating with people who would not be working with him on his review if there were to be any reductions in the levels of benefit or eligibility. Given that veto on cuts to PIP, I implore him again to consider the benefits to which PIP is a gateway, such as Motability, disability premiums, council tax discounts and blue badges. Will he promise at least that those entitlements could come down?
Sir Stephen Timms
We have made it clear that we will co-produce our review of the PIP assessment with disabled people and representatives of disability organisations. The review will cover the assessment for the mobility component, which leads on to the Motability scheme, and other entitlements to which PIP is a gateway.
Danny Kruger
But with no possibility of any of those entitlements coming down or any of the spending being reduced? We have 1.25 million foreign nationals claiming universal credit, most of whom are not in employment. I hope that the Minister does not plan to co-produce his plans with foreign nationals—although, knowing Labour lawyers, I expect they will say that the European convention on human rights demands that they do just that. Does he think that subsidising more and more foreign nationals is what the British social security system is for? If not, will he restrict sickness benefits to British nationals only, as we have argued for?
Sir Stephen Timms
It is crucial that we have a fair system. We are reviewing universal credit at the moment, considering problems such as the five-week wait that was inserted when universal credit was introduced and changes to ensure that universal credit effectively tackles poverty and does the job that we need it to do. Fairness will be at the heart of the system.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
In Croydon East, young people aged 18 to 21 will be helped by the youth guarantee trailblazer being delivered by the Greater London Authority. It will strengthen early identification and outreach to engage young Londoners who are not, or risk not being, in employment, education or training, by linking them to enhanced support, employment and education opportunities and the essential services that they need. I am glad that the DWP will continue to support communities in Croydon East by hosting an information stall at my hon. Friend’s upcoming advice fair in New Addington.
Natasha Irons
Croydon is London’s youngest borough. Given that 6.6% of people aged 16 to 24 in my Croydon East constituency claim out-of-work benefits, supporting young people into work, and breaking down barriers to opportunity, is vital. Will the Minister give a little more detail about the additional funding for the London youth guarantee trailblazers, and will she outline how that will help Croydon’s young people into work? I look forward to having the DWP with us in New Addington.
Alison McGovern
I will pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to my colleagues in Croydon, who are keen to work with her and the other MPs there. In the summer, the Secretary of State announced further funding of £45 million for our eight youth guarantee trailblazers. That will ensure that in London, as in the rest of the country, our young people get the choices and chances that they deserve.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Government have committed to significant measures to counter welfare fraud, error and debt. This is the biggest package of such measures in recent history, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that it will deliver an additional £9.6 billion of savings over the next five years. The package is underpinned by our Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which contains a range of new powers to enable us to keep pace with offenders who exploit the social security system.
John Cooper
I think we can all agree that fraud strikes at the heart of the system, kicking away its underpinnings. I hope that the Government will undertake a zero-tolerance approach, unlike in Scotland, where we recently heard that £36 million of benefit money paid out in error is now not to be recovered. Does the Minister agree that that is deeply unfair to taxpayers?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to encroach on what are legitimately policy questions for the Scottish Government. The policy of this Government is clear and set out in the Bill, but I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice for continuing to work with me constructively to make the Bill as workable as possible, with alignment where possible, such that if we end up diverging we are still able to ensure that this Parliament does everything it can, and the Scottish Government do everything they choose to do, to bear down on fraud and error.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Does the Minister share my surprise that a Member of the party responsible for more than a decade of rising poverty, record benefit delays, and billions lost to fraud and error is now suddenly concerned about tackling that? Across the House, while we recognise the need to tackle fraud in our welfare system, we should also recognise the huge issue with tax avoidance and evasion—as recently highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee—which requires significant attention.
Andrew Western
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. This Government are determined to bear down on tax evasion with 5,000 additional investigators. Wherever we see people ripping off the public purse, whether that is defrauding the Department for Work and Pensions or abusing the tax system, we are determined to bear down on them, and that is what we will do.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The PIP application process is outdated and can be very difficult to navigate. The health transformation programme will deliver radical improvements and much better efficiency.
Anna Sabine
In my constituency, I was contacted by a woman who had suffered two strokes, resulting in permanent right-side paralysis and ongoing mobility difficulties. Despite her condition being permanent, she has had to undergo reassessment for PIP and has appealed for it to be reinstated. I welcome the Government changing the reassessment requirement for people with long-term health conditions. Will the Minister clarify what steps the Government are taking to reduce the stress and difficulty of the PIP application process for people with those serious health conditions?
Sir Stephen Timms
The health transformation programme that I mentioned will allow the introduction of a modern digital service, which is certainly not how the existing arrangements could be characterised. It is a big job—the programme will run until 2029—but the outcome from it will be a process that is simpler and easier to understand, which I hope will reduce the stress to which the hon. Member has rightly drawn attention, and shorten decision times.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
Over the summer, I have been doing a deep dive into children with special educational needs and disabilities, not least the transition points between education and work. As part of the Timms review—the Minister’s own review—will he ensure that that interface is looked at, so that there is a smooth transition for young people, as opposed to the cliff edges that many of them face when making the transition into work?
Sir Stephen Timms
The review will look specifically at the PIP assessment, but one proposal in our Green Paper published earlier this year was increasing the age of transition from DLA to PIP from 16 to 18. I think that that change could assist with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. We are looking at the consultation responses that we have received.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
We are determined to drive down child poverty in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and right across Scotland and the rest of the UK. Our child poverty strategy will look at every lever at our disposal to drive up family incomes, to drive down family costs and to give every child the best start in life. I discuss such issues regularly with the Chancellor and Ministers across Government, because we will leave no stone unturned to ensure that every child can fulfil their potential—they deserve it and our country needs it.
Graham Leadbitter
Two million pensioners in the UK are in poverty, and the British state pension is among the worst in north-west Europe. During the independence referendum, Better Together claimed that our pensions are more affordable when Scotland is part of the UK. Eleven years on, will the Minister tell me exactly what the Union is doing for Scottish pensioners, other than impoverishing them?
Liz Kendall
Investing an additional £31 billion in the triple lock over this Parliament is delivering huge benefits to pensioners in Scotland, as are our measures to drive up the uptake of pension credit in order to help the very poorest pensioners; our measures to stabilise the economy; and our investment in the NHS, on which many pensioners rely. I am proud of the action that we are taking. Given that this Government have agreed and are giving Scotland its biggest ever funding settlement, the hon. Gentleman should ask some challenging questions of his Government, to ensure that they deliver for Scotland’s pensioners, too.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Last year, a staggering one in four kids in Derby lived in poverty. Our local charities, such as the Derby Food 4 Thought Alliance, do amazing work; last year, they handed out 20,000 food parcels. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the upcoming child poverty strategy addresses the root causes of child food poverty, so that parents are not left struggling to put tea on the table?
Liz Kendall
I understand very well the issue that my hon. Friend raises. As a former chair of Feeding Leicester, the programme to end hunger in my city, I see only too clearly the links between poverty and dependence on emergency food parcels. I am very proud that we have already slashed deductions in universal credit and extended the crisis and resilience fund, providing it with its first three-year funding settlement. There is much more to do. We want to make sure that children have hungry minds, not hungry bellies, and we are determined to deliver that.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The best way to reduce poverty is for people to be in work, but as a result of this Government’s damaging economic policies, we have seen youth unemployment rise by 6% since the general election. What representations will the Secretary of State make to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget to ensure that more damage is not done?
Liz Kendall
The Labour party believes that everybody who can work must work. The hon. Gentleman should look at his own party’s record: progress on the disability employment gap and the lone parent employment rate stalled under its watch, and economic inactivity rose. We are the only country in the G7 whose employment rate has not got back to pre-pandemic levels. We are overhauling our employment system to help more people into work, and to get on in work. I am proud of our record; maybe he should look at his own.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)
Tackling poverty should be a key priority of any Government who wish to see their people thrive. The Equality Act 2010 includes a socioeconomic duty on all public bodies to address inequalities “when making strategic decisions”. When will that duty be enacted in England?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Throughout its work, the DWP is already looking at how to narrow the gaps between different parts of the country and different groups of people. We have set our jobcentres and employment systems new targets for reducing those gaps, and we are taking cross-Government action to tackle child poverty. We have achieved a lot. There is a lot more to do, but this Government, unlike Opposition Members, have made tackling poverty an absolute priority. Our child poverty strategy is coming out in the autumn, so I ask hon. Members to watch this space.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
The latest provisional statistics, taken from Stat-Xplore, show that in July 2025, there were 768,000 people aged 16 to 24 on universal credit. About a quarter of those young people—around 180,000—are on universal credit and in work.
Sarah Bool
According to the Library, in my constituency, the claimant count among those aged 16 to 24 has risen by 46%; that is one of the largest percentage increases in the country. Conservative Members know that the Government have a moral duty not to let our young people learn that a life of benefits is the life for them, so how does the Minister explain that increase? What will she do?
Alison McGovern
I must remind Conservative Members again that it was their party that introduced universal credit, removing the distinction between out-of-work benefits and in-work benefits. For three quarters of young people who are out of work and on universal credit, our guarantee for young people will make sure that they get a second chance in life, after they were utterly failed during the pandemic by the Conservative party.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Department continues to provide a broad range of data to local authorities to enable fast, accurate assessments for services, including blue badges and free school meals. Looking ahead, the Department is committed to expanding real-time data sharing in critical areas, such as housing benefit and care homes, while also testing innovative models such as the WorkWell scheme, which bring together local and central services to deliver more joined-up support for citizens.
Sarah Hall
In Warrington South, too many children entitled to free school meals are missing out because of avoidable administrative barriers. No child should have to sit in a classroom hungry; every child deserves a full stomach and a fair chance. A simple change would make a big difference and ensure that every eligible child got the support that they are entitled to. It would ease pressure on families, help to reduce child poverty, and give schools confidence that pupils are ready to learn. Will the Minister commit to strengthening data sharing with not only local authorities, but the Department for Education, so that automatic enrolment for free school meals can be introduced?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise this issue. We will look at that, working closely with the Department for Education, as part of the child poverty strategy. We of course share her ambition to ensure that families can claim the support that they need. Our expansion of free school meals to all children in households claiming universal credit will make it much easier for parents to know if they are eligible, as well as lifting some 100,000 children out of poverty.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his reply; as always, he is very positive in his responses. He referred to the anti-poverty strategy. What discussions has he had about the anti-poverty strategy for us in Northern Ireland? Levels of poverty and mental health issues have risen dramatically, and young people in particular are under great pressure. The Minister is always compassionate and understanding; what is he doing in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly to make things better for us as well?
Andrew Western
The hon. Gentleman will understand that we want this strategy to be for England, Wales, Scotland and, of course, Northern Ireland. He will be reassured to learn that those leading on the child poverty strategy have held a number of meetings with Ministers in Northern Ireland to ensure that its specific needs are taken into consideration.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
One in eight young people are not in education, employment or training. That is bad for them, bad for businesses and bad for our country as a whole. Our west of England youth guarantee trailblazer, which covers my hon. Friend’s constituency, is helping to remove barriers to work for young people, including by providing free bus travel for participants and connecting young people with skills support. Last month, I announced an additional £45 million to extend our youth guarantee trailblazers, so that we can guarantee that all young people are earning or learning.
Damien Egan
That is fantastic to hear. Will the Secretary of State set out the practical impact of the west of England youth guarantee trailblazer so far? Assuming that it is positive, will she confirm plans to back it up with more investment, in order to support our young people in the Bristol area?
Liz Kendall
I am really proud of the work being led in the west of England—including by our fantastic Mayor, Helen Godwin—to help more young people. The trailblazer is engaging much more deeply with employers—it has engaged over 135 of them. It is helping to enrol young people on employability courses and giving them more work placements, giving them the skills and experience they need. As my hon. Friend knows, young people say that they need a job to gain experience, but in order to get the job, they need that experience. We are trying to turn that around. We have announced additional funding of up to another £5 million for that west of England youth guarantee trailblazer. A lot has been done, but there is a lot more to do.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
The Government are committed to ensuring that all pensioners receive the support to which they are entitled. That is why we have been running the biggest ever pension credit take-up campaign. We plan to continue promotional activity from September through to the end of this financial year, with the focus not just on eligible pensioners but on their friends and family too.
Christine Jardine
Earlier this year, a constituent of mine in Edinburgh West contacted me about the delay she had faced in getting the pension credit she was entitled to. She applied in September last year and was told that she would receive it in November, but it was March before she got her pension credit awarded. The delay meant that she went without extra support just when she lost her winter fuel allowance, so what steps will the Minister take to cut those delays and stop more vulnerable pensioners from being left cold this winter?
Torsten Bell
I hope the hon. Member will write to me with the details of the case she raised. On the more general picture, I can reassure her that we now have a lower backlog of pension credit cases to be processed than we inherited from the last Government, despite the record number of claims that have come through.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Boots has been a significant employer in my constituency since 1927, and many of my constituents have been proud to work for it. However, those close to claiming their pensions have been advised that they will be unable to withdraw their pension at an unreduced rate at the age of 60, contrary to what they were led to believe. Does the Minister recognise the frustration that many of the Boots pensioners feel, and does he agree that the Pensions Ombudsman should progress swiftly with its process?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend has raised this matter with me before, and the one thing I can confirm is that she is a powerful advocate for her constituents on this very important issue for them. As she knows, I cannot comment on individual cases—particularly as the matter is now with the Pensions Ombudsman—but more generally, it is important that promises made to pensioners about their pensions are lived up to. Making sure that happens is exactly why the Pensions Ombudsman exists.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Thanks to our Conservative winter fuel payments campaign, thousands of pensioners have signed up to pension credit, and millions more pensioners will receive winter fuel allowance, now that the Labour party has admitted that its policy on winter fuel payments was wrong. However, the Social Security Advisory Committee recently concluded that the Government’s winter fuel plans fall short of delivering their objectives of fairness, administrative simplicity and targeted support. It seems that the Government have prioritised civil service bureaucracy over helping frozen pensioners. Does the Minister agree with the Social Security Advisory Committee’s conclusion about their policies?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I congratulate Members on all sides of this House who have run campaigns to drive up pension credit uptake. That is very important, and it is why we have seen 60,000 extra awards over the course of the year to July 2025 compared with the previous year. That work, which is very welcome, has been done by not just Members but civil society organisations and local authorities.
On the points that the hon. Member raised about the process for winter fuel payments this winter and going forward, I do not agree with the characterisation he chose to present. Particularly on the tax side, the process will be automatic. Nobody will be brought into tax or self-assessment purely because of that change; the vast majority of people will have their winter fuel payments automatically recouped through the pay-as-you-earn system; and anyone who wants to can opt out. I remind Members that the deadline for that is 15 September.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Around a year ago, the Labour Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government around 3 million pensioners in poverty. Sadly, last winter’s cuts to the winter fuel payment saw many pensioners pushed into hardship. In the light of winter fuel price hikes, will the Minister reconsider the Government’s proposals and ensure that moneys are paid to pensioners who missed out on the winter fuel payment last winter?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his question, but would gently say that every time he opposes every single tax rise or any difficult choice in this House, he is saying that the Liberal Democrats are not a party that could deliver on commitments, for example, to the triple lock, which will increase in cost, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, by £31 billion by the end of this Parliament. There are things called “choices”, which are necessary if we are to provide for our top priorities—and for Labour Members, the top priorities, when it comes to pensioners, are making sure that we can increase the state pension, the bedrock of most pensioners’ living standards, and saving the NHS, and that is exactly what we will continue to do.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We will increase the number of face-to-face, rather than remote, PIP assessments, and will increase the number of health professionals in assessment centres in order to deliver that. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, however, that it is important to keep telephone or video alternatives for those who need them.
Edward Morello
Many West Dorset constituents have written to me with deep anxiety about the assessment for personal independence payments, and especially the use of remote assessments. One constituent, despite previously being awarded enhanced PIP, has endured months of repeated phone assessments, which have triggered severe panic attacks and high blood pressure, and caused lasting psychological harm. The Secretary of State has given me a commitment to moving away from phone-based assessments, so what additional resources will be made available to support the roll-out of more face-to-face assessments in West Dorset?
Sir Stephen Timms
There was a switch to remote assessments in the pandemic, for obvious reasons, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made the point repeatedly that, as was said in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, we want to move sharply back to face-to-face, while keeping alternatives for those who need them. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have spoken to people for whom the prospect of going to an assessment centre provokes the kind of anxiety that his constituent experienced as a result of a telephone call. We are speaking to the assessment providers, and we have already increased the proportion of face-to-face assessments. That work will continue.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
With permission, I will answer these questions together, as they are both about the great city of Southend.
Colleagues in Southend jobcentre are working very hard with Southend young people to help them gain skills, experience and confidence. The team have launched a bespoke employability workshop designed for young people, and recently delivered a regional work experience pilot for college students. They also work with our great partners, such as the King’s Trust and FirstPoint Training, to provide placements and opportunities, and there is also the employer-led Movement to Work programme.
Mr Alaba
Young people across the UK who are not in education, employment or training are more than twice as likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that support reaches those who need it most?
Alison McGovern
The Secretary of State mentioned some moments ago that in everything we do in the Department for Work and Pensions, we are trying to close the gap between those who have suffered disadvantage and those who have not. Young people, especially those who have experienced poverty, are vulnerable to mental ill health, and the pandemic generation deserve more support to get chances that they have missed. That is why we have a joint work and health unit with the Department of Health and Social Care. We also have many agreements across Whitehall relating to our net zero mission, as well as our investment in defence, to help employers recruit the next generation, whatever their background.
David Burton-Sampson
In Southend West and Leigh, I will soon host a youth day, featuring local star of “The Apprentice” Chisola Chitambala, who is now an apprenticeship coach, among other things. Does the Minister agree that early interventions, like this youth day, are really important to prevent young people from becoming another NEET statistic?
Alison McGovern
I agree with my hon. Friend, and congratulate him on his youth day and the work he is doing on this kind of early intervention. The data clearly show that if people get qualifications, some work experience, and support for their health and support with other factors in life, that is very protective against being without work, education or training. We have to give a second chance to those who need one, and take steps to prevent people from being in that situation in the first place.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
It is a shameful legacy from the Conservatives that more than a third of children in my hon. Friend’s constituency are living in poverty according to the Child Poverty Action Group, and we are determined to tackle that. We will be lifting more than 100,000 children out of poverty by providing free school meals to all children whose families are on universal credit, benefiting more than 7,300 children in Leigh and Atherton. We will also be helping to feed them during the summer holidays by extending the holiday activities and food programme, alongside our fair repayment rate in universal credit and our crisis and resilience fund. We are helping struggling families. There is much more we will do in our child poverty strategy this autumn, but we can and we are making a difference.
Jo Platt
I thank the Secretary of State wholeheartedly for that response, and I agree with her. Because of the lack of action from the last Government, 26.6% of children in Leigh and Atherton are living in poverty. I welcome the measures that this Government are taking, including the extension of free school meals, but more needs to be done. Can she reassure us that she is working hard on the child poverty strategy to ensure that it addresses the needs of all children in poverty, including those with disabilities and special educational needs, so that every child can reach their full potential?
Liz Kendall
We will absolutely do that. The child poverty taskforce, which includes Ministers from across Government, had a specific session on children with disabilities and special educational needs, including with families and the charities that fight so hard to deliver improvements. I am not a patient person, but I ask my hon. Friend to wait until the child poverty strategy is published in the autumn, because we believe that every child—no matter where they are born or their ability or what their parents did—must be given an equal start in life.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
This Government are determined to get Britain working again. That is why we are investing £80 million in our trailblazer programmes to drive down economic inactivity. We are overhauling our job centres to provide better, more personalised employment support. We are delivering a youth guarantee, so that every young person is earning or learning, and we are providing a record £3.8 billion to help sick and disabled people who can work to get into work. There is much further to go, but we are already making a difference.
Will Stone
I thank the Secretary of State for that response. A lot of disabled people in Swindon with long-term health conditions tell me that they want to get to work, but are just simply not given the opportunity. What are this Government doing to support those people to get dignified work?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, because he raises an important point that I do not want to let go, which is how many people with a long-term health condition or a disability are desperate to work. Our own survey of people on sickness and disability benefits found that 200,000 people would work right now if they were given an opportunity. We need to give people help to tackle their underlying health conditions, which we are doing through our investment in the NHS. We need to encourage employers to do more to give opportunities to disabled people to work. Above all, this Government are determined to meet our responsibilities, with £3.8 billion invested into employment support for sick and disabled people—the biggest amount in a generation. I look forward to working with him and organisations in Swindon to make sure we get that support right locally.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State accept that the reason that unemployment is higher today than the day she took office is the jobs tax, which increases employers’ costs by £25 billion? What hope does her trailblazer programme have when the Chancellor is working against her?
Liz Kendall
I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s premise. Economic inactivity is down by 400,000 because we are moving more people from being out of work and not looking for work to starting to have to look for work. Employment is up by 725,000. We have created 380,000 jobs. I know there is more we need to do. We are working very closely with employers. We are overhauling what we are doing. One of the things that employers say to us is, “We do not want to tell our story to thousands of different job centres.” We are putting in a single account manager and we are overhauling our support for employers. I would be happy to meet him and employers in his constituency to see what more we can do to support them, because we want to get Britain working and earning again.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Let me start by congratulating all the pupils who have received their exam results over the last few weeks. Having good qualifications is essential in today’s economy, and it is brilliant to see so many young people doing so well. However, the number of young people not in education, employment or training is one of the biggest challenges facing the country, and young people are much more likely to be NEETs if they lack basic skills. That is why I am so proud of the action that the Government are taking to increase the number of youth apprenticeships, overhaul foundation apprenticeships and, above all, introduce a youth guarantee so that every young person is earning or learning.
Chris Vince
I hope you had a lovely recess, Mr Speaker.
Harlow is full of fantastic schools, and I see the potential of young people there every single day, but that potential is often overlooked because of economic circumstances. Will the Secretary of State explain how the new crisis and resilience fund will support the poorest children in Harlow?
Liz Kendall
In the spending review we announced this first ever multi-year settlement for local support, replacing the household support fund. The crisis and resilience fund will provide £1 billion every single year, and will give families emergency help if, for example, their white goods break down or they need food urgently. However, we want to start shifting it increasingly towards tackling the root causes of poverty, helping people to become more financially resilient through the provision of debt advice. We recently held a meeting with more than 600 stakeholders to discuss how we could achieve that shift, because we want to prevent people from falling into poverty and to give them the tools that they need to emerge from poverty themselves.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I welcome the right hon. Lady back after the summer. She said recently that it had been “a bumpy…few months”—an understatement, in my view. Last time we stood here, she had just completed a rather humiliating climbdown on her welfare savings plans. She set out to save money, but ended up spending it. You couldn’t make it up, Mr Speaker, but here we are: the number of benefit claimants has hit a record high; the sickness benefit bill is heading up and up; and still the right hon. Lady has Back Benchers and Cabinet colleagues calling for even more spending on welfare. The Chancellor is busy doing her sums in advance of the Budget, so can the right hon. Lady tell us how much lifting the two-child benefits cap will cost?
Liz Kendall
I am not often called understated, but I thank the hon. Lady for her comments.
Welfare reform is always difficult because it involves real people and real lives, and it is a complicated and personal issue. However, we are investing £3.8 billion in employment support to help sick and disabled people into work, we are introducing the first ever right to try work, and we are dealing fundamentally with the perverse incentive left by the Conservative party which encouraged people to define themselves as incapable of work. We are addressing that by raising the standard allowance of universal credit and halving the health top-up for new claims. There is much more that we need to do, and we will be publishing our strategy to deal with child poverty in the autumn, but I am proud to say that the last Labour Government lifted 600,000 children out of poverty, while the hon. Lady’s party plunged 900,000 children into poverty. We will take action, and, as I said earlier, the hon. Lady should watch this space.
Helen Whately
I asked the right hon. Lady a simple question, but I fear that she does not know the answer; she certainly did not reply to it. What is clear is that Labour wants to spend more on welfare. So do the Liberal Democrats, and so does Reform. Only one party here is telling the truth about the welfare bill: the country cannot afford it.
May I urge the right hon. Lady to take up my proposals? Will she stop giving people benefits for common mental health problems such as anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and give them help instead? Will she stop giving personal independence payments to foreign citizens who have not paid into our system and free cars to people who do not need them? Will she stop people scamming the benefits system over the phone and on the internet? Will she keep the two-child benefits cap, and get the benefits bill under control?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that we are on topicals? It is your own Members who are not going to get in.
Liz Kendall
The Conservative party failed on welfare because it failed on work. The reason why we inherited such a dire situation with sickness and disability benefits is that the Conservatives failed to get people into work. We are turning that around, and it is about time the hon. Lady and Opposition Members put forward a proper plan of action that actually gets people into work. We believe in work; it is a pity the Conservative party does not.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
Yes, that is exactly how we are working, and I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Our “Get Britain Working” plan identified Cornwall as a rural industrial legacy employment area, and we specifically pointed out the lack of connectivity. That is why, when it comes to our new jobcentres service, we are also trialling jobcentres on wheels: buses that can take support to where people are and which are designed for rural areas. They recently featured on “The One Show”.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Government are right to want to see more people with disabilities and long-term sickness get into work. Sadly, this was used to justify the savage cuts to benefits that were proposed earlier this year. My colleagues and I are hearing reports of cuts to current awards through Access to Work, and to new payments, being done by the back door. Can the Minister cast any light on whether guidance has been given to civil servants on such cuts?
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
There has been no change at all to policy on Access to Work. As the hon. Member knows, we did consult, in the Green Paper earlier in the year, on reform to Access to Work. There has been a big increase in demand for it, and reform is needed. We are looking at the consultation responses at the moment. There may have been instances in the past where the published guidance was not always properly applied. It is being applied now, and that may give rise to some of the issues that have been drawn to his attention, but there has been no change at all in the policy.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
We want to give people like Charlie the chances and choices in life that he deserves. Our Connect to Work programme will do everything from helping people access health treatment to providing work placements and building their confidence through training, skills—whatever meets their individual needs. That is the key to this: an end to a one-size-fits-all tick-box approach, and tailored support for him. We are also working closely with employers so that they remove the barriers to work and can employ people with all the skills and talent that people like Charlie have.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
The hon. Lady only had to wait till next week’s Treasury questions, when she could have asked her question, but she has the same answer. What we should do is look at the record of parties and what they have done. When I look back over the last 14 years of Tory Budgets, I see a party—[Interruption.] And the Lib Dems; thank you for pointing that out. I have seen parties chopping and changing pension tax relief left, right and centre, because they had no plan. Those were the same Budgets that drove child poverty up and wages down.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the recent addition to his family. I hope he had a restful summer, although I doubt he did considering the likely lack of sleep. He is right to raise this issue. It is now past the date for the call for evidence, but if he wants to write to me directly about that issue, I will ensure it is fed in.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his question. We discussed this issue at some length in the statement before the recess. He knows that the priority for the Labour party has been to raise the state pension by committing to the triple lock throughout this Parliament at a cost of £31 billion a year. For the new state pension, that will mean an increase of £1,900 a year by the end of this Parliament.
On winter fuel payments specifically—and I thought this was the Conservative party’s position—most people think that we should not be paying hundreds of pounds to the very richest pensioners. We have listened to concerns and raised the threshold, but it is important to maintain that principle. If the Conservatives’ position is now that they want a return to universal winter fuel payments, they need to have a word with the Leader of the Opposition, who has not supported universal winter fuel payments or, indeed, a universal state pension.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am glad he is visiting Rugby jobcentre, and I encourage all Members across the House to go to their local jobcentres, because their work coaches have the most experience and knowledge about what we need to do to get people into work. We are creating “jobcentre in your pocket”, so that everyone can have access to help 24 hours a day. Letting technology take the strain will mean that our work coaches can do more of what they do best, which is giving people—person to person—the confidence to take up life’s chances.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Sir Stephen Timms
We have set up a panel of experts to advise us on how best to improve employment prospects for people with autism and neurodivergence. As the right hon. Member knows, we will be undertaking a review of the PIP assessment, co-producing it with disabled people, so that we have a clear way forward for who should and who should not be entitled to the personal independence payment.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for his crucial question. That is exactly why we have revived the landmark pensions commission. We have to confront the reality that we are on track for tomorrow’s pensioners to be poorer than today’s. Auto-enrolment has been a huge success, with 88% of eligible employees now saving, but 45% of working-age adults, including 3 million self-employed and one in four low earners, are currently saving nothing. The commission will ensure that we build a pension system that is strong, fair and sustainable.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The carer’s allowance overpayments review was due to report in early summer. It is now 1 September. In recent weeks, I have become aware of a case where the DWP has informed somebody that they now owe it £18,000. That is a scandal. When will the review report back?
Sir Stephen Timms
We have received the report from Liz Sayce, and I want to thank her very much for her review of earnings-related overpayments of carer’s allowance. We are currently considering the findings. We are, as the hon. Lady knows, making a number of changes. We have increased the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance in a way that I think will help avoid these problems in the future. We are looking at the possibility of a taper on carer’s allowance. We will come forward, before very long at all, with both the report and the Government’s response to it.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
As someone who proudly served the trade union movement for two decades before entering this place, I warmly welcome the Government’s improvement to workers’ rights. Will the Minister set out what steps are being taken to ensure that no one is left behind in the vital reforms to statutory sick pay?
Alison McGovern
I know that so many of my hon. Friends will, like her, welcome the changes we are making to statutory sick pay, which will improve eligibility for 1.3 million of the lowest-paid employees and remove the waiting period. Many of those who will benefit are low-paid women. The removal of the waiting period will mean that all employees receive at least £60 more at the start of their sickness absence compared to the current system, but we will continue to evaluate the measures as they are implemented.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Scotland is the only part of these islands where child poverty is falling, as a result of the Scottish child payment and the mitigation of the bedroom cap. When will the Labour Government move from empty words to actual action to take children out of poverty?
Liz Kendall
We are already extending free school meals to all families on universal credit. We have extended the holiday activities and food programme, so that we feed poor kids not just during school but in the holidays, too. We have introduced a new fair repayment rate in universal credit. We have made the first ever multi-year settlement for the crisis and resilience fund to help struggling families. We are introducing and rolling out breakfast clubs. Our child poverty strategy will be published in the autumn. We are already taking action to tackle poverty and we will do more. I say to the hon. Lady that the Scottish Government need to look at how they are spending the biggest ever funding settlement, given in the spending review, including on employment support, because helping parents into good quality jobs is the long-term key to tackling poverty and inequality.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I was delighted to see the establishment of the disability advisory panel a week or so ago. [Interruption.] I am so sorry, Mr Speaker; I have a cold. How will the advisory panel link with the co-production in the Timms review?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have announced that Zara Todd will be the chair of the Department’s disability advisory panel. The panel was announced in the “Get Britain Working” White Paper last year. Separately, we will set up a group to work with me on the review of the PIP assessment. I will, of course, talk to the disability advisory panel about the arrangements, but they will be separate structures.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Despite his new role in riding to the rescue of the Treasury, is the Pensions Minister still available to fulfil in principle the undertaking he gave me before the recess to have a meeting about the plight of ExxonMobil pensioners and the difficulties in them getting the discretionary surplus benefits to which I think they should be entitled?
Borders and Asylum
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the statement by the Home Secretary, I should like to say something about the House’s sub judice resolution. The case of Epping Forest district council v. Somani Hotels is still active and before the courts, but because the case concerns wider issues relating to the planning consent required for hotels to house asylum seekers, I have decided to grant a waiver so that Members are free to refer to it in proceedings. However, I remind the House that there are other active criminal prosecutions related to disorder around the Bell hotel and elsewhere, as well as one prosecution of an asylum seeker for alleged sexual offences. Hon. Members may refer to the general issues relating to asylum accommodation, but should avoid discussing any specific criminal cases.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
With permission, I will update the House on the actions we are taking with France to strengthen our border security and the next steps in our reforms to the asylum system.
The House will be aware that when we came into government, we found an asylum and immigration system in chaos: for seven years, small boat gangs had been allowed to embed their criminal trade along the French coast; the asylum backlog was soaring; and illegal working was being ignored. The previous Government had lost control of the system and, as a result, opened many hundreds of asylum hotels across the country, while returns were a third lower than in 2010. Before leaving office, they deliberately cut asylum decision making by 70%, leaving behind a steeply rising backlog. It is little wonder that people across the country lost confidence in the system and demanded to know why they were paying the price of a system that was so out of control.
However, that does not mean that people rejected the long and proud history of Britain doing our bit to help those fleeing persecution or conflict—including, in the past decade, families from Ukraine, Syria and Hong Kong. It is the British way to do our bit alongside other countries to help those who need sanctuary. However, the system has to be controlled and managed, based on fair and properly enforced rules, not chaos and exploitation driven by criminal smuggler gangs. It is exactly because of our important tradition that substantial reforms are needed now.
In our first year in government, we have taken immediate action, laying the foundations for more fundamental reform. We restored asylum decision making and then rapidly increased the rate of decisions. Had we continued with the previous Government’s freeze on asylum decisions, thousands more people would have been in hotels and asylum accommodation by now. Instead, we removed 35,000 people with no right to be here, which included a 28% increase in returns of failed asylum seekers and a 14% increase in removals of foreign criminals. We have increased raids and arrests on illegal working by 50%, and we cut the annual hotel bill by almost a billion pounds in the last financial year. We are rolling out digital ID and biometric kits so that immigration enforcement can check on the spot whether someone has a right to work or a right to be in the UK. On channel crossings and organised immigration crime, we are putting in place new powers, new structures and new international agreements to help to dismantle the criminal industry behind the boats.
I want to update the House on the further steps we are now taking. In August, I signed the new treaty with France allowing us, for the first time, to directly return those who arrive on small boats. The first detentions—of people immediately on arrival in Dover—took place the next day, and we expect the first returns to begin later this month. Applications have been opened for the reciprocal legal route, with the first cases under consideration, subject to strict security checks. We have made it clear that this is a pilot scheme, but the more that we prove the concept at the outset, the better we will be able to develop and grow it.
The principles the treaty embodies are crucial. No one should be making these dangerous or illegal journeys on small boats; if they do, we want to see them swiftly returned. In return, we believe in doing our bit alongside other countries to help those who have fled persecution through managed and controlled legal programmes.
This summer we have taken further action to strengthen enforcement against smuggling gangs. France has reviewed its maritime approach to allow for the interception of taxi boats in French waters, and we will continue to work with France to implement the change as soon as possible. In the past year, the National Crime Agency has led 347 disruptions of immigration crime networks—its highest level on record, and a 40% increase in a year.
Over the summer, we announced a £100 million uplift in funding for border security and up to 300 more personnel in the National Crime Agency focusing on targeting the smuggler gangs. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will give them stronger powers: counter-terrorism powers against smuggler gangs, powers to seize and download the mobile phones of small boat arrivals, and the power to ban sex offenders from the asylum system altogether. If Opposition parties work with us to speed the passage of the Bill through the other place, instead of opposing it, those powers could be in place within months, making our country safer and more secure.
Let me turn to the major reforms that are needed to fix the broken asylum system that we inherited. Although we have increased decision making and returns, the overall system remains sclerotic, outdated and unfair. As we committed to in the immigration White Paper, we will shortly set out more radical reforms to modernise the asylum system and boost our border security. We will be tackling the pull factors, strengthening enforcement, making sure that people are treated fairly and reforming the way that the European convention on human rights is interpreted here at home. We will be speeding up the system, cutting numbers and ending the use of hotels, and developing controlled and managed routes for genuine refugees.
At the heart of the reforms will be a complete overhaul of the appeals system—the biggest obstacle to reducing the size of the asylum system and ending hotel use. Tens of thousands of people in asylum accommodation are currently waiting for appeals, and under the current system that figure is to grow, with an average wait time already of 54 weeks. We have already funded thousands of additional sitting days this year, and the border security Bill will introduce a statutory timeframe of 24 weeks.
However, we need to go further. We will introduce a new independent body to deal with immigration and asylum appeals. It will be fully independent of Government and staffed by professionally trained adjudicators, with safeguards to ensure high standards. It will be able to surge capacity as needed and to accelerate and prioritise cases, alongside new procedures to tackle repeat applications and unnecessary delays. We are also increasing detention and returns capacity, including a 1,000-bed expansion at Campsfield and Haslar, with the first tranche of additional beds coming online within months to support many thousands more enforced removals each year.
Our reforms will also address the overly complex system for family migration, including changes to the way that article 8 of the ECHR is interpreted. We should be clear that international law is important. It is because other countries know that we abide by international law that we have been able to make new agreements with France, to return people who arrive on small boats, and with Germany, to stop the warehousing of small boats by criminal gangs, and it is why we have been able to explore return hubs partnerships with other European countries. However, we need the interpretation of international law to keep up with the realities and challenges of today’s world.
There is one area where we need to make more immediate changes. The current rules for family reunion for refugees were designed many years ago to help families separated by war, conflict and persecution, but the way they are used has now changed. Even just before the pandemic, refugees who applied to bring family to the UK did so on average more than one or two years after they had been granted protection, which was long enough for them to get jobs, find housing and be able to provide their family with some support. In Denmark and Switzerland, those who are granted humanitarian protection are currently not able to apply to bring family for at least two years after protection has been granted.
However, in the UK those family applications now come in, on average, around a month after protection has been granted, often even before a newly granted refugee has left asylum accommodation. As a consequence, refugee families who arrive are far more likely to seek homelessness assistance. Some councils are finding that more than a quarter of their family homelessness applications are linked to refugee family reunion. That is not sustainable. Currently, there are also no conditions on family reunion for refugee sponsors, unlike those in place if the sponsor is a British citizen or long-term UK resident. That is not fair.
The proportion of migrants who have arrived on small boats and then applied to bring family has also increased sharply in recent years, with signs that smuggler gangs are now able to use the promise of family reunion to promote dangerous journeys to the UK. We continue to believe that families staying together is important, which is why we will seek to prioritise family groups among the applicants to come to Britain under our new deal with France, but reforms are needed. So in our asylum policy statement later this year, we will set out a new system for family migration, including looking at contribution requirements, longer periods before newly granted refugees can apply, and dedicated controlled arrangements for unaccompanied children and those fleeing persecution who have family in the UK.
We aim to have some of those changes in place for the spring, but in the meantime we do need to address the immediate pressures on local authorities and the risks from criminal gangs using family reunion as a pull factor to encourage more people on to dangerous boats. Therefore, this week we are bringing forward new immigration rules to temporarily suspend new applications under the existing dedicated refugee family reunion route. Until the new framework is introduced, refugees will be covered by the same family migration rules and conditions as everyone else.
Let me turn next to the action we are taking to ensure that every asylum hotel will be closed for good under this Government, not just by shifting individuals from hotels to other sites but by driving down the numbers in supported accommodation overall, and not in a chaotic way through piecemeal court judgments, but through a controlled, managed and orderly programme: driving down inflow into the asylum system, clearing the appeals backlog, which is crucial, and continuing to increase returns. Within the asylum estate, we are reconfiguring sites, increasing room sharing, tightening the test for accommodation and working at pace to identify alternative, cheaper and more appropriate accommodation with other Departments and with local authorities. We are increasing standards and security and joint public safety co-operation between the police, accommodation providers and the Home Office to ensure that laws and rules are enforced.
I understand and agree with local councils and communities who want the asylum hotels in their communities closed, because we need to close all asylum hotels—we need to do so for good—but that must be done in a controlled and orderly manner, not through a return to the previous Government’s chaos that led to the opening of hotels in the first place.
Finally, let me update the House on the continued legal and controlled support that we will provide for those facing conflict and persecution. We will continue to do our bit to support Ukraine, extending the Ukraine permission extension scheme by a further 24 months, with further details to be set out in due course. We are also taking immediate action to rescue children who have been seriously injured in the horrendous onslaught on civilians in Gaza so that they can get the health treatment they need. The Foreign Secretary will update the House shortly on the progress to get those children out.
I confirm that the Home Office has put in place systems to issue expedited visas with biometric checks conducted prior to arrival for children and their immediate accompanying family members. We have done the same for all the Chevening scholars and are now in the process of doing so for the next group of students from Gaza who have been awarded fully funded scholarships and places at UK universities so that they can start their studies in autumn this year. Later this year, we will set out plans to establish a permanent framework for refugee students to come and study in the UK so that we can help more talented young people fleeing war and persecution to find a better future, alongside capped and managed ways for refugees to work here in the UK.
The Government are determined to fix every aspect of the broken system we inherited and to restore the confidence of the British people, solving problems, not exploiting them, with a serious and comprehensive plan, not fantasy claims based on sums that do not add up or gimmicks that failed in the past. What we will never do is seek to stir up chaos, division or hate, because that is not who we are as a country, and that is not what Britain stands for.
This is a practical plan to strengthen our border security, to fix the asylum chaos and to rebuild confidence in an asylum and immigration system that serves our national interests, protects our national security and reflects our national values. When we wave the Union flag, when we wave the St George’s flag, when we sing “God Save the King” and when we celebrate everything that is great about Britain and about our country, we do so with pride because of the values that our flags, our King and our country represent: togetherness, fairness and decency, respect for each other and respect for the rule of law. That is what our country stands for. That is the British way to fix the problems we face. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The Government have now been in office for well over a year, and I think it is fair to say that not even their kindest friends would say they think it has gone well, but listening to her statement, it sounds like she thinks everything is fine and that if there are any problems, it is somehow somebody else’s fault. Is she living in a parallel universe? After over a year in office, she must now take responsibility for what is happening under this Government.
It was interesting to note that, during her statement, she did not mention her favourite phrase from a year or so ago—namely, that she was going to “smash the gangs.” I wonder why she was so silent on her previously favourite catchphrase. The answer is that it is not going very well. She mentioned National Crime Agency disruptions. Let me gently point out that 84% of those National Crime Agency disruptions that she cited a few minutes ago are classified as not being high impact, and National Crime Agency arrests for organised immigration crime actually went down by 16% in the last financial year. That is hardly smashing the gangs. In fact, the NCA’s arrests for organised immigration crime in that financial year were only 26—a drop in the ocean compared with the tens of thousands crossing the channel.
It was also rather conspicuous that the Home Secretary did not mention even a word about the numbers illegally crossing the English channel. I wonder why that was. I wonder why she forgot to say a single word about that. The reason, I am afraid, is pretty clear. Far from smashing the gangs, so far this year, 29,000—to be precise, 29,003—illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel. That is the worst year in history, and it is up by 38% compared with last year. That is not success; it is failure. Things are not getting any better; they are getting worse. This Government are failing and everyone can see it. That is why there are protests up and down the country, and where those protests are peaceful, I support them. That is why 75% of the public think the Government are handling immigration and asylum badly. That is a shocking figure; let it sink in.
Let me turn to hotels. In the nine months before the last general election, 200 hotels were closed down, including the Bell hotel in Epping, but since the election the numbers in asylum hotels have actually gone up by 8%. Had that previous trend of closures continued, there would be no asylum hotels open at all today. I ask the Home Secretary to confirm that she will not reduce hotel usage simply by shunting asylum seekers from hotels into flats and houses in multiple occupation, which are desperately needed by young people. Will she give the House that categoric assurance?
Last week the Home Secretary’s lawyers said that the rights of illegal immigrants were more important than the rights of local people in places such as Epping. When this was expressly put in those terms to the Education Secretary yesterday on “Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips”, she shamefully agreed. Those statements are a disgrace. Does the Home Secretary realise how angry that makes people feel? It speaks of a Government not on the side of the people in this country. It means the Government appear to care more about the rights of illegal immigrants than our own citizens. Will she apologise for what her lawyers and the Education Secretary said, and will she undertake to ensure that Ministers and their lawyers will never say that again?
The Home Secretary talks about her returns deal with France. It has been reported that the deal will return only about 50 people a week, amounting to 6% of arrivals. Does she accept that allowing 94% of illegal arrivals to stay will act as no deterrent at all? If she does not accept that figure of 50 a week, will she tell the House exactly how many immigrants crossing the channel will in fact be returned under her deal? She may recall that back in July we were told by the Government that the first returns would happen “within weeks”. Will she confirm to the House that the number that has actually been returned so far is precisely zero?
The Home Secretary said to the House a couple of minutes ago that there would be security checks on those people reciprocally taken from France into the UK, but will she confirm that her agreement with France says expressly that the French Government will not provide the UK Government with any information at all—any personal data about those migrants—so if there are criminal convictions or suspicions about extremism or terrorism, the French Government will not provide information to us? If that is true, as her agreement says, how can she possibly conduct security checks?
The Home Secretary talked about tweaks to family visa rules. Let me be clear about the Opposition’s position on this. If someone enters this country illegally, they should not be allowed to bring in any family members. In fact, everybody entering this country illegally should be immediately removed, to their country of origin if possible, and if that is not possible, to a safe third country such as Rwanda—a scheme which she cancelled just days before it was due to start. The public expect that approach—an approach which she cancelled—because the numbers crossing the channel so far this year have been the worst ever; the worst in history.
It is not just that the numbers are high. Hundreds of migrants, having crossed the channel and living in those hotels, have been charged with criminal offences, including sexual assaults on girls as young as eight years old and multiple rapes. This is not just a border security crisis; it is a public safety crisis as well, and people up and down this country are furious. That is why they are protesting, and that is why 75% of the public think this Government are failing on asylum and immigration.
If this Government were serious about fixing this problem, they would know that little tweaks here and there are not enough. Tweaks to article 8 are not going to be enough. Tweaking the family reunion rules is not enough. Returning maybe 50 people a week, if we are lucky, to France is not going to be enough. Intercepting maybe a few boats—worthy though that is—is not going to be enough. The only way these crossings will stop—the only way we are going to get back control of our borders—is if everybody crossing the channel knows that they will be returned. We tabled a Bill in Parliament a few weeks ago to do that. We had a plan to do that: the Rwanda Bill. We need to go further by disapplying to immigration matters the entire Human Rights Act 1998, not just tinkering with article 8. If the Government were serious, that is what they would do.
If the Home Secretary really wants to control our borders, and if she really wants to get down the record numbers that have been crossing on her watch, she would back our plan, disapply the Human Rights Act in its entirety to immigration matters, and ensure that every single person crossing the channel is immediately removed.
Yvette Cooper
I worry about the shadow Home Secretary’s amnesia. In the 14 years that the Conservatives were in government, they never managed to do any of the fantasy things that he claims they did. Let us come back to reality from his fantasy rhetoric.
The shadow Home Secretary talked about the approach that his Government were taking before the election. It is worth reminding the House of what that approach was. Asylum decisions dropped by 70%. The Conservatives effectively had a freeze on taking asylum decisions, and they were returning those asylum seekers nowhere—not to France, not to the safe countries that people had passed through, and not to Rwanda, despite running that scheme for over two years with only four volunteers going at a cost of £700 million. Their approach left us with a soaring backlog. Had we continued with that totally failed approach—not taking asylum decisions, not returning people anywhere—there would have been tens of thousands more people in asylum accommodation and hotels across the country right now. That is the kind of chaos that his policies were heading towards. It is the kind of chaos that he is promising again now.
The House will remember the shadow Home Secretary’s personal record. Small boat arrivals went up tenfold on his watch as immigration Minister. Fewer than 1,000 asylum seekers were in hotels by the time he became immigration Minister, but there were more than 20,000 by the time he left his post. On his new concern for local councils, he was the immigration Minister who wrote to local authorities to tell them that he was stopping the requirement on them to agree to accommodation and that he had
“instead, authorised Providers to identify any suitable properties that they consider appropriate.”
We agree with communities across the country that asylum hotels must all close, and I understand why individual councils want to take action in their areas, but I say to the shadow Home Secretary that a party that wants to be in government should have a proper plan for the whole country, and not just promote a chaotic approach that ends up making things worse in lots of areas. That is the Conservatives’ record. We have asylum hotels in the first place because the Conservatives did no planning and let the Manston chaos get out of control. As immigration Ministers, both the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and the shadow Home Secretary rushed around the country opening hotels instead of taking a practical, steady approach to get to the heart of the problem, reduce the asylum system, strengthen our border security and tackle and reform the appeals that are causing huge delays.
Let me make a final point. The Government strongly believe that sex offenders should be banned from the asylum system altogether. That is why we have put those details into the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which the shadow Home Secretary’s party has voted against time and again and is still resisting in the House of Lords. If Opposition parties supported and worked with us, that law could be on the statute book and we could have stronger powers against sex offenders, stronger counter-terrorism powers to go after criminal gangs, and stronger powers to tackle the offences being committed in the channel and across the country.
The trouble is that what the Conservatives are doing in opposition is an even worse version of what they did in government: ramping up the rhetoric with policies that would make the chaos worse. This Government will fix the chaos that we inherited and strengthen our border security for the sake of the whole country.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for everything that she has revealed today—it will make a difference. As we move from hotels into community distribution, how can we ensure sufficient vetting and transparency in asylum dispersal—especially for groups known to be high risk—in order to safeguard our residents, restore faith among our communities and prevent the threat of disorder such as that seen in Nuneaton this summer?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Anyone who comes to our country needs to abide by our laws. The rules need to be enforced. We also believe that new partnership and stronger measures are needed between policing and immigration enforcement and the Home Office to ensure that there are proper public safety plans for the asylum estate. We are drawing up new arrangements, including not only stronger checks at the border but stronger arrangements in local communities. I recognise the important point that she makes.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary, as always, for advance sight of her statement.
Anyone with any sense knows that the Conservatives trashed our asylum system and left the backlog spiralling out of control, with applications for asylum routinely taking years to process. Some of the Home Secretary’s remarks are welcome, but I worry that this Government risk repeating some of the same mistakes.
The Liberal Democrats will closely scrutinise the plan that the Home Secretary has talked about today, but given that the Home Office itself says that one of the reasons that those human beings seeking asylum make dangerous small-boat crossings is the lack of safe, alternative family reunion routes, cutting those back further seems counterproductive, especially when more than half of those granted family reunion visas in the year ending June 2025 were children under 18.
It is right that the Government have increased the rate of decisions made—those with no right to be here should be sent back swiftly, and those who have a valid claim should be able to settle, work, integrate and contribute to our communities. The backlog is still too large, however, and initial application decisions still take too long. As the Home Secretary stated, a significant share of the backlog comes from appeals. According to the Government’s own figures, in 2024 almost half of rejected asylum applications were overturned on appeal. For applicants from high-grant countries, that proportion was even higher. I would welcome clarity from the Home Secretary on how long it is currently taking to process the average asylum application, and on what concrete steps are being taken to ensure not only that cases are processed more swiftly, but that decisions are right the first time, so that applicants are not left in limbo, the courts are not overburdened and taxpayers are not footing the bill for avoidable delays.
I welcome the Home Secretary’s encouraging comments about the reciprocal agreement with France. Can she confirm whether the Government plan for that to be scaled up and, if so, when? Given that one of the main drivers of dangerous channel crossings is the absence of safe, legal family reunion routes, does the Home Secretary agree that cutting family reunion rules risks making the small-boat crisis worse, not better?
The Home Secretary rightly also mentioned the impact on local authorities. When individuals leave hotels, many present as homeless, creating an unsustainable burden on councils, including my own. Will the Home Secretary explain how she is working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support councils and ensure that this crisis is not simply shifted from one overstretched system to another?
In recent weeks, constituents have been in touch with me as they are concerned about the number of flags that have gone up on lampposts around our area. They worry that the flags have been put up by those who seek to divide our community, not bring it together. Patriotism is a good thing. We should be proud of our country. We should be proud that our country welcomed people such as my nan in the 1930s, when she was fleeing the Nazis. We should be proud of our record of doing our bit. We should be proud of the British values I see in action across my community every day.
I am proud of those police officers who kept everyone safe during the protests at two hotels in my constituency over the summer; proud of those teachers and pupils who welcome new classmates when they have been placed in one of the hotels; and really proud of those who volunteer their time to support new arrivals, whether through local churches or other voluntary groups and charities—because that is what patriotism looks like.
Yvette Cooper
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks and questions. At the heart of the France pilot that we have developed is the principle that those who arrive on dangerous and illegal small boats should be returned, but alongside that we should also have a legal route for those who apply and who go through proper security checks. As part of that, we will seek to prioritise people who have a connection to the UK, such as family groups —people who have family connections to the UK. Families will continue to need to be an underpinning part of the approach. The House will recall that the Ukraine family scheme was an important part of the response to the situation in Ukraine, for which Labour called in opposition.
The family reunion arrangements are being used differently from how they were used five years ago. The number of people applying for family reunion immediately —before they have a job, a house or any way of being able to support their families—is increasing the homelessness pressures on local authorities at a time when we need them not just to do their bit to help to clear hotels, but, crucially, to provide homelessness support in the local community. It is important to ensure that arrangements for the families of refugees do not put additional pressure on the homelessness support system, so we will set out reforms and ensure that, in the interim, refugees are included in the existing arrangements that apply to all sponsors in the UK for family reunion.
We need to speed up appeals. The average appeal time is now 54 weeks, which is far too long. Some appeals go on for way longer, meaning people with repeat appeals are in asylum accommodation for years, preventing the closure of asylum hotels that needs to take place, which is why we need the reforms.
Finally, the hon. Lady raised the issue of flags. I strongly support the flying of flags across the country—we fly the St George’s flag in Pontefract castle each year. As she will know, the Union flag is on the Labour party membership card—[Interruption.] I can show her a copy if she has not seen one. Flags should be an embodiment of bringing our country together—that will be the same in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and a way to bring our country together through symbolism.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
A couple of years ago, I was working in local government in Scotland, trying to deal with the impact of asylum hotels. At that time, the shadow Home Secretary was a Minister in the Home Office, and he opened hotel after hotel, without even telling councils that that was happening, so his amnesia today is staggering. We did not have asylum hotels five years ago, but we have them now because the last Government signed a contract with private providers that has cost billions of pounds, putting pressure on communities, as well as being a procurement scandal. Will the Home Secretary commit to reading the report on this issue that the Home Affairs Committee is about to publish, and to looking as creatively as she can at managing those asylum contracts to get the best deal possible for the taxpayer?
Yvette Cooper
I look forward to reading the Home Affairs Committee’s report and I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the Committee. We have already been working to get better value from the contracts that we inherited, which is one reason that we have saved nearly £1 billion on asylum accommodation costs since the election. He is right to point out that the previous Government completely lost control of the system in 2022. There was a total lack of planning or any grip on the situation, as well as chaos around management that was incredibly costly. The sudden surge of asylum hotels opening all over the country, with poor contracts that provided poor value for money, was bad for the taxpayer and damaging to having an effective system across the country. We cannot go back to that kind of chaos.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Home Secretary, please: we have a tinder-box situation in Epping. We have the Bell hotel, with alleged sexual and physical assaults, and now twice-weekly major protests, some of which became violent, with injuries to police officers. Appallingly, last week the Government successfully appealed against the injunction on the hotel, prioritising the rights of illegal migrants over the rights and, indeed, safety of the people of Epping. Our community is in distress. The situation is untenable. This week the schools are back. The hotel is in the wrong place, right near a school, and many concerned parents have contacted me. When will the Home Secretary and the Government listen to us, address this issue and do the right and safe thing: close the Bell hotel immediately?
Yvette Cooper
I agree that all asylum hotels need to be closed as swiftly as possible, including the Bell hotel. That needs to be done in an orderly and sustainable manner so that they are closed for good. The hon. Gentleman is not right in the characterisation of the Government’s case, because we are clear that all asylum hotels need to close. We need to ensure that that is done in an ordered way that does not simply make the problem worse in other neighbouring areas or cause the kind of disordered chaos that led to the opening of so many hotels in the first place. We also need to strengthen the security and the co-operation with policing, and we want to strengthen the law on asylum seekers who commit offences and can be banned from the system. That will be part of our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill as well.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It was Orwell who urged us to be proud of our countries and to call out the nationalists trying to demand that we express our pride or be called traitors accordingly. Let us be proud of this country and the work it has done to support people fleeing persecution; let us be proud of what we have done to help families from Ukraine and Hong Kong. I know the Home Secretary recognises that safe and legal routes for refugee children to be reunited with their parents are something that we should be proud of. In that vein, if there is to be a delay in providing those safe and legal routes, will it apply to all children, including Ukrainian children, or will we recognise that helping children so that they do not face penalties is our best and proudest action?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes important points. The new arrangements that we set out will include both stronger border security and reforms to the asylum system to make it more controlled and managed and to reduce its size, as well as to have the controlled and managed legal routes. That needs to include arrangements for family and dedicated arrangements around unaccompanied children. My hon. Friend is right to raise that as a serious issue. Obviously we have a separate dedicated scheme for Ukraine, and we are continuing with that scheme.
On my hon. Friend’s point about what we should recognise, I think that people across the country continue to support that. Having spoken to Ukrainian mums who described how they fled in the first few weeks of Putin’s invasion, knowing that their home villages had been overrun by Russian troops and not knowing whether other family members were safe or whether they would ever be able to return again, let me say that we should always remember what people can be fleeing from and the importance of countries working together to support them.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary believe that the rights of the people coming over the channel in dinghies should take precedence over the rights of local residents in places such as Epping, as her lawyers argued for in court and as the Education Secretary said in an interview at the weekend?
Yvette Cooper
No, that is wrong. That is wrong about the Government’s position. The Government have made it clear that all asylum hotels need to close, and they need to do so in an orderly manner that does not end up increasing the problems in other areas. We need to close the hotels for the whole country, and the judge themself has said that this is not about a hierarchy of rights.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I am very glad the Home Secretary has acknowledged that, like other countries, we have a duty to safeguard those fleeing persecution and seeking sanctuary in Britain. The reason we had 400 asylum hotels back in 2023, at a cost of £9 million a day, and we now have just over 200 asylum hotels, is that the Conservative party failed to deal with asylum claim applications, which this country and this Government are now doing. If there is any Government who will end the use of hotels for asylum seekers, it is this Labour Government.
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s points. We need the consistent, practical plans that will close hotels right across the country, clear the appeals backlog, which would otherwise grow, and prevent the increase in asylum claims in the first place. We also need the restarting of decisions, because had we carried on with the freeze on asylum decisions that the previous Government left us with, there would be tens of thousands more people in hotels across the country right now. That would have been deeply wrong.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
People with a wide range of views about how to tackle immigration spoke to me over the summer, and none of them is happy with how things are. They are furious about how the Conservatives trashed our border security, and they certainly do not want the hare-brained schemes of Reform—they want action that fixes the system fast. After years of failure, will the Home Secretary finally ensure that our immigration system keeps out people who would come here for the wrong reasons, while properly supporting those who need our help?
Yvette Cooper
Yes, we need to strengthen our border security. That is why the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is currently passing through the other place, includes the ability to use counter-terrorism powers against criminal smuggler gangs. Those powers are crucial—we need to strengthen the work of the National Crime Agency in going after those gangs, because they are pursuing a vile trade in human lives.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I do not envy the Home Secretary trying to clear up the mess that the last Government left on migration. I doubt, however, that the measures she is currently putting before the House will be as successful as she and I wish them to be. They do not really deal with the fact that many migrants are not coming from war-torn countries; they are coming from France, which is not persecuting them in any recognisable form. The reason is demand pull from this country—migrants believe they will have a better and an easier time, and get through the system more easily, in this country than they would in France or in other European countries. Denmark has been successful in reducing the demand pull. If the Home Secretary’s measures are to be as successful as she wishes them to be, will she look more closely at what Denmark has done to improve the situation?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to say that obviously, small boats are mainly setting off from France—people have travelled through France. That is exactly why we have negotiated the pilot agreement with France to be able to return people there. It is the first time this has happened; it is something that previous Governments tried and completely failed to do. It is important that we do that and build on it, but we also need to tackle some of those pull factors, particularly illegal working. That is why we have had a 50% increase in illegal work raids and arrests. We also need to recognise that family reunion is being used by some criminal gangs. One thing Denmark has done is increase the time before refugees can apply for family reunion, so that they are more likely to be working and supporting their families and to prevent criminal gangs from being able to use family reunion as a pull factor.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Home Secretary has spoken about tweaks to the rules and regulations, and potentially to interpretation of the law. The problem with that, of course, is that our courts will also interpret the law, and may go against what the Home Secretary wants to do. Will she set out what changes to the law she will introduce to ensure we stop the illegal migrants coming to this country?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to change the law. First, obviously, we have the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which will bring in a whole series of changes including counter-terrorism powers, banning sex offenders from the asylum system and a new offence of endangerment. We also believe that new legal changes to the asylum system are going to be needed, and we will bring forward further legislation in order to make those changes. Later this year, we will set out detailed reforms —not just on appeals, but more widely around the asylum system—to enable us to tackle some of both the historic chaos and the delays in the system, and to get that system back under control.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As many are aware, a number of well-known delivery companies and other companies are employing asylum seekers with no right to work, which is helping to incentivise the boat crossings and ultimately to undermine our national security. Will the Home Secretary liaise with the Treasury before the Budget to discuss bringing in a windfall tax on some of those delivery companies, so that they can start contributing to the cost of a problem that they are helping to exacerbate?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the gig economy and the need to ensure that it does not become rife with abuse and misuse when it comes to illegal working. That is why we are bringing in—again, in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which unfortunately the Conservatives and Reform have continued to vote against—requirements for employers in the gig economy to abide by checks on illegal working. We have also recently signed with some of the major delivery companies a new agreement to share information, so that we can target abuse and crime.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
What a country the UK is becoming! Rarely has the national mood been so ugly and intimidating. People are congregating at hotels, screaming at asylum seekers to go home, and those on the right wing are so emboldened that they feel the streets belong to them. Does the Home Secretary not realise that every time she moves on to Reform’s ground, all she is doing is further encouraging and emboldening them? How about trying something different? How about just occasionally saying something positive about immigration? How about not dehumanising asylum seekers, and instead showing them some compassion, decency and humanity?
Yvette Cooper
I just point out to the hon. Member that I have spoken about Ukrainian mums and their experiences fleeing from Putin; the students in Gaza who currently cannot take up their places—we are working on expedited visas for them, so that they can pursue a better future—and the importance of having a proper, legal and controlled route as part of an effective system. That has been part of our history, but we also have to have a system that is properly controlled and managed. We have to have a system that is not open to abuse, misuse and exploitation by criminal gangs. We also need stronger border security, so that it is Government, and not gangs, who choose who comes to our country.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. There is a lot to unpick, and we need more detail on this new appeals system. One of my key concerns when I was in the Home Office many years ago was the poor legal advice that people were getting early on. Lawyers were making them jump through many hopeless hoops to extend their stay unnecessarily. They were putting them in a miserable situation, costing the taxpayer, and creating chaos and duplication in the system. Is the Home Secretary looking at what legal advice people will get at an early stage, so that appeals and processes can be expedited?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is a former Home Office Minister; she has a lot of experience with immigration case issues, and real concerns about the advice people are given and the way that decisions are made. We are strengthening some of the regulation, and improving the way the legal advice system works, in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend further about this issue.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Stanwell hotel in my constituency is being used to house asylum seekers. I wrote to Home Office Ministers on 24 July, again on 25 July, and again on 29 July, and I have had zero responses to any of those letters. Please will the Home Secretary show some respect to my constituents and the people of Spelthorne and reply to their questions and concerns?
Yvette Cooper
I will ensure that the hon. Member gets a written response to his questions, but let me also make it clear that all asylum hotels, including the hotel in his constituency, need to close. They need to do so in an orderly manner, and in a way that does not make the problem worse elsewhere or create more chaos, as we have seen in the past. That is the best way for us to reduce the size of the asylum system, to clear all the backlogs, and to ensure that we have an effective system.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The European convention on human rights is an important bedrock, protecting not only vulnerable people’s rights here in the UK, but also our strong international relationships, which were crucial to securing the returns deal with France, and co-operation with Germany and other European partners on finally clamping down on the scourge of the people smuggling gangs that we inherited. Leaving the ECHR fully cannot be a solution to our problems, but that does not mean that every aspect of it works in the right way, and it is clear that it stands in the way of our taking some actions that we need to take if we are to deal with this issue seriously. I welcome the Home Secretary’s clarification of how we will take forward interpretation of article 8. May I seek confirmation that we will not shy away from further clarification, like the clarification she gave today, where the ECHR is getting in the way of the action that we know we need to take to provide the border security that our country is crying out for?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to talk about international law, and the ECHR being part of the reason why we have been able to get international agreements; other countries know that we will abide by international law. That is how we got the French pilot, which the previous Government were repeatedly unable to do. The way in which the ECHR is interpreted is significant and needs to keep up to date. We have a challenge around article 8 and family cases; far too many cases are being treated as exceptions to the rules that Parliament has set. We think the rules need to change for us to address that, and we need to work through changes to how article 8 in particular is interpreted in our immigration and asylum system. We will set out more details on that in our asylum reform package later this year.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Every time the Home Secretary announces a new policy on illegal migration, illegal migration goes up, so I think a period of silence would be most welcome from her. Does she agree that the only way to stop the pull factor is to detain, deport and never allow illegal migrants to claim asylum in this country?
Yvette Cooper
The pilot scheme we have agreed with France involves, for the first time, our being able to detain people on their arrival in Dover—this has not happened before—and return them to France, where the boats set off from. Previous Governments, including the one that the hon. Gentleman supported and was part of, were unable to agree or achieve that. We have also increased returns of failed asylum seekers by nearly 30% since the election alone, because we believe that the rules need to be enforced, and that returns need to be increased. The problem with his party’s approach is that it sounds a lot like the last Tory Government’s grand promises, which totally failed. His party is just rehashing the same chaotic promises, without ever being able to provide the detail of how it would make any of its policies work. The British way is to roll up our sleeves and do things in a practical way, increase returns, and sort the problems out.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Home Secretary said in her statement that she will never “seek to stir up chaos, division or hate”, yet that is what we have seen this summer. The far right are emboldened, because of racism and demonisation in the media and from politicians. Instead of scapegoating refugees and asylum seekers, perhaps the Home Secretary needs to be thinking about more humane policies, including safe routes, employment and the right to remain. Can she explain whether these policies have been, or will be, considered?
Yvette Cooper
The French pilot scheme involves allowing people who apply lawfully and go through proper security checks to come to the UK on a one-for-one basis, as we return those who have arrived on dangerous small boats in the hands of criminal gangs. I also set out in my statement our intention to have a permanent framework under which refugee students can come to the UK, rather than our taking an ad hoc approach, as we currently do to Gaza students. There needs to be a more systematic approach, as well as capped and controlled approaches to other refugee work programmes. That has to come alongside better controls and management of the existing system, which has become chaotic, with long delays and the undermining of our border security by criminal gangs. We have to do these things together, in a way that pulls our country together, rather than seeing division and tension continue.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Reform announced in the summer that it would house all asylum seekers on former RAF bases. In my constituency, RAF Linton-on-Ouse was ruled out, on the grounds that its location in a small village made that inappropriate. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she has no plans to reverse the decision to rule out such inappropriate RAF bases?
Yvette Cooper
Obviously, we do not want asylum accommodation in inappropriate places. We must reduce the overall size of the asylum system, while ensuring that we can move people, when possible, from hotels to alternative and better sites. Any arrangement that is aimed simply at expanding the asylum system, as happens if there is a freeze on asylum decisions—and some of the policies that Reform is unfortunately pursuing risk increasing the number of people stuck in the asylum system, because Reform has no plans for practical returns—will make the problem worse. We need practical changes to bring the numbers down.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
It has come to my attention that in government, the job of Home Secretary does not always attract the greatest thanks, so I want to thank my right hon. Friend for the response that she and her Department have given to the letter from 100 colleagues about the Gaza students, and for what she said this afternoon about considering a permanent scheme. Will she confirm, however, that the visas, when they are issued, will be the same as any international student visa, in that the scholars will be able to bring their families and dependants with them?
Yvette Cooper
As my hon. Friend will know, many student visas do not allow students to bring dependants to the United Kingdom. There will be exceptional circumstances, such as those involving Gaza, but the overall approach—for example, to student visas relating to masters courses—is not to include dependants. We do, however, want to ensure that the refugee route for students is available, recognising that some people will be able to come and be educated at UK universities to develop their incredible talents, but will want to return to their home countries in future to rebuild them. There may be others who are not able to return, because that is the nature of the crisis we face.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
In her statement, the Home Secretary mentioned that the National Crime Agency had disrupted 347 immigration crime networks. Can she tell us how many gangs were smashed during the same period?
Yvette Cooper
Many of those disruptions are exactly about pursuing gangs, and there are more than 40 high-profile and high-value disruptions that the National Crime Agency itself has said are having a significant impact on degrading, undermining and stopping the criminal gangs. Some of the arrests that have been co-ordinated with France and Germany are also preventing criminal gang activity by, for instance, taking out the leaders of some of those gangs.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Is it any wonder that an Opposition Member described the shadow Home Secretary’s asylum policy as “silly”, given that it was a Conservative Government who failed to process claims, filled up hotels, left people in limbo and broke the bank in the process, just as they broke the bank when it came to everything that they touched? Opening asylum hotels did not happen on our watch, and we want to shut them. We want to save the public purse significant sums of money, and we want to get the system right. Will the Home Secretary tell the people of Bournemouth East, whom I represent, how she is speeding up the process of closing asylum hotels in Bournemouth and in Britain?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. We need to end asylum hotels across the board, and that means ensuring that we can clear the appeals backlogs through major appeals reform, because that is currently the main obstacle to the faster closure of hotels. It means preventing people from taking up accommodation in the first place when they are not entitled to it, and it means looking for alternative sites that are more appropriate, which will mean working with other Government Departments. It also means, crucially, recognising that carrying on with the system that we inherited—the frozen system, in which the last Government were not returning people and not making asylum decisions—would have left us with tens of thousands more people in asylum hotels. That is the system that Conservative Members want to go back to, but it would be deeply damaging for my hon. Friend’s constituents, and for the country.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Providing safer routes for refugees is not going to eradicate the entire problem—none of us is saying that it will—but it is surely part of the solution to stopping trafficking across the channel. Is it not just cruel madness to restrict family reunion, which is one of the few safe routes that currently exist, particularly when we know that 93% of the refugee family reunion visas granted this year were for women and children? Will this not increase the number of people putting themselves at the mercy of evil traffickers, and the number of tragedies in the channel?
Yvette Cooper
I know that this is an issue in which the hon. Member has taken a very strong interest over a long period of time. Since he and I first started discussing this issue many years ago, the way in which the family reunion system is used has changed. It has gone from people applying one or two years after they have refugee protection here in the UK to people applying in around a month. That means that the people applying have often not left asylum accommodation or asylum hotels. They do not have housing, jobs or ways to support family members whom they seek to bring to the UK, and we have also seen that criminal gangs are using and exploiting the system. That is why we are temporarily pausing the existing refugee family reunion route, and we will consult on the new arrangements that should be brought in. We will aim to bring in some of those arrangements by this spring.
In the interim, refugees will be covered by exactly the same rules as everyone else, and by the same conditions as everyone else, through the appendix FM process. But there is a concern, because there are no conditions on refugee family reunion at the moment. The way in which it is being used has changed, and there is a responsibility on us to not have huge problems with homelessness assistance for local authorities, and to have a managed system that also supports contributions and does not simply end up being exploited by criminal gangs.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I recognise the complexity of the issues that she is facing. I was very struck by Lord Dubs’s description of his personal circumstances on the radio this morning. His father left Prague as soon as the Nazis invaded in 1939. Lord Dubs got Kindertransport—he was one of the last ones out—and his mother followed a few months later. That is not the one or two-year timetable that we have talked about in terms of the parity of the scheme, so perhaps there needs to be an “Alf Dubs test” that would make sure that families facing similar circumstances, where their lives are in jeopardy, would be protected. He also mentioned ensuring that people understand why people flee as refugees. The conflation between economic migrants and refugees is, frankly, very unhelpful.
Yvette Cooper
I recognise the important points that my hon. Friend makes and the work that Lord Dubs has done over many years, particularly in championing unaccompanied child refugees. We have recognised that there will need to be dedicated arrangements that recognise the particular plight of unaccompanied child refugees, but this needs to be done in a properly controlled and managed way, which it has not been for a long time. Under the existing systems that will apply to everyone over the next six months while we bring in the new arrangements, there are always provisions for exceptional circumstances, but we need to prevent the current system from pushing significant homelessness pressure on to local authorities, and from being exploited by criminal gangs.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The only effective measure of the Government’s actions is the number of crossings, isn’t it?
Yvette Cooper
There is a big problem with the small boats, as we have seen the criminal gangs change their tactics, particularly to exploit the French rules meaning that, up until now, France has not been intervening in French waters. Not just that, but people who have come to the UK lawfully, but are coming to the end of their visas, are claiming asylum when nothing has changed in their country. We need to ensure tighter rules about that, as well as action on border security to prevent dangerous boat crossings, which undermine security and put lives at risk.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
My constituency, like Britain as a whole, has long been home to people of all faiths and cultures who came here or whose forebears came here from all around the world. Over the summer, we have seen the growth of ugly rhetoric, including the term “indigenous Britons”, which risks a culture of fear in many of our communities. What are the Government doing to address this insidious trend?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Ours is a country that has been strengthened through many generations by people coming to our shores from all over the world to work, reunite with family, be part of communities, set up businesses and be part of our public services, particularly our national health service. They have done so for generation after generation. That is an important part of our country and will continue to be so for the future. We have had long debates about how the immigration system of course needs to be controlled and managed, but we also recognise the need for our country to come together. Whatever their history or family history, people must be able to come together and be proud of the country that Great Britain is, not be divided, pursue hatred or pit people against each other.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Our communities are divided, and they are scared. We—all of us—want to be with our families, and communities are at their strongest when family life is protected and supported. If the Secretary of State lifted the ban on asylum seekers working, she would be giving those who subsequently achieve refugee status a stronger footing to support their families and be ready to join our communities, and they would not need to seek the homelessness relief she mentioned. Instead of keeping children and their families apart, why does she not help families to support themselves?
Yvette Cooper
I know that the hon. Member will be as concerned as I am about the lives at risk in small boat crossings, and we have to do everything we can to prevent those dangerous boat crossings, including when families are on them. However, part of what the criminal gangs do—it is part of their sell—is to claim that it will be really easy to work, and that is to work illegally, in the UK. It is part of their pitch, and that is one of the reasons why it is so important to tackle illegal working. That promise of being able to work easily and get income is one of the things the criminal gangs exploit to get a lot of people to part with their money and get involved in the criminal gangs’ vile trade.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I was struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) about the importance of good and appropriate legal advice for people seeking immigration status in the UK. I recall two cases in which constituents have been very badly let down by their solicitors, and I have brought those two cases to the attention of the Home Office. Given that justice is devolved to the Scottish Government, when changes are made to the regulation of this issue will the Home Secretary commit to discussing this with the Scottish Government and, if necessary, the Law Society of Scotland?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the points my hon. Friend makes about legal advice on migration issues. Immigration is not a devolved issue, and we need to ensure high standards of legal advice right across the country. We obviously have such discussions with all the devolved Administrations, and we will continue to do so as the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill passes through Parliament.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary set out how many migrants will be returned to France over the coming 12 months?
Yvette Cooper
We have set out that this is a pilot, and that we want to build and grow it. There is no cap on the overall numbers to go as part of the pilot, and we need to build it as we go. We have also said that we will not set out the kinds of operational details that criminal gangs will simply use and manipulate, but we will provide updates, as each month goes by, on the progress of the scheme. It is important in two ways: first, it is the basis from which we can then expand to actually be able to return people to France and undermine the model of the criminal gangs; and underpinning this is a fairness principle, which is that if you arrive on a dangerous illegal small boat and pay a criminal gang, you should be returned. But we should do our bit, alongside other countries, to help those who apply through a legal route and go through proper security checks.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
This summer, my community has been deeply divided by misinformation about asylum hotels and local crime rates. This has been exploited by parts of the national media and, frankly, Conservative and Reform politicians and local activist groups seeking simply to stoke fear. Like everyone on the Labour Benches, I stood on a manifesto to end hotel use, so can I thank the Home Secretary for getting on with the job of restoring order to our asylum system to address the chaos left by the previous Government? Can she reassure my constituents that we remain committed to tackling the vile organised crime gangs that drive the boats, to clearing the asylum backlog to give those who are seeking asylum the chance to restore their lives here and give them certainty, and to ending hotel use in communities like mine and across the country?
Yvette Cooper
As my hon. Friend says, we made clear in our manifesto that we will end asylum hotel use. We need to put an end to asylum hotel use right across the country, and to do so in an orderly way. We also need to ensure that the rules are properly enforced and laws are properly respected. We will strengthen the law. That is why, for example, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill bans sex offenders from the asylum system and strengthens counter-terrorism powers to go after the criminal gangs. It is astonishing, frankly, that the Conservatives and Reform refuse to support it, when we need those laws in place as rapidly as possible. We will do so alongside ensuring that there are proper controlled and managed legal ways to support refugees, as our country has always done, because that is a proud part of our history.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Past waves of refugees who came to this country quite rightly had to identify themselves and come here legally. What percentage, does the Home Secretary think, of people who arrive illegally by small boats do so having torn up their identification documents, and should such people ever be granted asylum?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member will know that there are different identity checks as part of the asylum system. Those are tested through the courts. One of the reasons asylum claims can be turned down is if there is a lack of credibility in the application. That can be a lack of credibility because of concerns about deliberately lost documents, for example, or not having proper identity information. It is important that we do that. It is why we are also increasing the digital ID and biometric checks as part of the ways to prevent illegal working, and linking that back to the biometric asylum system.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Illegal working not only undermines the integrity of our immigration system, it erodes trust in our communities. In Aldershot, constituents have raised concerns about people continuing to work illegally even after reports have been made to the Home Office. That risks leaving local people feeling that the system is neither fair nor properly enforced. I welcome that Home Office illegal working raids are up 50%, but what action are the Government taking to strengthen enforcement and how is the Home Office ensuring that reports are acted on swiftly, so that trust in our communities can be maintained?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have increased illegal working arrests and raids by 50% and significantly increased the fines for employers engaged in illegal working. Further to that, the organised immigration crime domestic taskforce, which brings together policing here in the UK, is looking at the ways in which organised immigration crime networks are linked to organised crime and the exploitation of illegal workers in the UK, so it is about going after some of those employers operating bogus tactics, alongside the existing raids.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s confirmation in her statement of the expedited visas for students, particularly those from Gaza. I wrote to both the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary this summer to appeal for exactly this move, and I know how welcome it will be to those students.
The Home Secretary talks about a capped work scheme. We talk a lot about the pressure on local authorities and the cost to the taxpayer. Does she not agree that if we gave asylum seekers the right to work, pay national insurance and tax and contribute, they would then be carrying their own burden, and they would no longer be a weight on the taxpayer?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome the campaigning the hon. Lady has done to support students in Gaza, because the situation we are seeing there is horrendous. The Foreign Secretary will shortly make a statement about the truly abominable situation in Gaza, as well as the work we are doing to get out students who have fully funded places in the UK and provide them with support.
On the hon. Lady’s question, I would say that the criminal smuggling gangs use the potential to work in the UK as a pull factor—as part of their advertising—which is a point the French Government have raised many times. The challenge with the scenario she sets out is that it would make it even easier for the criminal gangs to use that factor as part of their advertising to try to persuade people to part with their money and make an incredibly dangerous journey across the channel.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
The stigmatising and dehumanising of asylum seekers has stirred up race hate in our communities, thankfully by only a small number, and I have been really disturbed to see that racism perpetrated on the streets of York. However, I am even more disturbed to hear that there are planned assaults on asylum hotels across the country, not least in York, where we have children and families staying. What policing operations will be in place to protect those children and families from this hate and ensure their safety over the coming weeks?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to point out the dangers of divisive, dehumanising language towards other human beings and to point to our shared humanity. We can have disagreements with people; we can have different views about the way in which systems should work and rules should be enforced and we can recognise that there will be people who have to be returned because they have no right to be in the UK. However, we can also avoid the kind of demonising language that ends up escalating tensions or promoting hatred and violence—something that we in this country should never do.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The Home Secretary has today described the people smugglers as criminals and the boat crossings as illegal. Does she therefore agree that the 29,000 individuals who have entered this country illegally from France this year should be classified as lawbreakers who should at least be deported straightaway or be banned from claiming asylum in the future?
Yvette Cooper
The laws on illegal entry go right back to 1972, I think; the issue of illegal entry is long standing. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the policy of the previous Government—his Government—was to claim that everybody was going to be returned to France or sent to Rwanda, but they ran their scheme in Rwanda for two and a half years during which time only four volunteers were sent, so nobody was returned, and they never managed to return anybody to France. We are clear that we believe that people who arrive on dangerous boat crossings or via illegal routes should be returned to France. We have set up the pilot scheme to develop that; we want to build it. It is something the previous Government never managed to do. There is no point in their fantasy claims—we need practical steps, which is what we are doing with France.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
One of the hotels that houses asylum seekers in Kent is the Holiday Inn in Ashford. The decision to house them there was taken by the Conservatives when they were in power. Many people living there are going through an appeal process, so I welcome the decision to speed up the appeals process. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me and my constituents that this Government will end the use of the Holiday Inn as an asylum hotel as soon as possible?
Yvette Cooper
I assure my hon. Friend that we will end the use of asylum hotels, including the hotel in his constituency. Part of the way we will do that is by clearing the appeals backlog. The reason for setting up the new independent appeals commission is so that it can swiftly surge capacity if there are changes in the number of cases going to appeal. It will be able to respond much more quickly and some of the procedures will be changed so that it can fast-track decision making and returns for those who do not have a right to be in the UK.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
After the horrors of the last century, we pledged to protect people fleeing war and persecution. That included parents and their children. Today the asylum system is in chaos, and this serves no one save those who peddle hatred. Border Force staff represented by the Public and Commercial Services Union have produced a “Safe Routes” report outlining how a Ukrainian-style visa system would prevent deaths in the channel and stop the smuggling gangs overnight. Will the Home Secretary listen to officers on the frontline who are seeking to deliver a practical and humane solution to the present chaos?
Yvette Cooper
The principle behind the France pilot, which we want to build and grow, is that people can apply through a legal process and go through proper security checks but that we will return people who come on these dangerous small boats facilitated by criminal gangs. That principle is really important. We want a system that can better return those who are being exploited by criminal gangs and using illegal entry, and we will do that by undermining their business model. Alongside that, we will do what our country has always done throughout history: provide a legal process—controlled and managed—to support those who have fled persecution and conflict. That is what happened as part of the Ukraine scheme, and it is what we now seek to do as part of a refugee approach to students. We need a proper system across the board that both brings control to a chaotic system and is true to our historic values.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I commend her for the way she is working with our neighbouring countries to deal with this problem. The approach of the previous Government was basically to stand on the cliffs of Dover shouting abuse across the channel and to tell them that they should keep all refugees and we would take none. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are going to provide a solution to this problem, it has to come from the sort of co-operation that she has been working on?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend; we saw what happened under the previous Government and the system we inherited. That Government made grand but empty claims about where people were going to be returned to but had none of the agreements and nothing workable in place to actually do it. Instead, they had people stuck—potentially indefinitely—in the asylum system, which would have meant increasing numbers of asylum hotels. In contrast, we have already achieved a 28% increase in returns of failed asylum seekers and put in place the foundations for building a new approach with France and other European countries. I think that most people recognise the complexity of this issue rather than the fantasy promise approach, which ends up undermining trust.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary accept that some of the UK’s adversaries are seeking to weaponise illegal migration, and does she share my concern about the growing nexus between malign state actors and non-state actors, such as the criminal gangs she has mentioned? If she accepts that that collaboration and malevolent co-operation is going on, does she then agree that it is a national security threat and that even though there will be more counter-terrorism powers under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill for the National Crime Agency, which I welcome, there should also be more collaboration between the Security Service and the National Crime Agency?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with the points made by the right hon. Member. The Prime Minister said last year that border security is a national security issue; he is right about that. He is also right that we see malign forces attempting to exploit and undermine border security, and he is right to talk about the interaction we see sometimes between malign state-backed threats and organised immigration crime. That is why we already have growing co-operation between the intelligence and security agencies and the National Crime Agency, who are looking at some of those smuggler gang threats and routes; they have pursued further issues there. They are also looking at strengthened checks that we may be able to do at our borders. His points strengthen the argument for international co-operation with other law enforcement and intelligence and security agencies.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
In a previous life, I worked on the Turkey-Greece returns deal, which returned refugees who had crossed in small boats from Turkey to the Greek islands in return for properly registered asylum seekers in Turkey. As we all know, that deal drastically reduced the number of small boats that crossed into Turkey. Does the Home Secretary think that the UK’s deal with France, negotiated just last month, is already having a deterrent effect? Might that be connected to our having seen the smallest number of crossings in August since 2019?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that crossings in August were at their lowest for several years even though there was the same level of crossing days as last summer. He will know that a lot of different factors are involved. We have been seeking with France, through the implementation of its maritime review, to be able to make stronger interventions.
I welcome the point that my hon. Friend made about the Greece-Turkey deal, which did have a significant impact on those crossings. That is why we believe that pursuing this co-operation with France is the right thing to do. I welcome the work that the French Government have done to support the pilot agreement on returns.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
As an Eastbourne boy born and bred, I am a proud Englishman. In Winston Churchill’s St George’s day speech in 1933, he said that his England was one where no one would think of persecuting a man on account of his religion or his race. Does the Home Secretary agree with Winston Churchill that our country and our flag represent unity and tolerance? Does she agree with me that those who attempt to divide our communities in the name of our flag are no patriots of Churchill’s England, no patriots of today’s England and no patriots of our great country?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of patriotism that brings our country together. That is what our flags symbolise and what our values as a country symbolise. Obviously, the Union Jack is in itself as a flag the very embodiment of coming together. For those of us who represent English constituencies, we are proud to fly the St George’s flag and proud to stand up for the shared values that he described—there is patriotism around those English values and British values—about coming together, fairness, decency and respect; that is what we do. That is why we all want an ordered system that criminal gangs cannot exploit—we respect the rule of law—but it is also why we should never discuss any of these issues in a way that promotes hate and division. That is not the kind of country we are.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
At the start of the summer, I welcomed the Government’s decisive action in sanctioning Chinese companies involved in manufacturing and supplying boats used by criminal gangs to facilitate dangerous channel crossings. Disrupting those supply chains is a vital part of smashing the gangs. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what discussions she has had with international counterparts to co-ordinate efforts to target those companies and ensure that the sanctions are enforced globally?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right to welcome the Foreign Secretary’s introduction of sanctions for criminal smuggler gangs, and this is the first time that has been done. We also have extensive co-operation through the National Crime Agency. For example, we have massively strengthened the co-operation with Iraq, because we know that Iraqi Kurdish gangs are operating in northern France. We have recently signed a new agreement with Iraq, as well as with Turkey, Bulgaria, Belgium, France and, crucially, with Germany, which is going to change its law to help us go after the criminal gangs and their supply chains. The work that is being done to disrupt supply chains is having an impact. It is significant, too, that we are seeing not only disruptions and arrests internationally as well as in the UK; we are also seeing fewer boats physically crossing, although the criminal gangs are resorting to overcrowding those boats instead.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I note that the Appeal Court judges in last Thursday’s judgment were using article 8 of the European convention on human rights as a reason for the interim injunction on the Bell hotel to be quashed, yet the Home Secretary has argued in her statement today that she wants to alter the interpretation of that same article 8. Would not a much better, quicker and more effective route be the one proposed by the shadow Home Secretary this afternoon—namely, simply to disapply all immigration matters from the European Court of Human Rights?
Yvette Cooper
That is not my understanding of what those on the Opposition Front Bench were arguing for; that was about the Human Rights Act risking there being more issues with the domestic courts being unable to take decisions before things go to the European courts, but I will leave the hon. Gentleman to wrangle with his party about what its position is. We think there needs to be reform of the way article 8 is interpreted. Too many cases around family rules have been treated as exceptions, and that higher level of decision making cannot be exceptional if so many cases are being treated as exceptions. This means that we need to look at the rules themselves, and we also need much greater clarity about the way we believe those rules should be interpreted, and the way family migration should be interpreted in the courts.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
Much has been said about the role of the European convention on human rights, and it appears that the party of Churchill is seeking to abandon his legacy in its lurch towards the right, just as there is a growing consensus among European nations that we need to modernise it for today’s times. Does the Home Secretary agree that Britain should be part of leading that change, rather than leaving and turning us into Belarus or Russia?
Yvette Cooper
We have a strong history of leading on international standards and international legal frameworks. Of course, laws and the ways in which they are interpreted need to move with the times and keep up to date with the new challenges, including in a world of mass communications where we face very different kinds of challenges than we did 20 or 50 years ago. My hon. Friend is right to say that the UK has always played that leading role in defining those standards, and in making sure that other countries abide by international laws. We will lose out and not get the kind of international co-operation that we need if we just rip up that international law and co-operation.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I am proud that this country helps refugees, and I am intensely proud that I spent years building a charity working with Rwandan refugees from the genocide, but in Horley there have been two serious criminal incidents in the past three months relating to the Four Points hotel. My constituents have legitimate safety concerns, although the police have acted promptly, so what steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that the Four Points hotel is closed as an asylum hotel as soon as possible?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member makes an important point. We want all asylum hotels to close, including in his constituency, and we need to do that in a controlled and orderly manner. We also need to strengthen the arrangements, to ensure that the law and the rules are enforced and that public safety considerations are taken seriously as part of the management of the whole asylum and immigration system. That is why we are developing new partnerships between policing, immigration enforcement, the Home Office and asylum accommodation providers. It is immensely important that there is proper shared information and stronger arrangements to ensure that criminality, wherever is found, it is properly and swiftly tackled.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
The shadow Home Secretary, the former Immigration Minister, has some brass neck, do we not think? He opened so many hotels that at one stage I thought he might take over from Lenny Henry in fronting Premier Inn. My constituents are so fed up with this, and I am glad that the Home Secretary is taking it so seriously, getting the numbers down. While we do everything we can to get the numbers down, does she agree that everyone involved in the debate, particularly politicians, should not incite or encourage the sort of aggression and, actually, sheer racism that we have seen over the summer, some of which was directed towards our brave police officers?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that the previous Government, including the shadow Home Secretary when he was Immigration Minister, were responsible for a huge increase in asylum hotels and presided over a tenfold increase in small boat crossings. The important thing now is to ensure that we can end asylum hotels and bring back control into the system. But as we do so, we should ensure that we do not have divisive or hateful rhetoric, or anything that promotes violence against police officers or within communities, which is always a disgrace.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Home Secretary is right to talk about tackling the push and pull factors—something we worked towards tackling when we were in government, despite challenges with bringing forward the use of third countries. That is because we need both a deterrent and a place to send people whose country of origin we either do not know or we do not have a returns agreement with. It is no surprise to me that arrivals have increased since that scheme was scrapped. I understand that a period of reset is happening in Downing Street, so how long before we can expect her to come to the Dispatch Box to introduce a third-country scheme?
Yvette Cooper
This Government have managed to get the agreement with France in place—that pilot agreement that we seek to build. France, obviously, is not the country where most of the people passing through started from, so it is effectively a third-country agreement that we have already put in place and are now working to implement on a pilot basis. We are also working with other European countries to explore returns hubs. But what we do not think is the right thing to do is have an incredibly expensive programme that sent just four volunteers and, during the two years-plus that it was in operation, ended up costing £700 million while 84,000 people arrived in the UK.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Peterborough is a proud and generous place and has welcomed many people through its doors over generations. I pay tribute to the churches, mosques and community groups that are welcoming people and looking after them. But people are getting fed up with a system that is broken, and it was broken before my right hon. Friend became Home Secretary. Many of my constituents will welcome the record deportations and the focus on article 8 and making efficiencies in driving forward the system. But to be honest, the biggest issue in my constituency remains the hotel that was opened by Serco with no consultation with the police or the council beforehand. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will ensure that there is no single bureaucratic block and no stone left unturned in getting the Dragonfly hotel closed as soon as possible, as part of fixing this rotten, broken system?
Yvette Cooper
We have made it clear that we need to end all asylum hotels, including the hotel in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is because we believe in the UK’s long history of helping those fleeing persecution and conflict in an ordered way that we also need to get control and fix the chaos that we inherited, including ending asylum hotels, which are undermining confidence in the whole system and were introduced exactly because the previous Government lost control of the system. That is what now needs to be turned around, and those are the foundations we are putting in place.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Home Secretary has touched on it a couple of times, but I am yet to hear from her about the scope of the Government’s asylum accommodation programme, which is currently rated “amber”. Despite the fact that 29,003 asylum seekers have arrived by small boat so far this year, the scope of the programme, following its strategic refresh, will mean the creation of only 5,000 bed spaces by the end of 2026, spread across three accommodation pilots. Where will those three pilots be, how many bed spaces will each have, and at what stage is each one?
Yvette Cooper
We are developing alternative approaches to asylum accommodation, including work with local councils that have come forward and with other Departments. We will provide an update as we make progress. Two things need to happen together: the shift to alternative sites must follow value-for-money tests—not having the proper assessments in place was a mistake that often happened in the past, as the Public Accounts Committee identified—and we must reduce the number of people in the asylum accommodation system overall. If we do not reduce the numbers in the system but simply move the problem around from place to place, we will not solve it and get it back under control.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Ensuring that we have a humane and functioning asylum and immigration system requires competence, credibility and compassion. I welcome the credible plan that the Government have put in place. Our approach must also be holistic, part of which means tackling the root causes of displacement, conflict and persecution. The Home Secretary has touched on how we are working with other countries, but will she also talk about how she is working across Government to address those drivers of displacement?
Yvette Cooper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. She is absolutely right to say that any comprehensive and effective approach—internationally, not just here in the UK—must consider the causes and drivers of mass migration: people fleeing persecution and conflict, and the economic migration issues that have caused significant challenges. The Foreign Secretary and I have set up a joint migration team to work closely on some of those issues, and he has also made issues around migration a key priority for the Foreign Office. This is clearly an important cross-Government issue on which we are working together.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
When Labour was in opposition, it attacked the Conservatives on the small number of asylum seekers who had been removed to Rwanda as part of the Tory deterrent. Now that the Conservatives are in opposition, they are attacking Labour for the small number of asylum seekers who will be removed to France as part of the Labour deterrent. Does the Home Secretary accept that, in order for a deterrent to work, people considering that dangerous crossing need to know that it may be in vain?
Yvette Cooper
We have established the agreement with France as a pilot agreement, and we want to develop and expand it. It allows us to detain people immediately on arrival at Western Jet Foil in Dover in order then to be returned. The first cases have been referred to France, and we expect the first returns to start during the course of this month. As well as the impact of undermining the criminal business model of the gangs—the deterrence that the hon. Gentleman talks about—there is the important principle that people arriving illegally on dangerous boats having paid criminal gangs should be returned, but the UK should do its bit, in a controlled and managed way alongside other countries, for those who apply through legal routes and go through proper security checks.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and strongly welcome the enforcement action taken recently by UK Border Force, Cumbria police and local trading standards to crack down on illegal trading and illegal retail work in my Carlisle constituency. Will she reassure my constituents that there will be no let-up in that enforcement activity, and that the same rigour will be applied to migrant workers employed as delivery riders?
Yvette Cooper
I, too, welcome the law enforcement work in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We have set up a domestic organised immigration crime taskforce to work across different police forces on the networks that are exploiting illegal working, which often have networks into all kinds of other organised crime, undermine communities and town centres, and exploit individuals and border security. We are strengthening that domestic work, which had never before been done, as a result of the report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On the watch of this Home Secretary, 2025 has been the worst year on record for small boat crossings. The Government claim that they want to end the use of asylum hotels, but the right hon. Lady is not telling us when they will do that. I would like reassurance that we will not see an increase in houses in multiple occupation, local houses or flats being rented for those individuals, or any increase in costs for local councils.
Yvette Cooper
Unfortunately, the Conservative Front Benchers want us to go back to the position that we inherited from the previous Government. Their freeze on asylum decisions would have left us with tens of thousands more people in asylum hotels. We will end asylum hotels over the course of this Parliament, not simply by moving people to different kinds of accommodation—that is an important point—but by reducing the overall size of the asylum system. The previous Government’s policies were doing the opposite and increasing it. If we do not reduce the overall size of the asylum system, we will never solve the problem, or rebuild the confidence of people across the UK.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
In the east end of London, we have a proud history of welcoming refugees and migrants, many of them fleeing war and persecution, but over recent years and months, the political and media establishment has been complicit in the normalisation of Islamophobia and anti-migrant rhetoric. Over the summer, there have been campaigns to target asylum seekers outside hotels, and people have resorted to violent aggression, including yesterday in my constituency. That is putting all of us at risk. What exactly will the Home Secretary do to ensure that asylum seekers, refugees, migrants and all those who live in my constituency are safe from attempts—including those organised by the far right—to create fear and division in our area?
Yvette Cooper
Everyone has a right to be safe, and to respect. The pursuit of division, hatred and violence is never acceptable, in the immigration and asylum system or more widely across our country. It is hugely important that alongside all the reforms that we introduce—we do need reform to the system—we have clear recognition of our shared humanity and the need to prevent any kind of violence and hatred, or the tensions and problems that my hon. Friend describes.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
With the number of crossings up more than 40% this year alone, at some 30,000, clearly the Government’s policies are acting as a magnet, not a deterrent. When will the Home Secretary realise that the only effective deterrent is to detain and deport everyone who comes here illegally, and that to do that, we must leave the European convention on human rights?
Yvette Cooper
This Government have, since the election, increased the number of returns of those who have no right to be here. There has been a 28% increase in returns of failed asylum seekers. We are strengthening enforcement and bringing in new counter-terrorism powers that allow us to go after the criminal gangs. Incomprehensibly, the hon. Gentleman’s party voted against those counter-terrorism powers. It seems to oppose the action that we need to take to go after the criminal gangs. If he and the Conservatives were to support the new powers, we could bring them in swiftly, in the course of a few months, and give our law enforcement the power to take stronger action against the criminal gangs. I hope that he supports the agreement with France, which provides for the immediate detention of people arriving in the UK, and their return to France. The trouble with his party’s policies is that they sound an awful lot like the previous Conservative Government’s policies, which totally failed. The Conservative Government were chaos; his party seems to be chaos on steroids. His party is not trying to solve the problem. All it is trying to do is exploit it. We need a properly controlled and managed system that goes after the criminal gangs, who should not be able to get away with their vile trade.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Gloucester has a proud history as a welcoming and diverse city. Just last week, I was pleased to attend the Ukrainian independence day celebrations in my constituency with some of those who have sought refuge in our city. However, many constituents have written to me, particularly those who live next door to the asylum hotel that was opened by the last Conservative Government, with legitimate concerns about the future of that site, and the impact on them of things like protests on their front doorstep. Will the Home Secretary reassure my constituents that the policy that she has announced today will speed up the end of the use of that hotel for asylum seekers? Will she meet me to discuss the impact of such sites on local residents in Gloucester?
Yvette Cooper
I can tell my hon. Friend that we will end the use of asylum hotels. We will close the asylum hotels that the previous Government opened, including in his constituency; it is hugely important that we do. He is right to talk about our long history of people from across the country supporting refugees. They include the more than 100,000 families who came forward to offer homes to Ukrainians at the beginning of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. That spirit and those values are immensely important, but people need to know that the system is being properly controlled and managed, and that misuse is being tackled. That is why it is so important to end the use of asylum hotels.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is clear that the Government have lost control. The Government are going against their own election manifesto by taking the issue through the courts. I have asked this question before but not had an answer, so I ask it again: can the Home Secretary give me a date when the hotel in my constituency of Broxbourne will close to illegal asylum seekers?
Yvette Cooper
We have been clear that we will end the use of the asylum hotels that were opened by the previous Government; we will close those asylum hotels. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support our reforms to the appeals system, so that we can speed them through Parliament and clear the backlog. I hope that he supports the increase in decision making that we had to introduce after his party froze decision making, creating a soaring backlog that would have increased the number of people in hotels. I also hope that he will support the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is passing through the other place and will bring in stronger counter-terrorism powers, enabling us to go after the criminal gangs who are organising the small boats; sadly, his party is still opposing the Bill.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
We must stop criminal gangs launching illegal crossings from the French coast. Will the Home Secretary update us on her conversations with the French authorities to ensure that their tactics include intervening in shallow waters, so that they stop as many of these boats as possible at source?
Yvette Cooper
The French Government have been undertaking a maritime review, and the Interior Minister has been strongly pursuing the issue to ensure that there can be intervention in French waters. Criminal gangs operate taxi-boat tactics to load people on to the boats in shallow waters, resulting in some of the disgraceful scenes that we have seen, so the maritime review is looking at ways to intervene in shallow waters to prevent the boat crossings in the first place. Alongside that, there is the extension of the Compagnie de Marche and the additional patrols along French beaches that have been agreed, as well as the new judicial prosecution unit in Dunkirk, which is now working closely with the Border Security Command. These are part of the important foundations for strengthening law enforcement.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Whatever the promised tinkering with article 8, the reality is that this Government, or any Government, will only get a grip on out-of-control illegal immigration by quitting the ECHR. I agree that article 8 is a problem, but the answer is article 58, which allows the Government to serve notice that they are leaving the ECHR. Unless and until they do that, we are not going to solve this problem. How does the Home Secretary hope to sort out this mess while her every action is subject to the foreign stipulations and, ultimately, the foreign Court that is diligently applying the ECHR to which she clings? Does that not mean that we go round endlessly in a circle? Will the appeal panels be subject to judicial review, during which, again, the ECHR can be relied on?
Yvette Cooper
Having international law and abiding by it has helped us to get new agreements to return people who arrive by small boats. It is also helping us to work with other European countries on returns hubs, so that we can increase returns. I think there is a problem with the way that article 8 is being interpreted in the courts; that is why I have been clear that reforms are needed. We will bring those forward in a major package of reforms to the asylum system before the end of this year.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Conservatives and Reform appear to be engaged in competitive populism, and one of the consequences of that is opportunism. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is surprising that they pose as the parties who are on the side of local democracy when it comes to asylum hotels? Can she confirm that not only did the current shadow Home Secretary decide in March 2020 to suspend the practice of consulting local authorities before opening asylum hotels in their area, but that the practice remained suspended for the rest of the time that the Conservatives were in government, even after the emergency of the pandemic ended?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. The shadow Home Secretary not only lifted the responsibility to consult local authorities, but voted against amendments put forward by the Labour Opposition at the time to strengthen the work with local authorities. This Government are strengthening that work with local authorities instead. All the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Justice Secretary seem to do is chase each other’s tails to try to get to the next photo opportunity first, or chase the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). It is just more chaos from the Opposition parties.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is not populist to want safe and secure communities, but we are going round in circles. The only way we are going to solve this crisis is by withdrawing from outdated refugee conventions, rescinding the insidious ECHR from our laws, and using British military assets to prevent incursion into British waters. Will the Home Secretary commit to doing that today?
Yvette Cooper
I point out to the hon. Member that his party was in power during eight years in which criminal gangs were able to take hold along the borders and undermine our border security. It should be Governments, not gangs, who decide who enters our country. We need the counter-terrorism powers to go after those criminal gangs, and the hon. Gentleman and his party are still voting against them. Shameful!
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It cannot be denied that we have inherited a very difficult position, and that there has recently been a real increase in the rhetoric on this issue, which is causing serious worry, upset, anger and mistrust in our communities. Many vital measures to tackle this organised crime, such as counter-terror-style powers against gangs, a new offence on endangerment at sea, banning sex offenders from the asylum system and powers to search phones, are stuck in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Tories and Reform were really serious about these changes, they would stop voting and organising against the Bill, put their constituents and my constituents at the heart of this matter, and let us put the Bill into force?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Tories and Reform could start working with us tomorrow to speed up the passage of this crucial legislation, which would give our law enforcement counter-terrorism powers to go after smuggler gangs. These new offences would mean that they could download and search the mobile phones of people arriving on small boats and, crucially, ban sex offenders from the asylum system altogether. You would think that the Opposition parties would support that; instead, they have been blocking the Bill. That is shameful.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Our country should be proud of the fact that in the 1930s we welcomed 10,000 Jewish children from Europe on the Kindertransport. Alas, our predecessors would not countenance bringing across those children’s parents, and we know that the cost of that decision was the massacre of those parents in the Holocaust. There has always been vocal opposition to migration in this country, but I remind the Government that responsibility lies with them. Across our country today, thousands of vulnerable refugees are afraid; they are afraid of the rise in right-wing activity and in right-wing rhetoric—rhetoric that this Government have flirted with. I invite the Government not to follow the Conservative party or Reform UK into the abyss and to treat this issue with the compassion it deserves.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member refers to the Kindertransport and the important support for children it provided. The UK also took orphaned Jewish children from concentration camps and provided them with a home and a future in the UK. We have a long history of supporting those who have fled persecution and conflict, and that is exactly why it is so important that the system is properly managed and controlled and that we tackle the chaos we have inherited and strengthen our border security, in order to restore confidence in the very system and values that the hon. Member describes. This Government will never pursue the violence-promoting rhetoric that can cause such division. We will always be responsible and serious about the practical steps that need to be taken to deal with the chaos we inherited.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome the content of the Home Secretary’s statement, particularly the UK-France migrant deal, which provides a safe and legal route for all those families who are genuinely fleeing persecution and who play by the rules and want to enter the country legally. The deal balances that with the need to remove from this country and send back to France those who try to jump the queue in small boats.
The shadow Home Secretary suggested that the potential figure of 50 returns a week under this pilot scheme is not enough. Under the last Government, 128,000 people crossed the channel; can the Home Secretary remind the House how many of those people were returned to France? It was not 50 a week or 100 a week—it was zero a week, every week for six and a half years.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The previous Government made a whole series of grand but empty claims. They returned no one to France who had arrived on a small boat—they had no agreement in place to do so—and they also sent no one to Rwanda, other than four volunteers who were paid to go. Again and again, all the previous Government did was escalate the rhetoric and the chaos, rather than take the practical steps necessary to get the returns we need.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
In her statement, the Home Secretary set out that the Government would establish an independent body to process asylum appeals. That will work only if it is delivered at pace, resourced and well-staffed, so can she set out when that independent body will start recruiting arbitrators and support staff and when it will be operating at full pelt? Will it operate seven days a week? If in a year’s time we come back from next summer’s recess with immigration rates higher than this year’s, will the Home Secretary take personal responsibility for that?
Yvette Cooper
We are seeking accelerated legislation to bring in the new independent appeals commission. The hon. Gentleman will know that once that legislation begins its passage through the House, it will be possible to start implementation and make sure we can invest in getting the trained adjudicators in place. We will provide an update before the end of this year, both on the timetable and on the further details of how that appeals system will work. Obviously, it has to be fully independent of the Home Office and of the Government, but it needs to be able to surge and respond swiftly in order to prevent the growth of huge backlogs. I really hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will be able to support that legislation, because if they do so, we will be able to move it through much more quickly and implement the new body much more quickly.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I had forgotten how much I enjoyed bobbing.
We all want to be proud of the UK’s asylum system, but because of the mess we inherited from the previous Government, none of us are there right now; that is just a fact. I thank the Home Secretary for the methodical work that she is doing to get a grip of the situation and get the system back on track. It really pains me, though, that some of the people who are behind this mess are now sitting on the Opposition Benches and seeking to weaponise it, rather than apologising to the country. Does the Home Secretary share my hope that extending the Ukrainian visa scheme and the refugee student scheme, bringing Gaza students here and supporting injured Gazan children will provide a chance to show the UK immigration system at its best?
Yvette Cooper
I hope the Conservatives will support Gazan students being able to take up their places and scholarships in the UK, just as I hope they will also support the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which they are still opposing.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Government appear to be conflating the terms “illegal immigrant” and “asylum seeker.” The UK has rightly in the past taken in asylum seekers, including Ukrainians fleeing persecution, but they are different from those who are crossing the channel illegally, the vast majority of whom are men aged 20 to 30 who appear to have no children or families crossing with them. I have three questions for the Home Secretary: does she agree with the Prime Minister’s comments that the UK has plenty of housing to accommodate illegal immigrants; will she rule out the use of houses of multiple occupation; and will she rule out the use of social housing for illegal immigrants?
Yvette Cooper
Given what the hon. Member said about crossings, I hope he will support the French pilot agreement, which means we can return to France people who make these dangerous or illegal journeys and in exchange have a legal process for people who apply properly, follow the rules and go through security checks. We have been clear that the way to tackle the chaos in the asylum system is to end asylum hotels, but to do so by reducing the overall number of people in the asylum accommodation system, and that includes sorting out the appeals chaos we inherited from the hon. Member’s party.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Home Secretary was right to emphasise that respect for each other and respect for the rule of law are fundamental British values, and they are underpinned by our robust human rights framework, which underscores and protects individual liberties. Winston Churchill knew that, which is why he was such a supporter of the European convention on human rights after world war two. Will the Home Secretary do all she can to protect our human rights framework from those on the Opposition Benches who would tear it up for a cheap headline, by campaigning as hard as she can to make sure that the ECHR is fit for the 21st century, restoring public confidence?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that we need reforms, but we also need to recognise that international law can help to underpin international co-operation. The criminal gangs operate across borders and exploit the fact that too often Governments and law enforcement agencies do not operate across borders in order to go after them. That is why we need that international co-operation in place, underpinned by a legal framework.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The national conversation on immigration and asylum is being dominated loudly by colleagues in this place who have a sorry track record of stirring up division and dehumanising people seeking sanctuary from some of the world’s harshest regimes and conflicts. Many of my constituents have raised their fears with me this summer. Given that immigration has soared since we left the European Union, does the Home Secretary agree that the architects of the damaging Brexit campaign are probably the people least likely to have the answer to the small boat crossings, and that we must do all we can to emphasise the benefits and value that migrants bring to the UK, as they have done for centuries?
Yvette Cooper
The Conservative party in government managed to create chaos in the asylum system and let criminal gangs take over along our borders while illegal migration quadrupled in the space of just four years. Immigration has always been an important part of our history, and that is why it needs to be properly controlled and managed in a fair and sensible way, which has not happened too often in the past. It needs to be serious and respectful to other people, to make sure that we as a country come together at the same time as making sure there are proper controls in the system.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she accept that the frustration many feel about illegal immigration must never be confused with opinions about those who come and add to our society in the NHS, in agriculture and in many other jobs where we rely on help from foreign nationals? Does the Home Secretary not accept that the route to the UK from the Republic of Ireland through Northern Ireland is feeding that frenzy? Will she finally rightfully close the current loopholes and block the back-door access to the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right that people have long supported those coming to work in our NHS through legal routes. Those routes have to be controlled and managed, however, and migration quadrupling under the previous Government was a serious problem. That is why we are bringing legal migration down; that is why we put that in the immigration White Paper. The hon. Gentleman is also right that some of the most serious concerns are about dangerous and illegal boat crossings that are underpinned and facilitated by criminal gangs. He raises a separate issue about Ireland and Northern Ireland, but he will know that the common travel area is a long-standing part of our history and arrangements. We have close security co-operation with the Irish Government and Irish law enforcement for exactly that reason, and it is an important part of the arrangements and the close relationship between our countries.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
That concludes the statement. I thank the Home Secretary and Members for their time. The Home Secretary has been on her feet for around two and a half hours and we have had over 80 Back-Bench contributions. I will now give the House a few moments to settle and for the Front-Bench teams to swap over.
Middle East
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Iran.
In Gaza, the situation on the ground is unimaginably bleak. Horrifying images and accounts will be seared into the minds of colleagues across this House. They are almost impossible to put into words, but we can and must be precise with our language, because on 22 August the United Nations-backed IPC mechanism confirmed what we are witnessing: famine—famine in Gaza city; famine in its surrounding neighbourhoods now spreading across the wider territory; famine which, if unchecked, will spiral into widespread starvation.
This was foreseen: it is the terrible conclusion of the obstacles we have warned about for over six months. Since 1 July, over 300 people have died from malnutrition, including 119 children. More than 132,000 children under the age of five are at risk of dying from hunger by June next year. This is not a natural disaster; it is a man-made famine in the 21st century, and I am outraged by the Israeli Government’s refusal to allow in sufficient aid. We need a massive humanitarian response to prevent more deaths, crucial non-governmental organisations, humanitarians and health workers to be allowed to operate, and stockpiles of aid on Gaza’s borders to be released. In the past three months, more than 2,000 Gazans have been killed trying to feed their families, and Hamas themselves are exploiting the chaos and deliberately starving Israeli hostages for abhorrent political purposes.
I know that these words of condemnation, echoed across legislatures all over the world, are not enough, but be in no doubt: we have acted as a country where we can. We restored funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. We suspended arms exports that could be used in Gaza. We signed a landmark agreement with the Palestinian Authority. We stood up for the independence of international courts. We have delivered three sanctions packages on violent settlers and far-right Israeli Ministers for incitement. We have suspended trade negotiations with the Israeli Government. We are at the forefront of the international community’s work to plan for a stable, post-conflict peace. We have now provided more than £250 million in development assistance over the past two years.
Today, we are going further. I can announce an additional £15 million of aid and medical care for Gaza and the region. We continue to work alongside regional partners, including Egypt and Jordan, to enable the United Nations and non-governmental organisations to ensure that aid reaches those most in need. Brave medics in Gaza tell us that essential medicines are running out and they cannot operate safely. That is why we are funding UK-Med, whose field hospitals have treated more than 600,000 Gazans. It is also why we are funding the World Health Organisation in Egypt to treat thousands of evacuated Gazan people.
Meanwhile, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier, we are working with the World Health Organisation to get critically ill and injured children into the UK, where they will receive specialist NHS treatment. The first patients are expected to arrive in the UK in the coming weeks. Extracting people from a war zone is, of course, complex and dangerous, and it relies entirely on Israeli permissions. I am pressing the Israeli Government for that to happen as quickly as possible. We are also supporting brilliant students granted Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Chevening scholarships and other scholarships to escape Gaza, so that they can take up their places for the coming academic year.
I recognise that those things only touch the edges of this catastrophe. We all know that there is only one way out: an immediate ceasefire that would see the unconditional release by Hamas of all hostages and a transformation in the delivery of aid. We know it, our US and European allies know it, and our Gulf partners know it, too. I am working night and day with them to deliver a ceasefire and a wider political process to deliver long-term peace. To make a ceasefire last, we need a monitoring mechanism, the disarmament of Hamas and a new governance framework for Gaza. That is the focus of our intense diplomacy in the region.
In contrast, further military operations in Gaza City will only prolong and deepen the crisis. Together with our partners, we demand an immediate halt to the operation. Each week brings new horrors. Last week’s double strike on Nasser hospital—one of Gaza’s last remaining major health facilities—killed 20 people, including five journalists. I remind Israel once again that international law requires the protection of healthcare workers, journalists and civilians. These actions will not end the war, and they will not bring the hostages home, let alone make them safer, as hostage families have recognised. Such actions will sow despair and anger across the region for generations.
In the west bank, the Israeli Government are tightening their stranglehold on the Palestinian economy and continue to approve illegal settlement construction, including just recently in the E1 area east of Jerusalem. That would erect a physical barrier to the contiguous Palestinian state, and it must not happen.
In July, I described before the UN General Assembly our intention to recognise the state of Palestine later this month, unless the Israeli Government take substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commit to a long-term sustainable peace. That commitment responds to the current crisis, but stems from our historic responsibility to the region’s security, reaching back over a century to the Balfour declaration. As I said last month in New York, I am deeply proud that it was a British Foreign Secretary who helped establish a homeland for the Jewish people, but the same declaration promised that
“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights”
of the Palestinian people. Those rights are more under threat than at any point in the past century.
To those who say recognition rewards Hamas or threatens Israeli security, it does neither. Recognition is rooted in the principle of a two-state solution, which Hamas rejects. We have been clear that any Palestinian state should be demilitarised. Indeed, President Abbas has confirmed that in writing. We see no contradiction between the two-state solution and our deep commitment to Israeli security, because security comes from stable borders, not indefinite occupation.
Before I finish, I would also like to update the House on Iran. On 28 August, the UK, along with France and Germany, triggered the snapback mechanism under UN Security Council resolution 2231. That means that if no new agreement is reached within 30 days, the sanctions that were lifted under the Iran nuclear deal—the joint comprehensive plan of action—will come back into force. Those wide-ranging sanctions include a full arms embargo and restrictions on Iran’s nuclear, missile and drone programme. It was not a decision we took lightly. For years, we have worked with international partners to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The 2015 deal was meant to do just that, but Iran has repeatedly undermined the agreement. Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium is now 40 times over the limit set by the JCPOA. Despite that clear escalation, we have made every effort over years of negotiations to bring Iran back to compliance. Those efforts have continued in recent months. I have urged Foreign Minister Araghchi to de-escalate and choose diplomacy.
In July, we offered Iran more time if it agreed to return to negotiations with the US and restore full access to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Last month, I warned Iran that time was short and we would have little choice but to trigger snapback. I regret to inform the House that Iran has not complied with its legal obligations, nor chosen the path of diplomacy, so we have had no choice but to act. I have long been clear that I will not allow snapback to expire without a durable and comprehensive deal. It would be unacceptable to allow this issue to fall off the UN Security Council agenda, despite the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme. Snapback is not the end of diplomacy, as Secretary Rubio has also recently underlined. Iran can still meet our conditions. It can restore full IAEA access and address our concerns about its stockpile and enrichment, and it can return to negotiations. Alongside our partners, I will continue to urge Iran to choose that path.
In the worst of times, this Government will continue to take all the steps that we can to alleviate suffering, to help bring regional conflict to an end and to create the conditions for long-term peace and security. We will not rest until there is a ceasefire in Gaza, the hostages are returned, and a flood of aid reaches those in desperate need. Despite the obstacles before us, we will work with partners to preserve the two-state solution. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Foreign Secretary, who can speak for up to six and a half minutes.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. Let me also express my sympathy for the people of Afghanistan who are suffering as a result of last night’s major earthquake.
Since the House last met, the awful conflict in the middle east has continued to see lives lost, with intolerable suffering. Hamas continues to refuse the release of all remaining hostages, despite the best efforts of those trying to broker peace. The hostages are now approaching 700 days in captivity, and the whole House will have been sickened by the harrowing clip of the emaciated hostage Evyatar David, which was released by Hamas over the summer. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, and we are all familiar with the reports that we have seen daily on news channels. The inhumane suffering, the recent airstrikes and the inability to provide food for civilians simply cannot go on. We all want an urgent and sustainable end to this conflict. We want to see the release of the hostages from terrorist captivity, and to see aid for the people of Gaza.
There are key questions for the British Government to answer. The British Government are in a position to help influence those outcomes, but are they actually fully leveraging their ability to do so? The Government’s frequent statements have so far not moved the dial closer to a sustainable end to the conflict, and, as the Foreign Secretary himself has said, we are not in a position to see any alleviation of this horrendous situation. Diplomacy is about putting in the hard yards to find solutions, not just about giving statements, and I therefore want to ask the Foreign Secretary three specific questions.
First, are the Government taking any new specific action to tighten the screws on Hamas and pile more pressure on them to release the hostages? Should we expect more measures to further degrade Hamas’s ability to finance their campaign of terror? Why are the Government not leading international efforts to produce a credible plan to do exactly that, with an agreement from all the key regional partners and players with an interest in peace to see Hamas leave Gaza? Secondly, can the Foreign Secretary update the House on precisely where we stand and what Britain is contributing to the efforts of the United Nations and our regional allies to broker the release of hostages, and to an end of the conflict? Are we intimately involved, and are we sending in the UK expertise to help, given that we have great expertise when it comes to brokering negotiations of this kind? Thirdly, while we note the Foreign Secretary’s announcement yesterday about support for women and girls, the Government have yet to make essential breakthroughs on aid.
Ministers must obviously work around the clock with everyone—with all our partners, including the Israelis and multinational institutions—to unblock the situation by coming up with practical solutions, even new solutions, on which all sides can focus when it comes to getting medical and food aid into Gaza. That must provide a significant increase in food and medical supplies reaching civilians while also addressing Israeli concerns about aid diversion, because those concerns are constant. Is the UK working with the multilateral bodies to try to mediate in the divisions and breakdowns of trust that have emerged with the Government of Israel? Is the Foreign Secretary considering schemes similar to those implemented by the Conservative Government, such as the floating piers that, working with the United States and Cyprus, we put in place off the coast of Gaza to get aid in? We need pragmatic and practical solutions to get food and medical supplies to innocent civilians in Gaza.
Let me now turn to Labour’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state. The Government announced that huge shift in British policy just days after the House went into recess. We all support a two-state solution that guarantees security for both Israelis and Palestinians, but the Foreign Secretary must know that recognising a Palestinian state in September will not secure the lasting peace that we all want to see. Recognition is meaningful only if it is part of a formal peace process, and it should not happen while the hostages are still being held in terrorist captivity and while Hamas’s reign of terror continues. Can the Foreign Secretary explain his plan to go ahead with recognition while hostages are still being held, and while Hamas, who have predictably welcomed and been emboldened by this move, continue to hold on to power in Gaza? What practical measures are we proposing to remove Hamas from Gaza?
The Foreign Secretary must realise that recognition will not secure the release of the hostages or get aid into Gaza immediately. We must always consider what tools of leverage we have in respect of future peace processes and negotiations that could actually help to establish a two-state solution and peace in the middle east. How will this unilateral action help to advance the best shot that we have at achieving a two-state solution, which is the expansion of the Abraham accords and Saudi normalisation, through which we could also calibrate our actions?
As for the question of the middle east more broadly, the appalling behaviour of the Iranian regime has gone on for too long, and the regime has brought the initiation of the snapback process on itself. The Iranian people deserve much better. Tehran must never obtain a nuclear weapon, and Conservatives remain clear about the fact that the recent US strikes were necessary. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he believes that Iran has the capability and the intention of recommencing its nuclear programme, and whether his assumption is that the snapback process will be seen through to completion? Can he tell us whether or not he welcomes Israel’s actions regarding the Houthi leadership in Yemen, and can he update the House on how the UK will use this moment to further degrade the Houthis’ ability to carry out the attacks and strikes that we have seen recently?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for the tone of her remarks. I am pleased that she agrees with me and, indeed, shares the sentiment of the entire House on the dire—as she described it— humanitarian situation in Gaza and the inhumanity that she also described. She will recognise that even before we came to power, the last Government were calling for the ceasefire that we all want to see.
The right hon. Lady asked what the Government were doing in relation to Hamas. In New York, with our Arab partners, the French and others, we were doing just that—supporting the Prime Minister’s framework for peace, and working with colleagues to establish the circumstances of the day after. We have been crystal clear: there can be no role for Hamas. We need the demilitarisation of Gaza, and we are working with partners to try to set up the trusteeship, the new governance arrangement with Gaza. No Government are doing more than we are. We signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority, and we are working with it on reform in a deliberate, day-to-day action, because there must be a role for it subsequently.
The right hon. Lady asked what new solutions on aid might be found. That is where I depart with her sentiments, because I am not sure that we need new solutions. We need the old ones: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and the World Food Programme. They exist, so let us support them. It was this party that restored funding to UNRWA when it was opposed by the Opposition. Let me say gently to the right hon. Lady that that is not what feeds women and girls. The mechanisms are there, and they work all over the globe. This worked the last time we had a ceasefire, when as many as 600 trucks a day went in, and we can do it once more. That is the position of the UK Government.
I spoke to Tom Fletcher at the United Nations this morning to get the latest. The moderately good news is that the number of truck movements in August was higher than it was when I last updated the House in July, as the House was going into recess, but he reminded me that 60 or 70 trucks a day was nowhere near the number needed. I found the extra resources today because we know that the medical situation is dire, and the work that we can do with UK-Med is so important and so valued even when we are up against this horrific situation.
Let me be crystal clear: Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Our demands are unconditional and have not changed. The hostages must be released without delay, and there can be no role for Hamas. But equally, the right hon. Lady will have seen the situation in the west bank. She did not comment on the E1 development running a coach and horses through the idea of two states, which has been the united position of every single party in this Chamber. That is why we set out the plans for recognition. Unless we get the breakthrough that we need on the ceasefire and a full process, we will move to recognition when UNGA meets in New York.
I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s support on Iran and the snapback. My assessment is that no country needs the percentages of enriched uranium that we see in Iran. We do not have them in our country. We do not have them at sites like Sellafield and others, including the Urenco site. There is absolutely no need for them. We need a baseline, and that is why we need the inspectors back in. We need to know where the highly enriched uranium has gone, and that is why we have been very clear with the Iranians on the need to trigger snapback. We will see the sanctions come back unless we can reach a diplomatic solution in the next 30 days.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I read with alarm yesterday’s report in The Washington Post detailing a plan for the future of Gaza that is circulating among the Trump Administration. They call it the “GREAT” plan. It proposes the total transformation of Gaza into a tourist region—a high-tech hub under temporary US administration. What is going to happen to the Gazans? Well, 2 million of them will be temporarily relocated to other countries, including Somaliland and South Sudan. Forced population transfer is contrary to, and a complete violation of, international humanitarian law.
Serious thought must be given to the day after for Gaza, and my Committee recommended as much in our report that was published in July, but this unserious, illegal and deeply dystopian plan cannot be the sum of that thinking. What are the Government doing to dissuade Donald Trump from following this path? What, alongside regional and European allies, are we doing to put forward a serious plan for a peaceful future in Israel, Gaza and the west bank that is ready for the day after this terrible war finally comes to an end?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend —my dear friend—for her remarks, and I commend the work of her Committee on the day after and the thoroughness of approach that is required. I have read the reports, but it is speculative stuff that I have seen in different news articles; it is not a comprehensive approach. In my discussions with the US system, I have seen nothing confirmed along the lines of what she said. The day after requires the removal of Hamas; it cannot be about the further displacement of the Gazan people. It is going to require a degree of finance and stability, which I think will require other states, particularly Arab partners. They would set themselves against the sorts of reports I have seen in the papers.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has up to three minutes for his remarks.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I welcome the robust approach of the E3 in initiating the snapback mechanism in response to Iran’s nuclear ambitions and programme, which are in breach of its undertakings.
The Foreign Secretary’s statement on 21 July shocked this House, and we had a long debate about the situation in Gaza, yet the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the west bank has deteriorated even further since then, as he has acknowledged. We have seen hundreds more Palestinians killed while seeking aid; famine declared in the strip; a chronic lack of medical supplies, attested to by UK medics volunteering in Nasser hospital; the start of IDF operations in Gaza City; and the images of emaciated hostages still held in brutal captivity by Hamas terrorists.
The human suffering is indeed beyond comprehension, yet the extremists are indifferent. Hamas terrorists publish videos intended to torment the families of hostages. Cabinet members Ben-Gvir and Smotrich advocate for the forced displacement of Palestinians. In Israel, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum and Opposition parties call for an end to the violence. In the UK, our constituents are desperate for the same. The bloodshed can be stopped only by decisive actions—actions that I regret the Government have so far failed to take.
The Prime Minister was wrong in principle to condition the recognition of Palestine on the actions of the Netanyahu Government, and wrong in practice, as he has been ignored. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm today that the UK will recognise Palestine later this month at the UN? The Government must learn a lesson and now apply relentless pressure on the Netanyahu Government, so the Liberal Democrats call today on the Foreign Secretary to finally sanction Prime Minister Netanyahu for expanding his military campaign and pursuing the illegal expansion of the E1 settlements, and to take the steps necessary to ban the export of all UK arms to Israel, including F-35 components. Will he also make representations to the Qatari Government to demand that they exile Hamas from their political headquarters unless they agree to the release of all the hostages immediately and unconditionally?
The Foreign Secretary bemoans that words are not enough to alleviate the suffering. He acknowledges that the Government have failed to move the combatants, yet there is one man who could unlock progress. Donald Trump has the power to secure peace in Gaza, if he chose to, by picking up the phone to Netanyahu. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how he will use his special relationship with Vice President Vance to help secure that goal, and will the Government commit to making a ceasefire in Gaza a priority during President Trump’s state visit?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, particularly on Iran. He is absolutely right to place at the centre the 15,000 people who have been injured in Gaza while simply seeking aid, and the more than 2,000 who have died seeking aid. It is totally unacceptable, and he is right to remind the House about the position of the hostage families, who are crystal clear that they do not want to see further military endeavour and operation in Gaza City. What they want is a ceasefire, and they fear that further military endeavour will actually harm their loved ones further, not succeed in bringing them home.
The hon. Gentleman criticises our position on recognition. I ask him to reflect on that, because it must be right that the Government continue to give diplomacy an opportunity as we head to the UN alongside other partners. Surely he would want us to be working with our French, Australian and Canadian partners as we head to that gathering at UNGA, and surely he would want to see the Israelis commit to a ceasefire, commit to a process and end the war. All of that is what we are seeking to do as we make an assessment of where we have got to in the coming weeks. I reassure him that of course I raise the issue of Gaza with all levels of the US Administration. I did raise the situation in Gaza with Vice President Vance earlier in the summer and with Secretary of State Rubio, and I have spoken to envoy Steve Witkoff in the last 24 hours to get an update on this fast-moving situation. Direct sales of F-35s to Israel are banned, and the hon. Gentleman knows that we ban arms that could go to the IDF for use in Gaza.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Palestinian statehood and the additional aid announced for Gaza, as well as the recent work to evacuate students and children in need of medical treatment. However, the world’s foremost group of genocide scholars has said that
“Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide in Article II of the United Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”.
This is against the backdrop of Israel continuing to bombard Gaza, continuing to target and kill journalists, and continuing its policy of annexing the entire territory, with Trumpian visions of a Gaza where the self-determination of Palestinians is little more than a real estate opportunity. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that this monumental resolution by genocide scholars should now trigger our responsibility to act?
Mr Lammy
I say to my hon. Friend that we continue to do all we can to bring the horrific suffering in this war to an end. Of course I recognise what legal scholars are saying about the conflict and in relation to genocide. That must be, appropriately, a matter for the legal system, but I think the whole world looks on what is happening with deep, deep concern, and in every legislature across the world there is condemnation.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that the whole House will want to join me in wishing you a very happy birthday.
I warmly welcome and support what the Foreign Secretary said about Iran, and in particular the joint E3 statement on imposing snapback sanctions. Tehran is a threat not just to regional security, but here at home, and he will know that our security services have foiled over 20 different Iranian-backed plots. He will have seen today that Russia and China have joined in a letter saying that they will work with Tehran in the UN to thwart snapback sanctions. Could he update the House on the work we will do with our allies on enforcement and, crucially, make it clear to companies and banks that there will be severe consequences for those that break the sanctions?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the former Prime Minister for his work on the Iran file and for the cross-party consensus that exists in the House in this area. As he knows, we work hand in glove with our French and German counterparts, in particular, and it was on that basis—the so-called E3—that we urged Iran to take us seriously, and to go back to the negotiation table with the US and let the inspectors back in. The Iranians still have an opportunity over the next 30 days, and we will of course do everything we can within the UN system to urge our Russian and Chinese friends to take seriously the solemn commitments, which we made in the 20th century and continue to back in this one, that we must stop nuclear proliferation. This is not a personal issue; it is a global issue of huge concern.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
The International Association of Genocide Scholars has passed a resolution stating that
“Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide”.
I understand that the Foreign Secretary does not comment on these matters from the Dispatch Box, so I instead want to ask what action and efforts this Government are taking, alongside international partners, to ensure that evidence is collected and that matters are in hand to ensure that legal avenues can be pursued to address allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Gaza?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that that must rightly be a matter for lawyers, but I reassure her that we do fund and support organisations on the ground in gathering evidence. That is much easier in the west bank than it currently is in Gaza. At this Dispatch Box, I have said time and again that I think it is important that the Israelis let international journalists in to monitor the situation. I think that is hugely important. Where we can, we will continue to support journalists, organisations and federations to monitor and support that work, and we of course support a lot of NGOs on the ground.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Further to the answer the Foreign Secretary has just given, does he share my horror that, among the thousands of civilian deaths that have occurred in Gaza, it is estimated that at least 200 journalists have been killed, some of them deliberately targeted? Does he agree that those of us who are supporters of Israel’s right to defend itself need to tell the Israeli Government that this is unacceptable and cannot continue?
Mr Lammy
I associate myself entirely with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. It is not only unacceptable; it also diminishes the Israeli Government in the eyes of young people across the globe who look at this with horror and cannot understand it, so I urge them to just step back and recognise the damage they are doing to their reputation collectively.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Attempts to settle the E1 area of the west bank, splitting Palestinian areas in two,
“buries the idea of a Palestinian state”,
in the words of an Israeli Government Minister, by the end of this month. Would the Secretary of State commit to a further co-ordinated response with European partners over the coming weeks to ensure that those destructive plans are halted?
Mr Lammy
Yes, yes, yes. I have spent time in Bedouin villages that would be entirely gone as a result of these abysmal plans, so of course I will continue to work with partners to oppose them.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In May the Government revealed in court that they, the Executive, had made recent assessments of the risk of breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza. I say breaches, but the Government revealed that they had found only one possible breach of IHL among tens of thousands of airstrikes in Gaza across 11 months. Surely this proves that the FCDO does not have the capacity to properly assess all the possible breaches of IHL in Gaza.
Mr Lammy
It is axiomatic that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I made an assessment back in September that there was a clear risk—that was based on IHL assessments —and for that reason we suspended arms sales to Gaza. The machinery of government is working very well in the assessments we are able to make, notwithstanding how difficult it of course is to get all the evidence that is necessary.
Louise Sandher-Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
The famine in Gaza is clearly man-made and it is abominable. That tens of thousands of civilians have been brutally killed is abominable. The retention of the hostages by Hamas, and even the retention of the bodies of those who have passed away, is equally abominable. We can all see what is happening in Gaza and what is happening in the west bank, and this cannot be allowed to continue. What more messages can we send to Netanyahu and the Israeli Government to say that the two-state solution is the only way forward? It is the only way to guarantee peace and security in the middle east, which every single innocent civilian deserves, and to stop the increased illegal settlements in the west bank.
Mr Lammy
I want to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend, and I congratulate her on her recent wedding. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] She is absolutely right because there seem to be those in the Israeli Government who either want to see one state, in which case it is incumbent on them to be clear about how everyone in that one state has equality before the law, or want to see no state perpetuated forever. We must stand against that because it is not in the interests of Israel being safe and secure, and it is fundamentally against the interests of the Palestinian people, because the desire for two states is a just cause and one that we must stand behind.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What action will His Majesty’s Government take if the Government of Israel proceed with their plan to build in the E1 corridor?
Mr Lammy
I am not going to get ahead of my skis. We continue to work with partners internationally on making those assessments. I spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister and was very clear that we stand against that. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when these plans surfaced the previous Government stood against the E1 development. At that time, I think the Government’s position was that they would recognise if they went ahead. We will continue to make that assessment, but I hope we can see the plans put to one side.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Last month, along with eight party leaders across Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, I wrote to the Prime Minister about the catastrophic situation in Gaza and the deficits in the UK response to the unbearable suffering we are seeing—biblical levels of injustice, pain and hunger. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise the parallel crisis in the belief of ordinary people across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in international law and in the UK’s response? People are not seeing their values reflected in the UK’s actions in the continued supply of arms, the failure to levy all possible sanctions, and the strings attached to the recognition of the state of Palestine.
Mr Lammy
Can I just be clear? There is a lot of mendacity in some of the sort of stuff we see on TikTok. We have stopped the sale of arms to Israel. We have stopped the direct sales of F-35s to Israel. Germany only just recently made the decision that we made last September. The UK represents 1% of sales; 90% are Germany and the US system. There are many other Governments that supply and that have not made the decisions we have made. On recognition, we will continue to work with partners as we head towards the UN General Assembly and make the necessary assessments.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary, in his statement, outlined all the steps that this Government have taken against the Netanyahu Government. He has also repeatedly said that the UK has done everything it can. In my mind, both are tacit admittances of defeat, as we have seen the Netanyahu Government increase their activity in Gaza, and increase their prosecution and persecution of the Gazan people. If we have done so much and had no effect, and if there is nothing left to do, what does he expect to change before the UN General Assembly meeting and why should we not immediately recognise a Palestinian state?
Mr Lammy
Diplomacy is failing until it succeeds, so I am not going to give in to the hon. Gentleman’s pessimism. And can I just say that Prime Minister Mustafa, after I had completed my statement at the UN, walked up to me and gave me a warm embrace. We continue to work alongside the Palestinian Authority as we make these fine judgments.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s decision to trigger the snapback mechanism to address the Iranian regime’s nuclear ambitions. Following arrests in May relating to a suspected Iranian-backed terror plot, my constituents in High Peak—and, indeed, three-quarters of Labour voters—want to see action on the terror threat posed by Tehran on the streets in the UK. Will the Foreign Secretary provide an update on the Government’s progress in proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that question. He will know that, alongside the Home Secretary, we commissioned work from Jonathan Hall on the specific issue of state threats. We will be coming forward with further plans in the coming months.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary has just said:
“On the ground, it is unimaginably bleak. Horrifying images and accounts will be seared into the minds of colleagues across this House. They are almost impossible to put into words. But we can and must be precise with our language.”
I agree. It is a genocide, isn’t it?
Mr Lammy
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is legally qualified, but there are many lawyers who take that view. As he knows, we made an assessment, based on a clear risk of a breach of international humanitarian law, that meant we suspended arms sales that could be used in Gaza.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s blockade and weaponisation of starvation has plunged Gaza into famine. That is why the UN Secretary-General has described this man-made catastrophe as a “failure of humanity”. While children die of hunger, the Israeli Government continue to deny the existence of starvation in the very territory they seek to occupy. Before the summer recess, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary informed the House about additional aid for Gaza. Will he tell us how much of that aid has actually got into Gaza? What other further urgent steps are the Government taking to bring this inhumane treatment of the Palestinian population to an end?
Mr Lammy
I reassure my hon. Friend that the good news is that the aid we have supported is getting in. Principally, that has been of medical supplies, addressing the dire situation in Gaza. We have also been able to work with the World Food Programme. The World Food Programme appears to be the UN agency that is having the most effect in delivering aid on the ground. It is not sufficient, but it is having some effect. I will be in the region in the coming days discussing these issues in further detail.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am afraid that this is another profoundly disappointing statement from the Foreign Secretary that is devoid of anything that is likely to bring a swift end to this conflict. While at home the police have been arresting vicars and grannies, and the Government have been hiring American spy planes to fly over Gaza, the Israelis, as the Foreign Secretary himself has said, have intensified their campaign, aggression and the slaughter of innocents in that awful conflict. Everything he has said—all his condemnation—has come to nothing. In every statement he has made in this place when I have been here, he has stressed the importance of international humanitarian law. Why has he been so passive in defending the International Criminal Court in the face of another wave of American sanctions? What steps is he going to take to support that institution and the individuals who staff it in the face of those sanctions? What discussions has he had with the American Government to get them to reverse the sanctions?
Mr Lammy
It is just wrong to say that the Government have been passive in relation to the ICC. We fund the ICC and continue to support the ICC. I think I raised the ICC in my second meeting with Secretary of State Rubio. We work very closely with our Dutch colleagues in particular on the ICC. We have been crystal clear on the importance of international humanitarian law. I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on this issue.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware that increasing numbers of human rights experts and genocide scholars assess that Israel’s actions in Gaza equate to a genocide, with famine being deliberately created and hospitals being bombed to kill journalists. Against that backdrop, the Government are right to recognise the state of Palestine and to do so in a way that tries to drive change on the ground. Does he share my deep concern at the unacceptable new restrictions on visas and registration that are set to shut down the work of the most effective international humanitarian organisations in Gaza? What action are the Government taking to try to prevent that?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right. It is unacceptable to restrict the ability of aid workers to go about their work in the face of such suffering. I put alongside that another issue I am hugely concerned about, which is the effective starving of the Palestinian Authority of the funds to pay their staff and complete the reforms that we are trying to work on with them, such that they can never get to a position where they can apply the governance that I know they wish and hope to apply
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I despair at many aspects of the conduct of the Netanyahu Government and the suffering of Gazan civilians. However, I have grave reservations about the timing of this unilateral recognition of the state of Palestine, because I fear it will allow Hamas to claim that the vile massacres of 7 October have somehow succeeded. This concern is shared by many of my constituents. What reassurance can the Foreign Secretary give about the choice of timing and the signal that it sends?
Mr Lammy
I will be crystal clear for the right hon. Gentleman. Hamas are a proscribed terrorist organisation, and there can be no future for them in Israel. Part of the work that I outlined on a framework for peace and on the day after in the region is on how we disarm in Gaza, and how the members of the Hamas leadership who are left exit Gaza and find a third place to be. There can be no role for Hamas. Given what has been said about the E1 developments, let us also remember what is happening on the west bank with settler violence, with those who seem totally opposed to two states. We have sought to try to effect change on the ground as we make that assessment.
I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, because the recognition is not unilateral; we are acting together with Canada, Australia and the French, combined for maximum leverage to bring about change on the ground.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Government’s intention to recognise formally the state of Palestine at the UN later this month—which many Labour Members have pushed for ever since our election, and which was in our manifesto. It is the biggest shift in British foreign policy in decades, and a major step forward to giving the Palestinian people hope that they will have the state they have long been denied.
While I welcome the sanctions on Iran today, with the famine in Gaza now formally declared, and with 132,000 children expected to suffer from acute malnutrition between now and next June, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether the UK is actively looking at fresh sanctions on Israel to prevent that further tragedy?
Mr Lammy
I cannot comment on sanctions from the Dispatch Box. I know that my hon. Friend has long campaigned in his constituency and before his election on the issue of recognition, so I am grateful for his statements on that. I was updated on the situation this morning by Tom Fletcher; as I outlined, it is grim, dire and horrendous, which is why we have to work collectively with other partners. I will be back in the region to see what more we can do.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
This should not really be difficult. We can, as I do, passionately support Israel’s right to exist securely and in peace, call for the immediate release of the hostages without any strings attached and demand the exclusion of Hamas from the post-conflict settlement; at the same time, we must say, without a shred of equivocation, that the shooting and starving of innocent civilians in Gaza is nothing other than utterly and totally fundamentally evil. There can be no other word for it. Why have this Government still failed to sanction Netanyahu and his entire Cabinet?
Mr Lammy
I hear the strength of passion from the hon. Gentleman, but I urge him to look closely at our sanctions policy, which he would struggle to find from any other Government in the developed western world. We have had three packages of sanctions in the last year alone and two on Government Ministers; I do not think France has yet sanctioned Ministers. We have done a considerable amount.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I know this is a very sensitive subject, but I urge colleagues to keep their questions short and the Foreign Secretary to keep his answers on point.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement today. Israel’s decision to escalate operations in Gaza further and to expand further into Gaza City, where famine has officially been declared, shows that it simply is not listening to our concerns. Given that the Government have raised concerns over and over again and suspended free trade and some arms licences, it almost seems that Israel is mocking our Government. Is it time to take further measures to ensure that we fulfil the UK’s obligations as a third state under international law? We could be at risk here.
Mr Lammy
I reassure my hon. Friend that we are not at risk—we are not complicit. I am a former lawyer, and I study these things closely. I ask her to look closely at what we have done in relation to other Governments; we do not act unilaterally, but I think we are holding up pretty well. I wish the situation on the ground had changed. It has not yet changed, but we will continue to do everything we can to bring this war to an end.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The law of armed conflict is hardwired into the behaviour of our military, and we should demand the same of our friends and allies. Israel is our friend and ally. What assurances has the Foreign Secretary therefore had from his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence that they have gained from their Israeli interlocutors the assurances that we need that the 40 or 50 incidents involving the IDF on the west bank and in Gaza since 2023 will be brought to a proper conclusion, and that any wrongdoing is held to account?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman put his opening remarks very well, and I would accord with them. We need proper independent scrutiny of some of this behaviour. We did call for that, by the way, for the awful atrocity involving the World Central Kitchen staff, where British nationals lost their lives, and we await an update from the advocate general. I understand that the Israelis have said there will be an investigation into the incidents we saw last week, but there are many for which it is not clear that there will be an investigation. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to put this centre stage, which is, of course, something I do when I speak to the Israeli Government.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s historic move to recognise the state of Palestine and thank him for all the work he has done to progress this issue. While we follow the news from Gaza, let us remember the journalists who have risked their lives to bring us the news. My constituent, the former managing director of Al Jazeera English, is now mourning the deaths of six of his former colleagues in a targeted attack. I, too, am awaiting news from my former Financial Times colleague, who is still stuck in Gaza, where he is starving and at risk. Will the Foreign Secretary meet me and other media stakeholders to discuss how we can work together to progress evacuations and support our journalists on the ground?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to journalists and media workers, who play an essential role in putting the spotlight on the devastating reality of war. We are part of the Media Freedom Coalition, and the UK is of course urging Israel to allow immediate independent foreign media access and to afford protections to journalists. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend on this matter.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Israeli Government are clearly hellbent on their horrific plan of eradicating Palestine with their continuing and ever-worsening genocide in Gaza, and now their approval of the shocking E1 plan that will divide the west bank and East Jerusalem. How can the Government continue to take no further action when there are so many options open to them? How many times have we heard the Foreign Secretary say in this Chamber that if things do not improve and if Israel does not desist, he will take further action, and yet he has not? When will this Government take action to end UK complicity and end the horror in Palestine?
Mr Lammy
I say to the hon. Lady that we banned arms sales that could be used in Israel back in September; Germany did so just a few weeks ago. We have had three rounds of sanctions against Israeli settlers and some of the expansion that we are seeing; France is yet to do the same. I ask her also to look at the amount of money that this Parliament and this Government have agreed to for aid, particularly for medical supplies—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady says there is more, but she does not quite articulate what more she believes we could do. We all want to bring this war to an end—we all want that. It is becoming a bit too easy to assert that without recognising the work that we are leading globally.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Starting on a positive note, I thank the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East for their work to secure an agreement to get students and young people out of Gaza to continue their studies. So many of our debates make us feel powerless, but we have demonstrated, at least in one part of this jigsaw, some power to change people’s lives by getting them here to study, so I thank them for that.
If that is the best of humanity, this summer has also seen the worst of humanity, with the forced starvation of hostages and civilians waiting at food stations. One concern raised by my constituents is whether there will be a Palestine, west bank and Gaza left to recognise. Can the Foreign Secretary reassure us that this Government will strain every muscle to bring the international community together so that we do not just recognise a state of Palestine but start a process that will deliver it on the ground?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and the way that he is standing up for the people of Peterborough. Let me be absolutely clear: we have supported the departure of over 500 individuals from Gaza since the beginning of the conflict. The Home Secretary has set out what more we are doing on UK medical evacuation of children, and there is more to follow in the coming weeks on the Chevening scholars and further students in receipt of full scholarships. We want to support those young people; they are the future of Gaza. We will do everything we can to defend that two-state solution, to defend a concept that goes back a long way, and to recognise the responsibility the UK has because of the Balfour declaration and our obligations to both sides of this ancient conflict.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Like the Secretary of State, I have supported a two-state solution for very many years, but there is a slight contradiction when he says that immediate recognition would not be rewarding Hamas because Hamas would be disarmed and a new state would be demilitarised. Is he saying that the recognition will not go ahead unless and until Hamas is disarmed? If the recognition will go ahead before Hamas is disarmed, should it not be confined to those parts of Palestine that are currently represented by the Palestinian Authority?
Mr Lammy
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the letter that President Abbas wrote to President Macron, where he was clear for the first time that there can be no role for Hamas. We will make the assessment on recognition in the coming weeks, but clearly the E1 settlement has moved the dial even further away from where we were a few weeks ago. Recognition is a process.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Foreign Secretary said that diplomacy fails until it succeeds. We have talked often in this House about the tragedy unfolding. As we approach the second anniversary, and as he goes to the UN to discuss and agree the recognition of a Palestinian state, can he explain to the House what threshold would need to be reached for a UN peacekeeping force to ensure safe passage of food and welfare to those who are starving and dying, even as we stand here today?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will understand that the Israeli Government have set themselves against some of the UN agencies that would need to uphold that, so I think that that feels unlikely from the conversations that we have had, but I do applaud the work of Cindy McCain and the World Food Programme to get essential food to people who need it.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Foreign Secretary chose very carefully his words about arms supplies that could be used in Gaza. Could he now be a bit clearer with the House? Are we still supplying parts for F-35 jets that are used to bombard people in Gaza? Is the information gathered by planes from RAF Akrotiri flying over Gaza being shared with the Israeli military forces? Thirdly, is RAF Akrotiri being used as a staging point for the delivery of weapons to Israel, in contravention of what he said about arms sales? Does he not realise that if we supply arms to a country that is complicit in war crimes, including genocide, we are also complicit in those war crimes?
Mr Lammy
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who has considerable experience, that it is my job to make sure that we are not complicit. That is why we are not selling arms that could be used in Gaza, and it is why we are not selling direct F-35 kit to Israel. In terms of those reconnaissance flights, I am sure that he would agree that it has been right, certainly up to this point, to support hostage release. The only reason we have offered support is to find those hostages and get them home, and surely he would agree with that.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and his work on this very important matter. Over the summer I received messages from Fossie, Joseph and Alice, three children from Eastwood Baptist church, among many other messages. They expressed their sadness at the situation in Gaza and wanted my assurance that we are doing all that we can as a Government to bring an end to this horrendous conflict, so I ask him today on their behalf: can he give me that assurance, and is he continuing to use all tools and sanctions at his disposal?
Mr Lammy
The answer is, very simply, yes. I am of Christian faith, like my hon. Friend’s Baptist constituents, but people of all faiths and no faith are horrified by what they are seeing and want the United Kingdom to continue to do all it can to bring this horrifying war and suffering to an end. That is what we do every day.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I welcome the anticipated recognition of Palestine, expected later this month. Of itself it will make no difference on the ground, but I think it is an important piece of symbolism. We heard in an earlier question about the risks that journalists are facing, and we are aware that Israel blocks many journalists, including the BBC, from entering Gaza. What representations has the Foreign Secretary made to the Israelis about this?
Mr Lammy
I assure the hon. Member that I have made those representations to the Israeli Government, and so has the Minister for the Middle East, who sits next to me. I also know that this is a topic of conversation among other Foreign Ministers across the developed world. We think that international journalists play an important part in the landscape and scrutiny of any democratic country. Israel often reminds us that it is a democratic country, and it is important to let those journalists in.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been talking about starvation in Gaza for the last 18 months, and now it is officially recognised as a famine. Today I want to raise with the Foreign Secretary the starving of one man: Marwan Barghouti. Shortly after we announced the recognition and the Israeli Government retaliated, in my view, with the E1 plan, Ben-Gvir entered his cell in an Israeli prison, and he was very clearly being starved. It is time that Marwan Barghouti is freed by Israel. A man of peace who can push forward the peace process is being starved and not given access to his family, the International Red Cross or his legal team. What more can we do to see his release and enable him to get his human rights and not be harassed and threatened by Ben-Gvir, who we have sanctioned?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful, as I am sure the whole House is, for the update on that situation. I will not comment on the individual case, but when I was making the IHL assessment on a clear risk, which was previously referred to, one of the areas that I looked at closely and where I did believe there was a clear risk was the treatment of prisoners. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House about those humanitarian concerns.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the concerns expressed by his noble Friend Lord Hain about the possibility of contracts under the Army Collective Trading Service being awarded to Elbit Systems UK, whose parent company Elbit Systems Ltd markets its weapons as being “battle tested” in Gaza and on the west bank? Lord Hain wrote to the Defence Secretary to say:
“Awarding this contract worth an estimated £1.9 billion to £2.5 billion would entrench Elbit Systems at the core of the UK’s defence infrastructure for a full 15-year period”
and that to proceed with the contract would
“erode confidence in the integrity of our procurement system”.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Lord Hain’s comments should be given the fullest possible consideration and that, if they are shown to be of substance, his right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary should not be awarding contracts to a company like that?
Mr Lammy
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that this is an open procurement. No decisions have been made, and no decisions will be made until 2026. The whole House will have heard what he said.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think we all hear the frustration of the Foreign Secretary. He is leading in a way that other nations have not on this challenge, but it is that leadership role that we are looking to as a House. I think we all understand that nations individually have limited impact but that pressure can be brought to bear collectively. Can he tell us, for example, what more he is doing with his colleagues in the world community to stand with the Israeli opposition to Netanyahu and the Israeli hostages calling out his murderous behaviour?
The Foreign Secretary comes to the House and tells us that the famine is man-made, which is a war crime. What more is he doing to report the Israeli Government to the ICC or to say that we will recognise Palestine not as a threat but as a statement of positive intent with our colleagues? Above all, how are we working with our colleagues in Europe? The honest truth is, not a single child from Gaza who urgently needs medical assistance has yet come to the UK, but the European Union and World Health Organisation programme is getting children out at pace and at speed. What more could we be doing to work with them so that those children could come within days? They have already been cleared by Israeli officials. No, we must not judge ourselves by other countries; we must judge ourselves by whether we have truly done every single act we can. There is more that we could do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Lengthy questions just deny other colleagues the opportunity to speak.
Mr Lammy
I reassure my hon. Friend that we are working with our European counterparts. When I speak to Kaja Kallas and other European Foreign Ministers, what I get is the deep frustrations that she has heard me express in my answers. I remind my hon. Friend of the further £15 million that I have announced today to support humanitarian efforts, and in particular the supply of medicines in the area. The decisions that I announced at the UN a few weeks ago are absolutely not unilateral; they are working with other partners as we make an assessment on the ground of the situation prior to the UNGA.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he specifically raised delivery of aid in his discussions with his US counterparts? The United States is a hugely important actor in that regard: it has the potential to be positive in improving the existing arrangements, but it also has the potential to be a blocker. His interaction with the US can make the difference.
Mr Lammy
I recognise the experience that the right hon. Gentleman brings to the Chamber. He will have heard the Prime Minister raise those issues with President Trump in Scotland, and I reassure him that I raised them with Vice President Vance in Kent. I got into a slight problem with a certain sort of fishing licence, but I did raise those issues as well.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for the reminder of the actions that the Government have already taken, including restoring funding to UNRWA, suspending arms exports that could be used in Gaza, suspending trade negotiations with the Israeli Government and imposing sanctions packages on violent settlers and far-right Israeli Ministers, but we need to see further action with regard to humanitarian aid getting into Gaza, where we are seeing a man-made famine. Does he agree that such action could be taken immediately if the Israeli Government allowed entry to those UN trucks on the borders of Gaza?
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The war in Gaza is horrific on a number of different levels. I would like to focus on one particular level: it is the deadliest conflict for journalists, who often act as our window into atrocities. Will the Secretary of State please explain why we are selling any arms to Israel?
Mr Lammy
I ask the hon. Gentleman to look in detail at export licences and how they work. As I have said, we are not sending arms to Israel. He will recognise, however, that we are continuing to export body armour that NGOs or journalists use on the ground in the west bank and indeed in Gaza. For the very reason he gave, I do not think that he would want us to stop.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcements, in particular on support to get critically ill children out of Gaza and into the UK to receive specialist NHS treatment. Does he agree that the Israeli Government’s promises to carry on developing more illegal settlements in the west bank will further undermine the prospects for a two-state solution?
Mr Lammy
The plans deliberately attempt to thwart a two-state solution: they effectively split the land and they drive out Bedouin and villages. The plans were opposed by the last Government when they first surfaced, and they are opposed by all in the international community. They are entirely unacceptable. I repeated that to the Israeli Foreign Minister just a few days ago.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I am deeply concerned by the misery, suffering and death in Gaza. I thank the Foreign Secretary for the work he is doing with friends and allies in the region, which is a key part of solving the problem. I also support a two-state solution, but is he not concerned that the ultimatum regarding unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state risks entirely disincentivising Hamas from negotiating any hostage release or ceasefire over the coming weeks and months?
Mr Lammy
I urge the hon. Gentleman to keep up to date with the latest. He will have seen that there have been announcements by Hamas on the terms for a ceasefire. We have not yet got that ceasefire; there remain disputes, for example, about the length of a ceasefire and withdrawal of the IDF from parts of Gaza. However, notwithstanding the concerns we all have, Hamas are in dialogue with our Egyptian and Qatari friends in particular.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s comments about recognition of Palestine, which, of course, is absolutely what all Labour Members stood on in our manifesto. I would like to raise specifically the devastation and starvation of people in Gaza and the numerous reports that the IDF are targeting doctors. Will he tell the House about UK efforts to evacuate people with family links to the UK, including Dr Radi, whose case I have raised many times in the House and with Ministers?
Mr Lammy
It was humbling to meet once more a group of doctors in New York who have served on the ground and to hear of the hardships that they had experienced as noble humanitarians. In the coming days, my hon. Friend will see the UK’s efforts to evacuate people, particularly children, from Gaza. We rely on Israeli permits, so it is not straightforward or easy, but I am grateful that she has put the issue of doctors front and centre this afternoon.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
This morning, the Scottish Labour leader told a press conference in Glasgow:
“there is a genocide happening in Gaza. I believe Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal and he will have to face further sanctions.”
Does the Foreign Secretary agree?
Mr Lammy
I have a list of statements that have been made by Yair Lapid, by the leader of the Democrats, Yair Golan, and by the Israeli Mossad director, Tamir Pardo, all of whom call into question much of what they are seeing on the ground—some of them use phrases like “ethnic cleansing”—so of course I am aware of what is being said. In the end, we need a ceasefire. We need to bring this horror show to an end.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I have known my right hon. Friend for more than 25 years, and I know that if he was up here on the Back Benches, he would be as angry and frustrated as we are. It gets frustrating coming here and expressing our concerns when, with all due respect, he wrings his hands and says, “We are doing all we can,” then we go away and nothing moves on. What can my right hon. Friend say to us today to show that there is hope of something changing in the near future, because in the meantime it is the hostages and the people in Gaza who pay the heaviest price?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my dear friend for what he has said. He knows that this is extremely frustrating. I have spoken to envoy Steve Witkoff in the last 24 hours to be updated on the situation in terms of the ceasefire and the gaps that still exist between the two sides. There are still gaps, unfortunately. My hon. Friend knows that this will only come to an end with a ceasefire, so we continue to do everything we can. I sense that this month is an important month as we head towards UNGA, so let us see where we get to. The UN Assembly coming together is a big moment, and I am sure that the Israelis and Hamas recognise that.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Many happy returns, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Druze in Syria are suffering nothing short of atrocities, and that situation continues. What practical help can the UK give as the Israelis try to set up safe zones and humanitarian corridors for them?
Mr Lammy
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), was in Syria last week discussing these very issues, and of course we have made representations to the Israelis about our concerns that some of their activity is undermining the prospects of the new Government.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making it clear that this country has historic responsibilities in the region, and he has been consistent in calling for a ceasefire month after month. That has not happened, so I ask him in all sincerity: what changes does he really expect by simply continuing to repeat that? If Israel has the ability to qualify, through those “unless” statements, whether recognition is granted, I ask him to reflect on that. In answer to the earlier exchange on the potential for a peacekeeping force, surely Israel should not have the ability to put a block on that. The people of Palestine deserve better than that, surely.
Mr Lammy
Can I be very clear to my hon. Friend that Israel does not have a veto on our decision to recognise? I hear what has been said about a peacekeeping force, but I discussed these issues with the Secretary-General at the UN a few weeks ago and there are real tensions that Israel has put in the way with its ability to work with the UN. That is why I think it is doubtful that that will come to pass in the near term.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Back in May, I raised concerns about exemptions for licences for components that were going out to Israel. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary and it was passed on to the Department for Business and Trade. To date I have had no reply, so I have absolutely no idea whether those licences have been suspended and whether they are not being used. My residents are worried that while the licences are now for non-military items, the exemptions for licences may be used for things that could harm Palestinians. Will the Foreign Secretary please do all that he can to work with his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to make sure that we can get that reassurance?
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is truly momentous that this Government look set to put long-standing UK policy into practice and recognise Palestine this month, but it feels like time is running out for a two-state solution, as the Foreign Secretary has acknowledged. We have now witnessed man-made famine, the bombing of hospitals and hostages, and the denigration of the UN—I think the PLO delegation is banned from the General Assembly—going against all international norms, so would he agree with my constituents that on trade, sanctions and settlements, it is time to step up a gear in this ever-worsening situation and put the full force of action behind his very strong statements?
Mr Lammy
I disagree with that last part. I simply refer my hon. Friend to what I have said. She will struggle to find another Government in the developed western world who have done more on sanctions than we have. Even our neighbours in France and the European Union have not done as much as us on this issue, and our record on humanitarian aid is considerable. She has heard what has been said about the issue of recognition.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I know that the hundreds of constituents who have contacted me calling for action to end the heartbreaking suffering in Gaza will welcome the Foreign Secretary’s recommitment to recognising Palestine. However, if, as he says, recognition is rooted in the principle of a two-state solution, why is granting it being used as a tool to change Israel’s course, rather than taking other actions such as sanctioning Prime Minister Netanyahu?
Mr Lammy
I make no apology for trying to affect behaviour on the ground as we head to the UN General Assembly meeting and for giving diplomacy a chance. It still has an opportunity to work and that is why we did it.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Can I start by welcoming the announcement of the additional aid and medical care for Gaza that has been announced by the Secretary of State today? It is now widely reported that the Israeli Government are considering the annexation of the west bank as a direct result of the United Kingdom’s plan to recognise Palestinian statehood, so will the Secretary of State make it absolutely clear that that move would constitute a blatant breach of international law? Further, will he assure the House that the Government will not hesitate to take the strongest possible action, diplomatically and politically, to condemn any such unlawful annexation?
Mr Lammy
It would be a breach of international humanitarian law, so we will keep working with our partners to try and ensure that it does not come about.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Foreign Secretary asks what more this Government can do to ensure that the genocide in Gaza is ended. Might I suggest that the doctrine of responsibility to protect is enacted by the United Nations, and that any and all means possible are exhausted to demand an end to genocide? Intervene to defend the helpless. Intervene to help the trapped and starved civilians of Gaza, half of whom, I remind the House, are children. Act now, immediately!
Mr Lammy
I think I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, and that is what we are attempting to do.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Instead of taking substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and agreeing to an immediate ceasefire and long-term sustainable peace, the Israeli Government have ignored us. They have failed to let aid go through, and created a man-made famine. It appears to me that the Israeli Government will only listen to Donald Trump and the United States, so can the Foreign Secretary please confirm what discussions he has had with Donald Trump to take action against the Israeli Government?
Mr Lammy
As I have said, I have spoken to Secretary of State Rubio, Envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice-President Vance about these issues. I leave discussions with the President of the United States to our great Prime Minister.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Data from the Israeli military shows that 83% of people killed in Gaza since October 2023 have been civilians. Killing at this mass scale for months on end is unparalleled in modern conflict. Will the Foreign Secretary act to place far more pressure on Israel to end the mass killing of civilians by suspending the UK’s current trade agreement with Israel and sanctioning those responsible for breaching international law?
Mr Lammy
Over 63,000 people have now lost their lives and well over 100,000 are injured as a result of this war, so the hon. Member is right to put that front and centre. She will recognise that we made a decision about suspending any negotiations for a new trade agreement a few weeks ago.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Professor Oz-Salzberger described a
“battle for the soul of Israel”
in the Financial Times of yesterday. Thousands and thousands of moderate voices in Israel are crying out for an end to this terrible war. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis march for peace. What can our Government do to support these people?
Mr Lammy
I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to mind the many Israelis marching and expressing deep concern for the plight of the hostages. I certainly have both Israeli and Jewish friends who are hugely concerned about the direction in which the Netanyahu Government are taking this war and this further military operation into Gaza City, which will inevitably lead to more loss of life.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The United Nations described the famine in Gaza as a
“deliberate collapse of the systems needed for human survival”
and
“a man-made disaster, a moral indictment, and a failure of humanity itself.”
Every day my constituents ask me, “What more would it take for the Government to recognise this as genocide?” What would the Foreign Secretary have me say to them?
Mr Lammy
I would refer to the remarks I have made before at this Dispatch Box. I recognise what is being said. I recognise the work of international scholars particularly, and the fine judgments that must be made by the ICC and the ICJ, but we have an important democratic principle that these decisions must be made by lawyers, and it is for Governments to act in the way that I have set out today.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the extensive work that he, his team and his officials have done to secure the international coalition of allies in the recognition of the state of Palestine—although that has been very much undermined by the Israeli Cabinet and what it proposes in relation to the E1 annexation plan. Is there more we can do to extend this coalition and increase the level of sanctions to stop this Israeli behaviour? Is it appropriate to transfer the UNGA meeting from New York to Geneva, as was done in 1988, so that the Palestinian delegation can attend?
Mr Lammy
I do think we need further dialogue on the issue of Palestinian attendance at that meeting. I recognise that these decisions were made previously and held in Geneva, but I hope that we can have some reconsideration and that we can afford the delegation the same privileges that they have had for many years.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
We have a UN-declared man-made famine, children and babies being starved to death, and journalists murdered. Now the world’s leading genocide scholars state that Israel’s actions meet the legal definition of genocide. It is clear that painstaking, careful international diplomacy is not working fast enough, and the Gazans are running out of time. Is it not time for us to lead our allies in actions that Israel might take notice of: sweeping trade sanctions, sanctions on Netanyahu and his entire Cabinet, and a commitment that we will recognise Gaza at the UN with no conditions?
Mr Lammy
The whole House will have heard what the hon. Member said, and she will have heard what I have said on a previous situation. I would ask her to look closely at what this Government have been doing—our leadership globally relative to other near partners. I think the decision we made a few weeks ago, and the provisions we set for how we would recognise and the judgments we will make as we head to UNGA, are particularly important.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary very much for the action taken by him and his colleagues to enable the safe passage of scholars to the UK, a number of whom hope to come to the University of Glasgow. I am also grateful for the work being done to evacuate critically injured children. The Foreign Secretary has enumerated the number of children who have already died of famine—119, with 132,000 under-fives also at risk of starvation in the next year. But we have already seen 17,000 children killed as a result of the conflict. I refuse to call it a war because it is not a war; there is one side that has arms and another side that does not have an equality of arms. The Foreign Secretary previously said that he would never rule out anything that could be helpful in this regard. I understand why he will not commit to further sanctions at the Dispatch Box, but can he assure the House that he has not ruled out further sanctions, or any other actions that might be helpful, both in the run-up to the UN meeting and beyond?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for what she says in relation to children. Of course, there are not just the children who have died as a result of famine, which is horrific, but many thousands of children who are malnourished. Anyone who knows anything about education and children will know that if you malnourish children, you affect outcomes for them as they get older and move towards adulthood. That is why this is so horrific and disastrous for the consequences of peace and the outcomes that we want to see. I have heard what she said about sanctions.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Foreign Secretary said that
“we can and must be precise with our language”.
I stand here 23 months after the atrocities of 7 October—completely unforgivable atrocities against civilians and other innocent people—and I join in his call for all hostages to be released. However, since 8 October 2023, Israel has been extremely precise in its language about what it was going to do in response to 7 October. Its playbook of war crime, genocide, murder, starvation, water blockages, power cuts and bombing hospitals and schools was laid out in extreme detail for all of us to see. Nobody on this planet can say we did not know. Over the 23 months, nothing this Government have done has prevented Israel from enacting its line-by-line extermination plan. It does not want two states between Palestine and Israel. It actually does not care about the lives of the remaining hostages. What will this Government do to help Israel see sense and save lives, both the hostages and the Palestinians?
Mr Lammy
I do think it is important that the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding his strength of feeling, recognises that Israel is a complex place of many opinions. He will have found disputes, certainly from this Government but I think from many people in this Chamber, on the direction of travel that the Netanyahu Government have set themselves, and the extremists in that Government who have taken them on a certain path. I think that is an important qualification. We are doing all we can, but he will recognise that we do that with partners, seeking to exert leverage, and that is why we have made the decisions that we have most recently.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now more than ever, the will of the international community must take precedence over the will of those who perpetuate conflict and deny a two-state solution? Of course that means Hamas, but also, sadly, the Israeli Government. Can he assure me that this Government are looking at previous times when the international community, with Britain at the forefront, has ended conflicts, despite difficulties, and built a fair and just peace, overcoming facts on the ground and restoring hope?
Mr Lammy
No conflicts are the same. That region has had numerous conflicts over the years. What we have seen over the past 23 months has been horrific. It is my job, as the country’s chief diplomat, to do everything I can, straining every sinew and working with colleagues, to bring the conflict to an end and keep my language diplomatic.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
We often get distracted by the semantics and jurisprudence of terms such as “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing”, but it is clear that, with the exception of a few, this House appears united—just as the country is as a whole—in its opposition to the actions of the far-right Netanyahu Government. The Foreign Secretary says that he wants to give diplomacy a chance—he constantly repeats that intention—but can he demonstrate to us that he is not being completely ignored throughout this? If he cannot, will he at least assure us that he will not allow the Elbit contract to go through, that RAF Akrotiri will not be used to the advantage of the Israeli military, and that there is no trade with illegal settlements?
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
It is simply not enough at this stage to repeat the line about reminding Israel that international law requires the protection of healthcare workers, journalists and civilians —it is so clear that the Israeli Government are not doing that. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, as a result of the UK’s ongoing political role as Israel’s close ally, UK weapons, including components, continue directly or indirectly to be sold to Israel? If he does not accept that, will he play a role in ensuring that no new Government contracts will be awarded to Elbit Systems UK, the central supplier of Israel’s military assault in Gaza? The ICC and ICJ are watching, and the UK has its own obligations under international law.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but as I have said, we are not supplying arms to Israel—that decision was made back in September. It is my obligation and very solemn undertaking to ensure that we are not complicit. The standard that this legislature set is a very low one and a clear risk, and is not as high as standards found in international courts. It is for that reason that we suspended sales that could be used in Gaza, notwithstanding some of the mendacity that we see online.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Despite all the protestations that we have heard from the Dispatch Box, by the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and others, it seems that Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu will stop at nothing. Like a dog that has tasted blood, Netanyahu can be stopped only by military intervention. To be absolutely clear, we are not working with the likes of Canada, Australia and France when it comes to the recognition of the state of Palestine, because we have adopted what is known as a contradictory conditional statement. Will the Foreign Secretary make it plain that the UK Labour Government’s position is that we will not recognise the state of Palestine so long as Benjamin Netanyahu fulfils certain conditions?
Mr Lammy
I set out my statement very clearly at the UN. The Prime Minister set out his statement at No. 10. When I finished my statement, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority came to me and gave me an embrace. Yet the hon. Gentleman thinks that he knows more and that the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority got it wrong. Of course we are working with our partners; of course we are trying to change the situation on the ground—I make absolutely no apologies for that. We will make our assessments for UNGA. The hon. Gentleman’s judgment on this occasion is wrong.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the commitment to recognising the Palestinian state. Some of us have fought for that for many years. I also welcome the rest of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, in so far as it goes. He is right to condemn what the Israelis are doing in Gaza with their policy of starvation, and he is right to recognise the Israeli attempts to split the west bank in a way that will prevent a Palestinian state from being created, but in his heart of hearts he knows that the Israelis will carry on regardless of his condemnation. Will he now give serious thought to the “what if”? What further action are the Government prepared to take to hold the Israelis to account and to get them to recognise the force of international arguments against them on both those points?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend brings considerable experience to the Chamber and to these issues. Of course, as he would expect, I and the FCDO plan for all scenarios, but we remain optimistic and hopeful. That is our solemn duty on behalf of the hostages still underground, and on behalf of those suffering in Gaza, particularly the children and women who are losing their lives and being injured in the way we have seen.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) was right to ask the Foreign Secretary to place sanctions on Prime Minister Netanyahu. Many of my constituents agree and ask me to urge the Government to take more steps to stop the famine in Gaza and stop the Israel Defence Forces killing many more innocent children, women and men in Gaza. Does the Foreign Secretary realise that many people in this country do not think that he is doing enough to stop the famine and end the killing? They are frustrated with him for what they see as his inaction.
Mr Lammy
I think that the British people are wise and deeply concerned about what they see, but I also think that their wisdom means that they ascribe blame, where appropriate, to the actors on the ground, remembering that one of those actors is a proscribed terrorist organisation. They recognise that Britain has a role to play and a historical duty, and they want to see Britain playing that role alongside partners, which is what we are doing.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the commitment to recognising the Palestinian state later this month. That is an essential step, and there can be no further delay. Israeli Government support for illegal settlement in the west bank and the decision to build in the E1 area are strategically designed to undermine the viability of a Palestinian state. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore commit to introducing a ban on all settlement trade, including services and investments, so that money from the UK cannot be used to fund that illegal occupation, and so that the state of Palestine, which we are rightly recognising, has a chance of becoming a reality?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to press those issues over so many months on behalf of her constituents. Goods from settlements not entitled to tariff and trade preferences are important considerations. UK business guidance outlines clear risk to UK operators considering economic activity in the area.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The statement will conclude at 8 pm because we also have a statement on Ukraine. Colleagues will need to be as fast as they can.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
In hearing from the Foreign Secretary that 132,000 children are at risk of dying from hunger, one can only feel utter revulsion. I recognise what the Government have done, but in their public diplomacy with President Trump, their strategy appears to be to pander to him. Again, I understand why the Government have chosen to do that, but how concerned is the Foreign Secretary that their legacy in the middle east will be the same as that of the previous Labour Government: to be a poodle to an out-of-control American President amid horror?
Mr Lammy
I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was me and this Labour Government who signed a memorandum of understanding of support with the Palestinian Authority just a few months ago. We use every lever that we can diplomatically to be in dialogue with our partners and to seek to influence them. This is a complex set of issues. There are different approaches internationally, and he will have witnessed that, but we use every sinew diplomatically, and that is what the Prime Minister and I do every day.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Almost 1,500 healthcare workers have been killed, according to Médecins Sans Frontières, and more than 50,000 children have been killed or injured, according to UNICEF. If the Israeli Government declare that they are not targeting medical workers, journalists and civilians, they are clearly cavalier with human life, and tolerating that is no longer acceptable. Will the Foreign Secretary tell me what steps we will take to hold the Israeli Government to account properly under international law, and to make it clear that that is no longer acceptable and that we will not tolerate it?
Mr Lammy
In the interests of time, I simply refer my hon. Friend to the statements that I have already made from the Dispatch Box this afternoon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his clear commitment to delivering help and assistance and to finding a lasting solution. Does he accept that the retrieval of two more dead Israeli hostages, while 48 are still being held either dead or alive by Hamas, indicates the unwillingness of Hamas to bring this war to an end? Does the Secretary of State believe that there is any further way of bringing those hostages home, which I and we all believe would be a meaningful step on the road to a ceasefire and a rebuilding of life for the people of Gaza, as well as for the Israelis on the other side of the strip?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right: the return of those hostages would see this war come to an end tomorrow. Recently, the sight of terribly malnourished hostages was chilling and horrendous, and heartbreaking for their families. I met hostage families just before the recess, and I will meet them again very shortly. He is right to centre them in his remarks.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his urgent work to evacuate and treat seriously injured and critically ill children from Gaza. New restrictions on aid are due to be implemented fully on 9 September. Aid organisations face being banned if they delegitimise the state of Israel or do not provide detailed information about Palestinian staff. Does he agree that women and girls have suffered the worst impacts of the war? Will he expand on how we can help to get more aid to them?
Mr Lammy
It is always women and girls who are the face of pain and suffering in conflict and the most desperate of circumstances. That is why we will continue to centre women and girls in all our development work, because that is critical. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the remarks that have been made; they are not the remarks that we would expect of any democratic partner. I urge the Israeli Government to think again.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I explain to my constituents every week how hard the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team are working in this context, but every day women and children are killed and are starving. What is happening is a moral outrage of the first order. The International Criminal Court is a key pillar of international justice. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that he is doing everything possible to protect and enhance its independence from political interference, and to ensure that it is more than properly resourced to carry out its important work in this conflict?
Mr Lammy
The International Criminal Court is a fundamental part of the architecture that was set up after the atrocities of the second world war. The United Kingdom played a central role in that. That is why this Government—and I hope any Government—remain absolutely committed to the ICC and the International Court of Justice, and to their good and important work, which they must do free from and unfettered by political interference.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
We may be recognising a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly, but violence in the west bank has been horrific, with Israeli forces and settlers displacing more than 40,000 Palestinians due to assaults on northern refugee camps, and of course there are concerns about annexation. What actions will the Foreign Secretary take to protect Palestinians at risk of forced transfer? What work will he do with international partners to pressure the Israeli Government at UNGA?
Mr Lammy
That is a decision that I am discussing with the Palestinian Authority. Also, I will be in the region in the coming days, discussing what further support we can give to those who are suffering or at risk on the ground.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Today, the world’s leading genocide scholars declared genocide in Gaza. Earlier this summer, famine was officially declared in Gaza. We have seen war crime after war crime, with more journalists killed and more hospitals bombed, and yet on sanctions the Government continue to drag their feet. How can it be morally justifiable that, while rightly being robust on Russia with extensive sanctions, when it comes to Israel and sanctions, we let it off lightly, to say the least? What is the difference and when will we see widespread sanctions on Israel?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is a lawyer, so when he says that, I would ask him to point to a nation that does more on sanctions on this file than the United Kingdom. I note that he has not been able to do that.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the actions that the Government have taken already on sanctions, aid and proposals to recognise the Palestinian state. Given the facts on the ground, which he has recognised—the man-made famine, the killing of women, children, healthcare workers and journalists, the ongoing suffering of the hostages, and the intensification of the military campaign—will he confirm that he will continue to work with international allies and consider all further actions that he can take to bring about the end of this catastrophe?
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
In recent months alone more than 1,000 of my constituents have contacted me about the brutal conflict in Gaza, making it the single biggest issue of concern to local people. I know that the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers are doing everything that they can behind the scenes and in private, but does he agree that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right to statehood and that a further group of countries, including the UK, recognising Palestine could provide a practical and, importantly, a public step towards making a two-state solution and a lasting peace possible?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. We believe passionately in a two-state solution and in keeping that dream alive. We believe in the inalienable right of the Palestinian people. That is why I set out what I did in the UN a few weeks ago.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for his stamina over the past two hours. I assure him that the horror of the unfolding famine in Gaza and concern about the future of the hostages are felt just as strongly on the Atlantic coast of Scotland as they are on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean. International experts have rightly described what is going on in Gaza as a genocide. Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, today described it as a genocide. Will such sentiments inform our next round of sanctions against Netanyahu’s Government?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I recognise what is being said by international scholars around the world. He will recognise the sombre decisions that we have taken in relation to international humanitarian law, in particular the suspension of arms sales.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I have tried to go as fast as I can, and I apologise to all the colleagues who are disappointed, but the final question goes to Tom Hayes.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
What happened on 7 October was inhumane: Hamas are terrorists and the hostages must be returned immediately and safely. Israel is behaving insufferably and what the Israeli Government are doing is unacceptable. The International Criminal Court has indicted Israeli leaders for the war crime of starvation. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Israeli Government are guilty of violating articles of the fourth Geneva convention. Will the Government do all that they can to support British prosecutors and our British courts to arrest war criminals and hold them to account?
Mr Lammy
Madam Deputy Speaker, I too am sorry that other colleagues who wanted to ask questions were unable to do so today, but I am sure that much of the global community will see the strength of feeling that has been shown in the Chamber this afternoon in relation to this horrific war. As Foreign Secretary, it is my great honour to stand shoulder to shoulder with those giants of this Chamber who gave us the international humanitarian architecture that we have, and to be crystal clear in our support for it.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 22 April, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney General raising a number of matters to do with domestic legal issues and our international obligations with regard to this conflict, but 132 days later, I have yet to receive a reply. What steps can I take to elicit the information that I need from the Foreign Secretary?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. This is not a matter for the Chair, but the right hon. Member has put his concerns on the record and they have been heard by Members on the Front Bench, including the Foreign Secretary himself.
Ukraine
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement about Ukraine.
Before I begin, I inform the House that yesterday we secured a £10 billion contract to supply Norway with at least five Type 26 frigates. This is the biggest British warship deal in our history. It strengthens NATO and our northern flank, and supports 4,000 British jobs and 400 British businesses for years to come. It shows that this Government are making defence an engine for growth across the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.
Turning to Ukraine, a few days ago Ukrainians around the world came together to mark a special day: 34 years of their country’s independence—34 years as a proud and sovereign nation. Ukrainians, civilians and those from the military alike, continue to fight for that freedom with huge courage, three-and-a-half years on from the start of Putin’s brutal, full-scale invasion. A secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine: its freedom is our freedom and its values our are values. That is why the UK stands with Ukraine, and why this House stands united for Ukraine. When Ukraine marks its next independence day, we all hope to see Ukrainians celebrate in a time of peace, not in a time of war.
Over the summer, the UK, with our allies, has been working hard to make that hope a reality. The Prime Minister hosted President Zelensky in London, chaired various coalition of the willing meetings with President Macron and joined European leaders with President Zelensky to meet President Trump in Washington DC. I have spoken with Defence Ministers across the coalition about stepping up military support and securing a peace after any deal. Our military leaders have met multiple times to strengthen international contributions to the coalition, also known now as the “multinational force Ukraine.”
We welcome President Trump’s dedication to bringing this terrible war to an end, and we strongly welcome his commitment to make security guarantees “very secure,” as he says, with the Europeans. At every stage, President Zelensky continues his support for a full, unconditional ceasefire and for talks on a lasting peace, yet Putin’s response has been to launch some of the largest attacks on Ukraine since the start of the war. During last week’s onslaught on Kyiv, at least 23 people were killed, four of whom were children, including a two-year-old. An attack on the British Council was an outrage: a Russian missile, fired into a civilian area, as part of an illegal war, damaged a British Government building, injuring a civilian worker.
It now appears that Putin is refusing a meeting with President Trump and President Zelensky, so while Ukraine wants peace, Putin wages war. President Trump is right: we must continue pushing for peace, as well as increasing pressure on Putin to come to the table. So we support measures to disrupt Russian oil revenues, and we welcome President Trump’s comments that he is weighing very serious economic sanctions on Russia. The Foreign Secretary will have more to say on similar UK action very soon.
On the battlefield, intense fighting continues along the frontline. While Russian military activity has reduced in the Kharkiv and Sumy oblasts, as Russian ground forces relocate elements of those forces, over the past two weeks, they have advanced in the northern Donetsk region. Pokrovsk remains Russia’s focus and its forces are using a variety of methods to infiltrate Ukrainian positions, but Putin continues to make only minor territorial gains, at a huge cost.
The most recent assessment by UK defence intelligence estimates that at the current pace since January, it would take Russia another 4.4 years to seize the Donbas, at a cost of almost 2 million more Russian casualties. Despite that, the increasing escalation of Russia’s devastating drone strikes is a serious concern. In July, Russia launched approximately 6,200 one-way attack drones into Ukraine, another monthly record. In one night alone, over this weekend, Russia launched nearly 540 drones and 45 missiles.
The UK Government are stepping up our efforts for Ukraine. Our priorities are simple: support the fight today, secure the peace tomorrow. To support the fight today, we are providing £4.5 billion in military aid for Ukraine this year—the highest ever level. At the last Ukraine Defence Contact Group meeting, with over 50 nations and partners, in July, I launched a “50-day drive” to accelerate the assistance that we are giving. Fifty days on, the UK has delivered to Ukraine nearly 5 million rounds of munitions, around 60,000 artillery shells, rockets and missiles, 2,500 uncrewed platforms, 30 vehicles and engineering equipment, and 200 electronic warfare and air defence systems.
We will not jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war. Next week, I will co-chair the 30th UDCG meeting with Germany’s Minister Pistorius, alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and 50 other allies and partners. I will host an E5 Defence Ministers summit in London next week, where we will be joined by the Ukrainian Defence Minister, and where together we will step up still further our support for Ukraine.
To secure the peace tomorrow, the UK continues, with the French, to lead the coalition of the willing. Some 200 military planners from more than 30 nations have helped design plans in the event of a ceasefire: plans to secure the skies and seas, and to train Ukrainian forces to defend their nation. This week, I will host Defence Ministers from across the coalition, with French Minister Lecornu, to further cement contributions to that coalition. For the armed forces, I am reviewing readiness levels and accelerating funding to prepare for any possible deployment. Peace is possible, and we will be ready. The Prime Minister and I will ensure that the House is fully informed of developments in the proper way.
May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of the driving figures of the coalition of the willing, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin? Today is his last day as the UK Chief of the Defence Staff. Tony has had a distinguished 35-year military career in the armed forces, serving in operations right across the globe. He is widely respected and a true friend of the Ukrainian people, as President Zelensky himself said last week. I am sure that everyone in the House will join me in thanking Tony for his outstanding service and wish every success to his successor as CDS, Air Chief Marshal Rich Knighton.
Let me end by saying that while President Putin likes to project strength, he is now weaker than ever. Since Putin launched his illegal invasion, he has not achieved any of his strategic aims. He has lost more than 10,000 tanks and armoured vehicles, and his Black sea fleet has been humiliated. He is forced to rely on states such as Iran for drones, North Korea for frontline troops and China for technology and components. He is using 40% of his total Government spending on the war, with interest rates now running at 18% and inflation at 9%. Moreover, Putin now faces a bigger NATO—32 nations strong, with an agreement to raise national spending on security to 5% by 2035—and a Ukraine that is more determined than ever to control its own future. A secure Europe needs a strong, sovereign Ukraine, and we in the UK will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I join him in paying tribute to the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, who, as he says, has given such impactful leadership and support for Ukraine. I also send my best wishes to his successor as CDS, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton. It was a privilege to work with both of them at the MOD.
Let me turn to Ukraine. It is being widely reported that in his speech to the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit today, Vladimir Putin said that the understandings reached at his meeting with President Trump in Alaska were opening the way to peace in Ukraine. How utterly cynical. What followed the summit in Alaska was not peace, but the brutal bombing of innocent civilians across Ukraine. In particular, just days ago, Putin unleashed the second-largest aerial attack of the whole war, killing at least 23 people, including four children, as the Secretary of State just confirmed.
Bomb damage included the British Council in Kyiv. We join the Government in utterly condemning the attack on the British Council and pay tribute to all its staff, who are playing their part in our national endeavour to support Ukraine. We pass on our best wishes to the member of staff who was injured in the attack. We note that the chief executive of the British Council, Scott McDonald, promised to continue operations wherever possible. Can the Secretary of State outline to what degree that has been achieved and what support the Government have provided to assist?
If Putin really wants to open the way to peace in Ukraine, as he said, he should recognise that the blame for this war lies squarely with his territorial ambitions, and that all the civilian and military bloodshed that continues is wholly the result of his unprovoked and illegal invasion. The reality is that Putin does not accept that basic fact. In his speech today at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation summit, Putin is widely quoted as blaming others for the war, in particular his long-standing refrain that the war was caused by
“the West’s constant attempts to draw Ukraine into NATO.”
Without ambiguity, we and all our allies must see that the war in Ukraine is a question of a free and sovereign democracy invaded without provocation by a bullying dictator. That is why, when we were in office, it was right to provide such strong support to Ukraine from the outset of the invasion—indeed, even before it commenced —and why in opposition we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government in continuing that policy. That is why we need to keep tightening the screws on Putin’s war machine. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits, and Europe should ban Russian oil and gas sooner than its current 2027 deadline.
The Euro-Atlantic alliance must lead a new pincer movement to further constraint Russia’s energy revenues and stop Putin from getting his hands on military equipment, so I am glad that the Foreign Secretary will have more to say on sanctions very soon, as the Secretary of State for Defence said. Can he confirm whether the timeline is directly linked to US action? Would the UK go ahead with those plans for tougher sanctions if the US for some reason did not?
On any potential end to the fighting, we all desperately want to see peace in Ukraine, but we are clear that it must be a lasting, sustainable peace. That is why security guarantees are so important. The Secretary of State referred to President Trump’s commitment to make security guarantees “very secure” with the Europeans. What further detail is he able to share on the likely shape of any such US security guarantees?
The Secretary of State states that the coalition of the willing would
“secure the skies and seas”.
That seems to miss out the land force element. Does that mean that the Army would be sent to Ukraine only in a training role? He also said that he is
“reviewing readiness levels and accelerating funding to prepare for any possible deployment”.
Does he expect that funding to come from the Treasury reserve or the existing MOD budget? On reviewing readiness, what is the timescale of the review? Is it yet at the stage where urgent operational requirements are being considered?
Finally, I strongly welcome the news that Norway has selected the Type 26, which is made in Scotland, for its future fleet. That is a huge deal that will support thousands of jobs, but it has been many years in the making, with significant input and progress under the previous Government. In December 2023, I had the pleasure of visiting the Norwegian MOD in Oslo, and I assure the House that the Type 26 was very much at the top of the agenda. To remind hon. Members, that was in the same week we announced that Britain and Norway would lead the maritime coalition supporting Ukraine’s navy, underlining the strength of our naval alliance and our joint commitment to Ukraine.
It is clear that a key reason for Norway’s decision is that it faces the same Russian threat that we do from Russian submarines and wants the best possible capability to respond, maximising interoperability with the Royal Navy. However, that Russian threat arises entirely from Putin’s pursuit of aggression, rather than peace. Until that situation changes in reality rather than in rhetoric, we must continue to be robust in doing everything possible to support Ukraine.
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s endorsement of the success in securing the Norway deal. Groundwork was certainly done under the last Government, and he led a lot of that as the Defence Procurement Minister, but I have to say that we had a great deal more to do when we took over in July last year. Frankly, we had to reboot the campaign, which we did, and I am grateful that we have secured it, as it has huge military, economic and strategic importance.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s continuing support for the action we are taking to support Ukraine. He is absolutely right to call out Putin’s remarks at the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation council, and the pressure is now on Putin to prove that he wants peace and to do what he says he wants. While he has sat down to discuss peace with President Trump in Alaska, he has of course been turning up his attacks in Ukraine. He launched this war, and he can stop it tomorrow if he chooses.
The hon. Gentleman asks about sanctions and encourages us to take further steps. He will know that we have already introduced more than 500 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships. We have sanctioned 289 vessels as part of the Russian shadow fleet, and very soon the Foreign Secretary will announce further UK steps.
On the security guarantees, the commitments we have secured already from many of those involved in the discussion are substantial. The discussions continue, and we look for contributions to be further confirmed. Much of the shape of any deployment of a coalition of the willing will depend on the terms of any peace agreement. At this stage, I certainly do not want to offer any more public details on that, because it would only reinforce Putin’s hand and make him and the Russians wiser.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I wholeheartedly welcome the historic frigate exports deal with Norway, and join him in paying tribute to Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Radakin for his distinguished decades-long service to our country.
Recent Russian attacks across 14 different regions of Ukraine are not actions of peace. Words and actions must align, and it is abundantly clear that both from President Putin present a threat to us all. With such drastic escalation of Putin’s violence running concurrently with peace negotiations, along with Putin’s false reframing of his invasion as some sort of reaction to a Western-backed coup, can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shed further light on what levers he has pulled to help enable a peaceful outcome?
John Healey
It is a truism that peace is secured through strength, and our task in countries such as the UK that strongly support Ukraine is to put it in the strongest possible position on the battlefield and at any negotiating table. That means stepping up military support for Ukraine now, which we are doing, and will do further at next week’s UDCG meeting that I will co-chair. It also means stepping up economic pressure on Putin, which the House will have a chance to hear more about —the Foreign Secretary will announce further measures soon—and stepping up our preparations for securing any peace for the long term if Trump can help lead negotiations that will lead to a ceasefire and a peace agreement. That is the way that we support Ukraine now, and it is how we can help reinforce the steps towards the possibility of peace tomorrow.
I say to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Defence Committee and to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), that I will ensure tomorrow that Admiral Radakin is aware of the kind comments from both sides of the House. I know that he will appreciate them.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Defence Secretary for advance sight of his statement. I join others in the House in thanking Admiral Sir Tony Radakin for his service, and wish him well in his next steps.
I was relieved to see the Prime Minister join fellow European leaders in Washington last month, standing shoulder to shoulder with President Zelensky in the wake of Donald Trump’s fawning appeasement of Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Despite that show of support, I still fear that Trump would prefer to secure a quick and easy carve-up of Ukraine, rather than work to secure a peace that provides justice for Ukraine and guarantees its sovereignty against future Russian aggression. That is why I believe that the Government need to continue to lead from the front, but to take our European partners with us we really need to bolster Ukraine’s defence and punish Putin. In that vein, can the Secretary of State update the House on what progress, if any, has been made on seizing the billions in frozen Russian assets across the G7? Can he update us on whether any assessment has been made of the volume and quality of weaponry that the seizure of those assets could help fund for Kyiv, or to what use they could be put in supporting the rebuilding of Ukraine?
We must also tighten the screws on Putin’s war chest. I welcome the new £10 billion contract with Norway and the British jobs and businesses that it will support in the UK, which further demonstrates the need for us to work with our northern European allies in the fight against Russia’s aggression. I am pleased that the Government have taken a step to further cut the Kremlin’s profits through a reduction in the oil price cap, but that measure must be accompanied by more work to crack down on Russia’s shadow fleet, as it continues to trade and transport oil sold above that price cap. A joined-up approach between us and our allies is vital, so will the Secretary of State commit to expanding the UK’s designation of vessels in the shadow fleet, including those already sanctioned by the EU, Canada and the US, and will he seek reciprocal designations from those partners? As we reach a critical moment in negotiations, we need to be taking all the steps we can to provide Ukraine with the leverage and military matériel it needs, so will the Secretary of State consider sending UK Typhoon jets for use by the Ukrainian air force?
John Healey
I welcome the hon. Lady’s strong focus on the need for further economic pressure on Putin and on Russia. She will recognise that the UK is out ahead of many other countries in the number of vessels we have sanctioned as part of the Russian shadow fleet. We are always ready to take further steps in that regard, and I hope she will see very soon from the Foreign Secretary the UK’s determination to go further still on economic pressure and on sanctions. She invites me to offer an update on progress on the use of seized assets; I am unable to do that, but she will know that this is not just a matter of whether it will be effective as a UK decision. The detailed work that is still being discussed with other key allies continues. We recognise the potential for using those assets seized from Russia to help rebuild and support Ukraine—that is something we are working on.
The hon. Lady urges us to lead European allies. It is not unreasonable to say that that is exactly what we are doing, not just through the UK providing our highest ever level of military aid this year, but in the way in which we have now stepped in to lead the UDCG. I will chair its 30th meeting alongside Minister Pistorius next week. We have also stepped in by leading the coalition of the willing with the French—more than 50 nations are part of the discussions about planning for Ukraine’s long-term future, and I will host the Defence Ministers alongside Minister Lecornu this week to discuss that further.
However, there is one other point that I would make to the hon. Lady and to this House. It is often seen as the European coalition of the willing or the European UDCG, but these are coalitions of nations that go well beyond Europe. I was in Japan last week, and Prime Minister Ishiba of Japan has joined the discussions for the coalition of the willing. Some of the most stalwart supporters of Ukraine in terms of military aid since the start of the Russian invasion have been allies of ours—steadfast supporters of Ukraine from other parts of the world, from Australia to Japan and from New Zealand to Korea. That signals to Putin not just that Europe stands steadfast with Ukraine in challenging and confronting his aggression, but that we and many other countries see this as a security matter in the Euro-Atlantic that is indivisible from security in the Indo-Pacific.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I thank the Defence Secretary for the update and for his continuing leadership on this issue. We have all been so moved by the extraordinary bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people in the face of Russian aggression, and in my constituency we know how important it is to stand by our friends in Ukraine. In my constituency, I have also had the privilege of being able to visit our armed forces and our industry and to see how much they have been inspired by our Ukrainian colleagues and their innovation on the battlefield. Will the Secretary of State give a bit of an update on the important lessons that the Ministry of Defence has learned from Ukrainians’ innovation on the battlefield?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the courage of the Ukrainians is an inspiration to us all, including our own forces, as is their ability to fight and innovate in combat. We tried to capture that in the strategic defence review, which we published in June. It points the way to the sort of radical transformation that we will require in our own armed forces and defence system. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the hallmarks of that very soon when we publish the defence industrial strategy.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
A few weeks ago I returned from Ukraine with some others who had been delivering trucks and medical aid to the Ukrainians for use on the frontline. I have made a number of such trips alongside other Members whom I can see across the Floor, united, as the Government are united, with the Opposition and the other parties. However, having watched the brutality stepped up by President Putin in recent weeks, and following the Alaskan conference in Anchorage, I must say that I am fundamentally still very disappointed. Yes, the Government are right that they are bringing together a coalition of the willing, but the least willing of all at the moment seems to be the White House, and my concern is that without the White House’s commitment to showing Putin that his actions have consequences, this will continue to drag on. The United States is the one country that can really impress upon him that if the Russians carry on with these attacks, they will be sanctioned dramatically and the weapons that the Ukrainians desperately need will flow to them like water. I wonder whether the Government could say to the President, behind closed doors, “It is time to follow your words with actions and not keep on prevaricating.”
John Healey
I appreciate the argument that the right hon. Gentleman makes. It is important to recognise that President Trump’s role is essential and central in any opportunity to bring the two sides together. President Tump is playing a role that only he can play, and he has made it clear that the range of further steps, if they become necessary, at his disposal and for his decision include stepping up economic pressure on President Putin. We are ready to respond alongside that, and we are also ready to take our own decisions on economic pressure on President Putin and on Russia. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Defence Committee Chair, that has got to be part of trying to ensure that the pressure on Putin and the support for Ukraine brings the two sides more rapidly to the negotiating table so that we can get the peace that we all want secured.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
My West Dunbartonshire constituents know the importance of standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine in this fight. Does the Minister agree that investments such as the £250 million to His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde and the landmark £10 billion deal with Norway—both of which secure thousands of jobs for people on the Clyde, many of whom live in my West Dunbartonshire constituency—all help to show our strength and deter future Russian aggression?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is a lesson from Ukraine that we have to take seriously: when a country is faced with conflict or is forced to fight, its armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. Part of the significance of the frigate deal with Norway is that this will reinforce our British shipbuilding, our British innovation and our British technology base across the UK and especially in Scotland for many years to come.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I, too, congratulate Admiral Sir Tony Radakin and Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton and wish them well. A big “Well done” is also due to all involved in the Type 26 deal, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I ask the Defence Secretary to cast his mind back to March, when I asked the Prime Minister whether it would be folly to put British troops into Ukraine without a US backstop—without a guarantee from the White House—and the Prime Minister agreed that it would indeed be folly. Does that remain the Government’s position?
John Healey
The Government’s position is that we are discussing the nature of security guarantees and the contribution that we can help lead through the coalition of the willing, alongside any American support, and together that is part of the configuration of making Ukraine strong and creating the circumstances in which serious negotiations, and we hope a peace agreement, can be reached.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I warmly thank my right hon. Friend for getting this Norwegian deal over the line. I feel a singular sense of pride about it, because my constituency of Glasgow South West and Govan will become the epicentre of Type 26 construction. Will he undertake to work with me to ensure that my constituents feel the full benefits of this investment? In that vein, will he urge the SNP Government to finally collaborate with us and to dispense with their ideological block on the defence sector, so that together, for want of a better word, we can be stronger for Scotland?
John Healey
First, may I say to my hon. Friend that all of us in the House appreciate the contribution that his constituents, as part of that Govan workforce, make to building the outstanding British ships? The Norwegian Prime Minister had a telling way of explaining the decision on Sunday, when he said that they had weighed two questions:
“Who is our most strategic partner? And who has delivered the best frigates?... The answer to both is the United Kingdom.”
It is also telling that the nationalist-led Scottish Government are yet to welcome this contract and this success.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
First, I commend the Defence Secretary and Admiral Sir Tony Radakin for their commitment to a just peace in Ukraine. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that the most reluctant member of this coalition of the willing appears to be President Trump. Does the Defence Secretary agree that it is particularly disappointing that he is unable to give an update on seizing the $300 billion in frozen Russian assets? There is slow progress on that, but it is perhaps our strongest potential lever in exerting pressure on Russia to deliver a just peace.
John Healey
I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The declaration that the President of the United States has made about making the European-led arrangements for security guarantees, in his words, “very secure” is important and significant. Those discussions continue. The shape of any potential and possible deployment to support and secure a long-term peace will depend hugely on the nature of the peace agreement itself. It is for those reasons that it is not possible to set out in public at this stage the details, but we continue those discussions on the nature of the support that can be given to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire and a peace agreement, and on the sort of pressure that may be required to make sure that those serious negotiations can take place.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I want to share with the House the deepest solidarity from the Ukraine Appeal and the Sunflower Ukrainian supplementary school in my constituency of Milton Keynes about the recent attacks in Kyiv and on the British Council. The British Council’s vital cultural initiatives have supported peace and created community cohesion around the world. It is in that spirit that the Ukraine Appeal has created an exhibition, “Faces of Ukrainian Dream”, by the children who go to its Sunflower school. That exhibition will be touring Milton Keynes, including Bletchley Park. Will the Defence Secretary join me in expressing our solidarity to the Ukrainian families in Milton Keynes and across the UK, and those still in Ukraine? Slava Ukraini.
John Healey
I will indeed express that solidarity, and not just with those Ukrainian families and children; I also pay tribute to the people of Milton Keynes who have opened their homes to house the families of those Ukrainian children. It is often the children and the families who will feel the threat and the grief most fiercely, and the fact that they have expressed such strong solidarity with those British Council workers in the face of that attack is something that we all appreciate, and I would be grateful on behalf of the House if my hon. Friend passed that on.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House share my disgust at the sight of the killer in the Kremlin having a red carpet rolled out for him that might as well have been stained with the blood of all those who have died in a conflict that is down entirely to him, and to him alone. However, when we talk about meaningful security guarantees, it is perhaps worth remembering that the only reason why, when Germany was divided at the end of the second world war, that was a stable division was that both sides knew that anyone crossing a line would be initiating an international conflict. Surely any security guarantee that does not automatically guarantee the involvement of other states in the defence of Ukraine will not be worth the paper on which it is written.
John Healey
The purpose of the “coalition of the willing” force that we are leading the work to plan for is about actively securing the Ukrainian skies, actively making the Ukrainian seas safe, and providing a presence that will help to reassure, as well as helping to build up the Ukrainians to deter and defend for themselves. It starts from the first premise that in the circumstances of a peace agreement, for the medium and the long term, the strongest defence and the strongest deterrence is the nature and strength of the Ukraine armed forces themselves. That is our purpose, and that would be part of our mission.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend and his whole team for the incredible efforts that they are making on this issue. Over the weekend, Russia launched yet more devastating airstrikes on Kyiv, killing 23 people including a two-year-old child. July was the deadliest month of the conflict since its early stages, with more than 280 civilians killed and more than 1,300 injured. Russia has once again shown its blatant disregard for human life, targeting, abducting, indoctrinating and even weaponising children. What further steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that Ukraine has the means to defend itself from these heinous crimes?
John Healey
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the campaigning that she is doing, and not just on Ukraine generally but, in particular, to draw attention to the systematic programme that we have seen from Putin and his troops in abducting Ukrainian children and trying to indoctrinate them into the Russian way of life. I have had discussions with Secretary Umerov, when he was Defence Minister and now when he is Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council. He is leading the negotiations on behalf of President Zelensky, and some of the early discussions potentially with the Russian side are about prisoner of war swaps and about the return of those Ukrainian children.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I welcome the Norwegian investment in Glasgow’s shipyards. The Norwegians understand the importance of European security. The Norwegians understand the importance of territorial integrity. The Norwegians understand the importance of the high north. I pay credit to those at RM Condor, in my constituency, for their work in that particular area. They know that Donetsk is Ukrainian, that Luhansk is Ukrainian, and that Crimea is Ukrainian.
The United States ambassador to NATO said recently that no “chunks” that had not been “earned on the battlefield” should be given over to Russia. When the Secretary of State meets his US counterpart in a couple of weeks, will he make it clear that no chunks of Ukraine are earned by aggressors on the battlefield, and that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is testament regardless of our political allegiance here?
John Healey
The Ukrainians are fighting for their territorial integrity. The Ukrainians are doing the fighting, and it is for the Ukrainians to decide when to stop fighting and the terms on which they do so. Our job in the UK, and my job as Defence Secretary, is to ensure that we give them the maximum support possible in the fight, and we will give the maximum support possible as they go into the negotiations. Let me add that the hon. Gentleman’s declaration—and I hope he can speak on behalf of his party—that he fully supports that biggest ever British warship export deal is welcome in the House.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to start by paying tribute to Andriy Parubiy, the former Ukrainian Speaker, who was brutally assassinated in his home city of Lviv. He played a key role in the Maidan protests, which freed Ukraine of Russian interference.
I really thank my right hon. Friend for raising the issue of the British Council attack in Kyiv. A man was injured, and we need to remember that the British Council is not just any body; it is an arm’s length body of the FCDO. It takes British culture and values, and English language teaching, around the world. In the same attack, the EU delegation building was also attacked. We have heard tonight from Bulgaria that Ursula von der Leyen’s plane was jammed by Russia and had difficulty landing—it had to use paper maps to land.
I am afraid to say that we are hearing more and more on the streets that this war is a matter for Ukraine and Russia, but I think everybody in this Chamber knows that if Ukraine falls, it will not end there. This is a war for all of us, and Ukraine is fighting for all of us. I would like my right hon. Friend to reassure me that we are making it very clear that we know that Putin’s aggression will not stop at Ukraine if Ukraine fails, that the Ukrainians are fighting for all of us, and that we will give them all the support they need to ensure that we are all free in Europe.
John Healey
My hon. Friend speaks plainly and strongly. I recognise the work that he has done on Ukraine, just as President Zelensky did last month when he awarded my hon. Friend the Ukrainian Order of Merit for his support.
My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the recent assassination of Andriy Parubiy, which is a reminder of the brutality of the invasion. Andriy was not just a leader in the Maidan uprising; he was an ex-Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament. In many ways, his assassination brings home just how serious this war is for us in this House.
Finally, my hon. Friend makes the point that if Putin prevails in Ukraine, he will not stop at Ukraine. That is one of the reasons why the British public, the British House of Commons and the British Government remain so steadfast in our support for Ukraine.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is 17 days since President Trump rolled out the red carpet for Putin—during which time, as the Secretary of State said, Russia has stepped up its bombardment of Ukraine with drones and missiles. I thank him for his remarks about Andriy Parubiy, the former Speaker of the Rada. I knew him well and admired him hugely. The last time I met him was when we entertained him in this House as a visiting Speaker. It is a mark of Putin’s hatred of democracy that he regarded the Speaker of a democratic Parliament as an appropriate target.
Does the Secretary of State agree that, at the present time, Putin shows no interest in a ceasefire? Will the right hon. Gentleman do whatever he can to persuade President Trump that the only way that Putin can be made to consider a ceasefire is by stepping up the pressure on Russia through extra sanctions, and by giving ever more support to Ukraine?
John Healey
I think the whole House appreciates the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about Andriy Parubiy and the relationship that he had with him. On the question of pressure on Putin to come to the negotiating table, that is a matter for the nations that stand with Ukraine, and we are determined to play our role. It is also a matter that is recognised by the US and the US President. He wants Putin to come to the table. He wants Putin to start to act in the way that he says—interested in peace and ready to talk about peace—but at the moment, he is not yet showing signs of doing so.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
To secure peace in the long term for Ukraine we need to support its defence industrial base and therefore the financial sector that underpins it, but I am concerned that UK Export Finance red tape could be limiting UK-Ukraine defence partnerships. I also believe that we could launch new joint defence innovation funds. Will my right hon. Friend carefully consider these ideas and work with me to discuss how we can support Ukraine’s defence financing system?
John Healey
The short answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that we are already working hard with Ukraine on some of these questions of joint ventures and joint industrial partnerships. Indeed, when President Zelensky visited Downing Street in June, our Prime Minister declared that this area of reinforcing our industrial connections and joint enterprise will help Ukraine in the fight now and help develop Ukrainian industry, but could also bring benefits to us and our armed forces in the future.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and all those involved on the Type 26 frigate deal, which is great news for all and for economic growth. I reiterate our continuing support for Ukraine, and also for this Government and the Secretary of State in working with other world leaders in trying to secure a ceasefire. I suppose we should not be surprised by Putin’s appalling continuation of the bombing of Ukraine. May I urge the Secretary of State to work with other world leaders to use the leverage, which I think we still have, of the $300 billion-worth of frozen central bank assets that could help in the negotiations with Putin?
John Healey
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I note his view on the frozen Russian assets, and I welcome his declaration of support for Ukraine and his condemnation of Vladimir Putin. The all-party nature of the support for Ukraine in this House is very important, and it is particularly welcome that he is here and makes that clear for the Reform party.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Russia’s aggression directly threatens our security here at home. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the push for peace matters not just for the Ukrainian people, but for the security of us all, and that we must invest in the defence industry in constituencies such as Wolverhampton North East to deter Russian aggression and stand in solidarity with Ukraine?
John Healey
I do, indeed. If for a moment this House considers a situation in which Putin prevails in Ukraine, it is not hard to see how that makes Europe less secure. A strong Ukraine is essential for a secure UK and a secure Europe in the future. My hon. Friend urges us to do more to reinforce the British defence industrial base. The record increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war that this Government are now committed to investing will be an important part of that, and I hope she will welcome the defence industrial strategy when we publish it shortly.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Given the red carpet treatment afforded to Putin, will the Secretary of State remind our principal ally that it is our co-signatory to the Budapest memorandum?
John Healey
The US is well aware that it is a co-signatory. Everyone involved in trying to support Ukraine through this war, and more importantly also considering the route to securing a long-term and just peace, is acutely aware of not repeating the mistakes of the Budapest memorandum.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the Government’s unwavering support for Ukraine. Given recent reports that Starlink was disabled during a major Ukrainian counter-offensive, highlighting the dangers of relying on a single privately owned satellite system, will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government are taking with their European allies to ensure that Ukraine has a resilient and sovereign communication system that cannot be switched off at the whim of one individual?
John Healey
Without going into the details in public, I can say to my hon. Friend that, across a range of capabilities where the Ukrainians are requiring our support and our military aid, we are looking to provide that.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Ukraine needs a just peace. It also needs financial support to rebuild. The EU has said that it will allow frozen Russian assets to be used in higher risk investments to generate more money. What discussions has the Secretary of State had on supporting the EU’s latest effort to use Russia’s assets to provide vital funding for Ukraine?
John Healey
I have had none of those discussions myself, but the Government have had them with the European Union and with other allies that must be part of any effective plan to make use of the frozen Russian assets. The hon. Lady will be aware of the way we are already making use of the interest on those frozen assets, putting them to good use to make sure we can support Ukraine to continue its fight.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
A Ukrainian constituent who has just returned from a visit to Ukraine told me today:
“Russia is systematically destroying our border regions and key infrastructure: medical, educational, civil, governmental and business. The scale of the problem goes far beyond housing or temporary displacement—it is about the viability of life across large parts of Ukraine. This is part of a wider strategy aimed at rendering Ukraine’s borderlands uninhabitable. Any recovery strategy will require years of investment, security guarantees and sustained international support.”
In the light of that, I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which demonstrates that British support for Ukraine is unwavering. Can he confirm that we are using every tool at our disposal to ensure that the cynical Russian policy described by my constituent will ultimately be overcome?
John Healey
I can confirm that we are doing all we can. If my hon. Friend or his constituent identifies areas where we are not doing that, I would welcome his tackling me on doing so.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The House should be grateful to the Secretary of State for giving this statement today, because it underlines how the Government are determined to keep this issue at the top of the British political agenda. He gave quite an optimistic assessment of how we, the Ukrainians and her allies, are doing in Ukraine, only inasmuch as Russia cannot win this war. The risk—something I hope he will emphasise to President Trump—is that the west is losing the peace, and that by losing the peace we are losing our own security. In the words of his own strategic defence review, we need to mobilise the British people to have a national conversation as to why we need to step up our efforts. Are we really giving Ukraine enough? I do not think we are.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman has deep experience, so I take his views very seriously. I would just say to him that we are doing more this year than we have ever done before. We recognise that the UK on its own is limited and that we can play a really important role in stepping up the collective leadership, as we are doing through the UDCG and the coalition of the willing. In that way, Britain can play a co-ordinating role to contribute to the support that Ukraine needs. We do so with allies, and when we do so with allies, we make more of an impact.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Clyde is a wide river that straddles the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) and mine, so I join my colleague in welcoming the deal with Norway that was concluded at the weekend. Not only will it secure a bright future for the 100-plus apprentices at BAE Systems on the Clyde, it will secure the future of shipbuilding on the Clyde, including at the Scottish Government-owned Ferguson Marine, which is a subcontractor to BAE Systems. There are perhaps 10 billion reasons why the Scottish Government should welcome the deal. The Secretary of State mentioned the diminution of Putin’s strength. Does he agree that the deal will help to further that diminution, particularly in the high north?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is exactly right. This will not just set new standards within NATO of interoperability and interchangeability, with effectively a combined Norwegian-UK anti-submarine force; it means that more frigates—a total of 13 anti-submarine frigates between the two nations—will be available to reinforce the northern flank of NATO to provide the sort of deterrence required to keep the Russian threat in check.
My hon. Friend must be very proud of her Scotstoun yard. I hope that she will recognise, as I do, that this deal will secure the future of 4,000 jobs in the UK for many years, 2,000 of which are in Scotland.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin is a fine example of public service, so I humbly agree with the Defence Secretary about the retiring Chief of the Defence Staff. When the CDS appeared before the Defence Committee in June, he said of NATO that
“The crucial thing is whether we are deterring Russia and whether we can face down the threats of Russia”.
He answered his own rhetorical question that we are, “absolutely”.
Following the strike in Kyiv that damaged the British Council and the EU’s diplomatic mission last week, can the Defence Secretary set out how the UK and NATO are deterring further symbolic attacks like this one?
John Healey
Without wishing to speak for him, I suspect that one of the things Admiral Radakin will not miss in stepping down as CDS is appearing before the Defence Committee, although I am sure he will still contribute to public debate on these matters. The hon. Gentleman makes a general point about the attempt to step up our support for Ukraine. We will always try to respond to what Ukraine says it most needs. As we go into next week’s UDCG meeting, which I will be hosting with Minister Pistorius, that is exactly what we will try to do.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his leadership on this issue. As the pressure on Ukraine to agree a ceasefire builds, Russia too escalates its campaign of aerial attack on Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure. In the liberated city of Kherson, Russian first-person drone operators are turning state killing into a grotesque spectacle that is publicly broadcast and has been christened a “human safari”.
The provision and conversion of Ukrainian Soviet-era missiles into the Gravehawk system represents both real material aid and an accomplishment of British military engineering. Crucially, it helps to reduce dependency on any single supply chain and technology for aerial defence. Will the Defence Secretary give the House an assurance that all steps are being taken to increase both the quantity and the diversity of air defence systems for Ukraine?
John Healey
We are doing what we can to increase the diversity and quantity of air defence systems. I am proud of what we have achieved with Gravehawk, which is a good example of two things: first, innovation, and secondly, a combination of Ukraine and UK minds working together. When we do that, we can respond rapidly and in a way that meets Ukraine’s needs, but that also points the way to a different future in the way we develop the systems that we need in our own forces for the future.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I should declare an interest in that my eldest son today started work at Rosyth royal dockyard, a key part of British military infrastructure for more than 100 years. Over the summer, we saw Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney meet with Ukrainian military personnel at the Edinburgh military tattoo. Incredibly, were those brave men and women to be injured in the line of duty, NHS medical aid sent from Scotland could not be used to treat them because of a prohibition put in place by the Scottish Government, who continue to refuse to fund warfighting capability in Scotland. With defence reserved to this place, Secretary of State, how is it possible that the devolved Administration in Holyrood can damage British interests and security in this manner?
John Healey
The hon. Member poses those questions to me, but they are clearly not for me but for the Scottish nationalist Government to answer. I would love to see an end to the antagonism to investment in Scotland—investment which supports Scottish jobs in the wider defence industry and supports our UK security, in which Scotland plays such a vital part. It ought to be something that the Scottish Government embrace and support, rather than resist and oppose.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
People in my constituency know the importance of standing with Ukraine in its fight, and in a recent survey I did, 87% of them said that they support this Government’s continued iron-clad support for Ukraine, which after three-and-a-half years is an impressively high figure. Does the Defence Secretary agree that the push for peace in Ukraine matters not just for Ukrainians, whose country has been attacked for over a decade by Russian forces, but for our future security in Britain, and that we must therefore invest in the defence industry in regions such as the east midlands to deter future Russian aggression?
John Healey
The answer is yes, and I ask my hon. Friend pass on to his constituents my appreciation for their support. At a level of support for Ukraine of 87%, the constituents in Rushcliffe are an exemplification of the British spirit that recognises that Ukraine is fighting for the same sorts of freedoms that we value and for its own future in the way that we in this country have done in the past.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement. I look forward very much to his statements in this Chamber, because he invariably brings us good news, and today he has done so again with the order of five frigates for Norway worth £10 billion. As a farmer, I am minded that while someone sows the seed, someone else garners the harvest, and the person who garners the harvest is the person who gets the plaudits, so congratulations to the Minister for that.
What discussion has the Secretary of State had with our American allies to ensure that the good of Ukraine is at the heart of any approach and that any minerals deal is secondary to our ensuring that the battle was not fought in vain and that lives were not lost in vain? Can he ensure that Putin and the Russian army will be held accountable for their war crimes and their reign of terror, and that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will continue always to stand with Ukraine?
John Healey
I think this House appreciates the hon. Member’s declaration on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland that they stand steadfast with Ukraine. The support that the UK Government—the previous Government and this Government—are giving to Ukraine to document in the most difficult circumstances of an ongoing war the evidence that will be required to bring the Russian forces and Russian leaders to account after the fighting is over is an important part of the contribution that we can make. Funding, resources, and expert and legal advice is part of the ongoing aid that we are providing to Ukraine for that purpose.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and reiteration that we will always support the people of Ukraine. Given Russia’s despicable attack against civilian targets in Kyiv, costing the lives of over 20 civilians including children and damaging a British Council building, it is quite clear that Vladimir Putin has very little interest in any legitimate peace process. Given that reports differ about how committed countries are to deploying troops in Ukraine to enforce any potential peace agreement, can the Secretary of State set out how the UK is working with our allies to convince them to back security guarantees and peace in Ukraine, and will he state that there is nothing that Vladimir Putin can do now to deter our support for Ukraine?
John Healey
There is indeed nothing that Putin can do to deter our support for Ukraine—our support while it fights, but also our preparation for the moment of peace that we hope will come. My hon. Friend invites me to set out how we are developing that. We have had multiple meetings of our military leaders and planners over the summer through the coalition of the willing. I will host this week a meeting of Defence Ministers from the coalition of the willing. It will be designed to make sure that we maintain our military plans and step up the commitments to contribute at the point at which we can get a peace agreement in place. There will be a role for countries like ours to support Ukraine, both in securing that peace for the long term and in regenerating their own armed forces to deter Russia in future.
Joint Committee on Human Rights
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Alex Sobel will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement, which must be brief questions, not full speeches. Can I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee member and not the Government Front Bench? Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I was thinking that I might have had a quiet first day back after recess, but I have now been in the Chamber for six hours and 20 minutes, so I am clearly working hard for my constituents yet again. I am also working hard on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for which I give this statement on the seventh report of the 2024-25 Session, “Transnational repression in the UK”.
The Committee believes that transnational repression is a serious and under-recognised threat. The report argues:
“Its impacts extend far beyond those directly targeted, creating a broader ‘chilling effect’ on entire communities and undermining fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, assembly, and association.”
The Committee received credible evidence that a number of states have engaged in acts of transnational repression on UK soil. The report highlights China, Russia and Iran as the three most flagrant transnational repression perpetrators in the United Kingdom. Transnational repression is generally understood to refer to certain state-directed crimes or actions against individuals that take place outside the territory of the perpetrating state. Transnational repression can take many forms: it could include harassment, online disinformation campaigns, surveillance, stalking and physical violence, in addition to threats to family members, attempts to force individuals to return to their country of origin and assassination attempts.
The Committee launched its inquiry into transnational repression in response to increasing reports of foreign Governments moving beyond their borders to persecute people here in the United Kingdom. In the last year, the number of state threat investigations run by MI5 has increased by 48%.
There have been several recent high-profile transnational repression cases, including the issuance of bounties against Hong Kong pro-democracy activists and Iran’s intimidation of UK-based journalists. MI5 and counter-terrorism police have dealt with more than 20 threat-to-life cases relating to Iran since the start of 2022. The Government have recently set out a strategic framework to address transnational repression following a review of the UK’s transnational repression approach by the defending democracy taskforce.
The Committee received 181 written evidence submissions, 91 of which we were able to publish. Many submissions were from people with personal experience of transnational repression. The Committee also held four oral evidence sessions, where we heard from legal experts, academics, human rights advocates, journalists and—most importantly—victims of transnational repression themselves. I express my gratitude to all those who contributed to the inquiry for their bravery in coming forward; in particular, those victims of transnational repression who put themselves at personal risk by coming and appearing in public before the Committee.
There is currently no universally accepted definition of transnational repression, and the UK Government have chosen not to adopt a formal definition, opting instead to describe it as
“certain foreign state-directed crimes against individuals.”
Without a clear definition of what constitutes transnational repression, it is difficult to collate reliable data on the scale and nature of transnational repression-related activities. It appears that the Home Office does not currently collect or require police forces to collect data on transnational repression incidents taking place in the UK. The report recommends that the Government adopt a formal definition of transnational repression and establish data collection and monitoring mechanisms.
The Committee report welcomes the introduction of the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS—as a tool to help strengthen the UK’s ability to tackle transnational repression. The designation of Iran and Russia as countries listed on the enhanced tier of FIRS was consistent with the evidence presented to the Committee regarding the threat posed by transnational repression operating from these states. The report argues that China’s omission from the enhanced tier risks undermining the credibility and coherence of FIRS and recommends that China be specified under the enhanced tier of FIRS.
Looking to support for victims, transnational repression victims felt that the overall police response to transnational repression has been inconsistent. Many affected individuals described limited awareness of transnational repression among frontline officers and a lack of clear referral pathways. Some victims had even been advised to avoid political activity or to self-censor, while others had been incorrectly referred to hate crime or diversity and equality officers. Counter-terrorism policing and the College of Policing have launched guidance and awareness modules on foreign interference, and the powers introduced in the National Security Act 2023. This training is now available for all 45 territorial police forces in the UK. However, the training is mandatory only for counter-terrorism officers. The report recommends that serious consideration should be given to making transnational repression training mandatory for all police officers.
At present, victims of transnational repression are advised to report incidents through standard policing channels, for example by calling 999 or 101 or by attending their local police station. However, victims felt that early signs of transnational repression could be more effectively identified though a dedicated helpline, where those answering calls would have received training on how to recognise and respond to transnational repression threats appropriately. The report recommends that the Government establish a reporting hotline for transnational repression victims.
Regarding diplomatic policy, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office uses tools to target transnational repression that largely align with those used to address other foreign policy challenges. These include private engagement with foreign Governments, issuing a démarche and terminating privileges and immunities, in addition to reducing official or ministerial contact, denying diplomatic visas, imposing sanctions or asking for diplomats to be withdrawn or expelled.
The Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 give the Secretary of State the power to designate individuals for the purpose of imposing sanctions on them. The Secretary of State has to consider that the designation is appropriate, and must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is or has been involved in an activity which, if carried out by a state, would amount to a serious violation of a person’s right to life, their right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or their right to be free from slavery. Activities in the UK are covered if they are carried out by someone who is not a UK national.
Some transnational repression conduct may fall under the 2020 Regulations if it amounts to a serious violation of the right to life or the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. However, much transnational repression conduct, including even violence, intimidation, harassment, illegal deportations, abductions and Interpol and extradition abuse, would fall outside the scope of the regulations. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the Government review the scope of the UK’s sanctions framework to assess the feasibility of introducing specific transnational repression sanctions.
The UK should also adopt a more proactive approach to sanctions, particularly in cases where UK nationals and residents are directly affected. The report also recommends that the UK should ensure that diplomatic responses, such as the expulsion of officials, public démarches and the imposition of sanctions, are not only available in principle but actively and visibly deployed in response to serious incidents. With that, I recommend this report to the House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not usually get called first, so thank you very much for that. Can I first of all thank the Chair of the Committee and the Committee for all that they do in relation to this issue? I know that the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) has been incredibly committed to it. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, and for us it is important to speak on behalf of many human rights groups, particularly the Iranian Government in exile. Maryam Rajavi is the chair and has a 10-point plan for Iran. Have the Chairman and the Committee had the opportunity to gauge the transnational repression against people from Iran who live here in exile? I am personally aware of some of the repression and spying that they experience.
Alex Sobel
I thank the hon. Member for his questions. I have worked with him, as he knows, on the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief. Religious belief is one of the reasons why we see transnational repression, and China is a particular example when it comes to subjecting citizens to it for their religious belief. We took evidence from a senior member of the Iranian diaspora, Mr Abedini, as part of the evidence, who was very nearly killed—not in the UK but in Turkey, which still is transnational repression because he was not in Iran. He was only saved because the gun jammed on the third shot when he was attacked. As I said, we know that Iran is increasing its attacks. Individual members—myself and the Chair, as the hon. Member referred to—work closely with many Iranian groups based here, in France and in other places. Much of our evidence was from those from the Iranian community.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I thank my fellow Committee member for representing our inquiry so well today and the Security Minister, who is in his place, for engaging with our inquiry. I recently hosted a meeting of the Bracknell Hong Kong community in my constituency. I was saddened but unfortunately not surprised to hear from them that some members of that community chose not to come to the meeting with their local MP because of their concerns about the political repercussions it may have for them and their families. That goes to show the chilling effect that transnational repression can have, not just on individuals when they are targeted by states but on whole communities. Does my hon. Friend agree, and is it not a central part of our report, that it cannot be right in our democratic system, in our democratic country, that any individual or community should ever feel they are not able to engage in that democracy? Fundamentally, that is at the heart of what makes our country so fantastic.
Alex Sobel
I thank my hon. Friend for his role in this inquiry and the great role he plays on the Committee. I will start by talking about the absolutely brilliant evidence we received from Chloe Cheung from Hong Kong, who is from Leeds. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), who represents her, was just here. She speaks to exactly that point. Because of her activities in Leeds—being visible, demonstrating, helping set up Hongkongers in Leeds—she had a million-dollar bounty put on her head at the age of 80. It is incumbent on us to ensure the safety of the Hong Kong community. One of the shortcomings we found in the evidence was the fact that Chloe was advised just to call 999 or 101 when she was threatened. She was even followed by two people who she suspects were either interested in the bounty or from the state authorities. We need to do much more to protect democracy activists and just ordinary Hongkongers who live here, going about their daily lives. I hope the Minister has heard that, and he will also have read our report and seen the evidence from Chloe. We look forward to the Met, West Yorkshire police and others in upscaling their support for people like Chloe.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It strikes me that this is an excellent report that has been presented to us by the joint Committee this evening. The report deals with SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation. I appreciate that the hon. Member was not able to get to that in his allotted 10 minutes, so I would like to ask a little more about anti-SLAPP legislation. During the last Government—I think it was in February 2024—a private Member’s Bill was brought forward to try to introduce anti-SLAPP legislation, but that legislation fell at the end of the last Government. I understand that some provisions were introduced as part of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, but does he feel that more needs to be done on anti-SLAPP legislation and how soon should this House and the Government be doing it?
Alex Sobel
I thank the hon. Member for his question on SLAPPs. In our inquiry, we heard from those who were precluded from reporting on certain types of transnational repression through the use of SLAPPs, which were relevant to the inquiry and to exposing transnational repression in the United Kingdom. Although we have not put forward an amendment or a legislative mechanism, that is certainly in the scope of the report.
Bank Facilities in Moffat
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of constituents who are users of the Bank of Scotland Moffat branch.
Earlier this year, out of the blue, the Bank of Scotland announced the closure of all five of its branches in my constituency, along with many others across Scotland, leading, in my view, to that bank giving up on rural communities. Moffat was particularly affected because it is 23 miles from the next nearest branch in Dumfries, has a high elderly and vulnerable population, is a tourist town that attracts many visitors, and has a large number of businesses that rely on cash.
The petition states:
The petition of users of the Bank of Scotland Moffat Branch,
Declares that residents of Moffat and Upper Annandale and visitors to the area will be left without banking services and access to cash by the proposed closure of the local Bank of Scotland branch in Moffat, thereby causing significant concern and worry for the local community, particularly the elderly and vulnerable, and local businesses, particularly in the hospitality industry, who rely on this these banking services; further that the petition organised locally by Evelyn Atkins calling on the Bank of Scotland to reverse the closure decision has garnered over 3,000 signatures from the local community and visitors to the town.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to call on the Bank of Scotland to keep its Moffat Branch open and to ensure that the residents of Moffat and Upper Annandale have proper access to cash and banking facilities.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003104]
Lisbon Maru Memorial
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her time and attention on the debate.
On 1 October 1942, an unmarked Japanese freighter called the Lisbon Maru was carrying over 1,800 British and allied prisoners of war—hundreds were from the Royal Scots regiment. The prisoners had been captured after the fall of Hong Kong and were destined for internment in Japan. Conditions for prisoners on this ship, and many freighters like it, were brutal and unsanitary. They became known as “hell ships” because of the suffering of those on board.
For many, including the freighter, that was their final voyage. On that day, the Lisbon Maru was torpedoed by a submarine in the east China sea. Although the Japanese troops on board the vessel were rescued, the POWs were locked in the ship’s hold. As the vessel sank, many were trapped, and those who escaped were shot by guards who remained board, or from nearby Japanese vessels. Many others were gunned down in the water as they desperately tried to survive.
Amid that horror, a glimmer of humanity emerged: Chinese fishermen from nearby islands risked their lives to rescue hundreds of survivors, and gave them shelter in their homes. Their efforts speak to a spirit that we know well, one that reminds us of our own Dunkirk evacuations, showing common humanity in the face of unimaginable horror.
This tragedy was not known to me until this year, when a constituent reached out. For Gerry Borge, his father John and uncle Eddie’s extraordinary experience on board the Lisbon Maru and their miraculous survival was a story he needed to share. John and Eddie were unfortunately recaptured and imprisoned for the remainder of the war, but they finally returned home, unlike so many others.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She has put forward this story with so much passion and interest in the people, and I congratulate her on that. Again, I remember and pay tribute to the victory over Japan. I commemorated it at an event just last week, and so this is a timely debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her passion for establishing a fitting tribute. I will support her as she tries to achieve that goal. Does she agree that the tragedy, resulting in the deaths of more than 800 prisoners —many of whom were from Scotland and, in particular, areas such as West Lothian—makes a memorial seem appropriate as we understand the loss to families throughout Scotland that took place as a result of the sinking of the Lisbon Maru? It would be appropriate to do something like that now.
Kirsteen Sullivan
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and one that I will come on to. I agree wholeheartedly with his sentiment.
Gerry wrote to me in a plea to shine a light on the tragedy when the Lisbon Maru sank, which impacted many families. I spoke to him last week in my office and the message he wanted me to convey this evening is the timeless one that, even during the horrors of war, the actions of the Chinese fishermen exemplify the human instinct to reach out and to help our fellow human beings.
Many who experienced conflict, especially in the Pacific theatre, never felt able to share their stories, yet each town and village in this country will have its own relationship with conflict and a loss to remember. Honouring our history and the conflicts that have often defined it is something I believe Britain has done well over the years. The dedication of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the monuments that we erect are a powerful legacy of the sacrifices made and the lives cut short. However, that is also a promise: wherever one dies in conflict around the globe, they will be remembered back home for their heroism, their service and the legacy that they leave.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for this debate. A few days ago, in my office, I met relatives of people who died on the Suez Maru, which was lost in similar circumstances, with about 550 prisoners of war on it, a great number of whom were machinegunned in the water by members of the imperial Japanese navy. The fight of the relatives I met was not for a memorial; it was for an answer from the Government about why a war crimes trial did not take place. All these years later, it is an emotive subject for them, and one of the relatives was crying in my office. That is a reminder that although years have passed—that ship was lost in 1943—people can still feel raw and emotional. It is right that we remember such losses.
Kirsteen Sullivan
I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful and important point: people did not come home from war and people came home from war changed, not the same person who left. We owe them a debt of gratitude and we owe it to them never to forget the sacrifices they made and the legacy that they left for us in securing our freedom.
The deaths of the servicemen in the tragedy of the Lisbon Maru, including the 373 Royal Scots who perished, are a reminder of Scotland’s historic contribution to the war effort. It will be the 83rd anniversary of the tragedy a month from now, but the commemorations have already begun. A few months ago, Gerry and several relatives of those who were prisoners of war attended an unveiling ceremony of a new memorial on Qingbang island, south-east of Shanghai. It is greatly welcomed that the plight and the story of those servicemen is recognised around the world, but it is important that we remember it at home as well.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward the debate and the fact that we were able to have a debate in the House specifically about VJ Day. It is an issue that the events in the far east and some of the horrors that happened there are not known as well as they should be. I was not aware of this specific incident until I heard the hon. Lady mention it previously, so I commend her. Does she agree that we must continue to bring out all the facts about the events in the far east, where Scotland played a particular role, so that people understand the contribution and the sacrifices that were made?
Kirsteen Sullivan
I thank the right hon. Member for that point, which he made very well. Indeed, my grandfather served in Burma, yet that story is not really known in our family as it was a story not told at the time. It is important to bring those stories into the light and to hear about the sacrifices, which are quite unimaginable to many people of our generation. It is important that those stories continue to be told.
The National Memorial Arboretum has a dedicated memorial to the Lisbon Maru tragedy, and it graciously hosts the families for a memorial ceremony every year, for which I know the relatives and the country are grateful. People have memorials in their communities to commemorate the personal loss of war and provide a focal point for remembrance. In a detached and inhumane conflict that seems far away, the consequences are felt by the empty seats around the dinner table at home.
From the conflict of the second world war, the world developed humanitarian law and more humane treatment of prisoners, which has underpinned our international community for decades. It is important that we recommit ourselves to learn those lessons and, as we have heard throughout this evening, that we continuously strive to win the peace. The best way to remind ourselves and teach our young people is to show that the tragedies of war are universal and felt everywhere. A new memorial to the Lisbon Maru would be an excellent place to learn just that: the bravery of those men who suffered as prisoners of war and of the fishermen, but also the horrors of war that must not be repeated.
My constituency is no stranger to powerful memorials. The Bathgate hills host a memorial to those who died in the Korean war of the 1950s. It is a beautiful, peaceful and sobering place to reflect on those killed, captured and maimed very far from home. Its presence encourages us to spark conversations with new generations about the lessons of the past, and the sacrifices that were made for their future.
The Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), has been a welcome advocate in my constituency, not just with the new VALOUR guarantees set out by this Government, but his personal support for a local memorial to the women in wartime who worked in hazardous conditions in a munitions factory. While the dedicated work of Gerry and the Lisbon Maru Memorial Association will ensure that the legacy lives on, I ask the Minister to consider supporting a new national memorial closer to home for the families of the Royal Scots, commemorating those who survived, those who died and their rescuers. A memorial in Scotland will provide a space for families like Gerry’s to share their stories and remember together.
Finally, I thank Gerry for sharing his family’s personal story with me—a story of two young men, far from home, facing inconceivable horrors—and for allowing me to record it in this place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) on securing this debate on the potential merits of Government support for a memorial to the Lisbon Maru. In particular, I congratulate her on the very moving and evocative way in which she told the story of this tragedy and the sheer humanity exhibited by those who came to the rescue. Let me put on record our tribute to her constituent Gerry for recording his family’s story—it must have been painful, but it was so incredibly important. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for adding their reflections to this debate, and all hon. Members who have stayed to listen to it this evening.
I begin my own reflections by acknowledging and honouring the service and suffering of British and Commonwealth prisoners of war in the Pacific theatre during the second world war. As we have heard today, this issue has impacted on many lives very deeply, including the families of the many Scottish servicemen who tragically lost their lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow has said, every constituency has a story to tell, so it is right that we remember all those who died, those who suffered appalling injuries and those who were tortured and imprisoned during this conflict. It is right that we thank them and recognise that they suffered deeply for our shared freedoms.
I recently had the privilege of representing the UK Government at the VJ Day 80th anniversary service at Edinburgh castle, organised by the Royal British Legion Scotland. I was deeply moved to spend time with families recounting the stories of their own loved ones who had served in world war two across all theatres, and I will never forget the stories they told and the lessons they imparted on the power of forgiveness, service and sacrifice. Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met Margaret Landels and George McLeod, both world war two veterans, during his recent visit to Lady Haig’s Poppy Factory for VE Day.
Both of those significant national occasions are reminders of the price paid for our freedoms, and they highlight the importance of standing alongside our allies, particularly, as we heard earlier from the Secretary of State for Defence, in continuing our support for Ukraine. The UK will always support Ukraine’s sovereignty, freedom and right to peace. I had cause to reflect on that personally when I attended the third anniversary commemoration of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine at the Scottish national war memorial. The memorial at Edinburgh castle honours all Scottish service personnel who have died in the service of their country and acts as a truly poignant symbol of Scotland’s long-standing tradition of contributing to the UK’s national defence.
Scots in the armed forces, their families and their communities are rightly proud of Scotland’s deep-rooted military history. Scots have a very long tradition of defending the UK’s interests around the world. But beyond remembering our fallen heroes, we have a duty to ensure that veterans and their families today receive the support and care that they deserve, no matter where they live in the UK. That is why this Government have taken significant steps to deliver on our promise to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve and have served. I am proud that this Government launched Op VALOUR, a transformative initiative backed by a £50 million commitment to veterans’ support. We also launched a £75 million LGBT financial redress scheme. Through Op Ascend, we are helping veterans to thrive in their post-service careers, providing them with opportunities to succeed in the civilian workforce.
Let me turn to the specific subject of today’s debate. The UK Government deeply regret the loss of life that occurred on the Lisbon Maru and the resulting distress caused by the decision not to pursue a case against those involved. The Government of Japan have acknowledged and shown contrition for their wartime actions on numerous occasions over the past several decades, including from past Prime Ministers and Emperors. Since the second world war, the UK and Japan have continued to work hard to promote our shared democratic values and respect for human rights, in the hope that we will never, ever see a repeat of these events anywhere in the world. I saw the closeness of our modern partnership when I visited Japan only last month.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, there is rightly a memorial located at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire, which commemorates all those who were taken captive and those who perished. On 2 October every year there is now an annual gathering at the memorial to remember and honour those affected by this tragedy. I will also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Lisbon Maru Memorial Association for its dedicated work in preserving the history of the events surrounding the sinking of the Lisbon Maru and honouring all those who were aboard her.
As heritage is a devolved policy area in Scotland, any funding of such memorials remains the preserve of public subscription driven by individuals and organisations. I therefore encourage the Scottish Government to consider how they can best support efforts to commemorate those in Scotland affected by the tragic events of the Lisbon Maru, ensuring that the memory of the 183 servicemen from the Royal Scots regiment who lost their lives is truly honoured. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans and People engages regularly with the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, who advocates for veterans living in Scotland and influences policymakers on matters affecting veterans. All our Governments must continue to work together on how we appropriately honour and remember the past.
In closing, let us remember that our commitment to veterans is not just a promise; it is an ongoing, deep obligation. It is our responsibility to honour their service, acknowledge their sacrifices and—most of all—preserve their memories for future generations. Together, we will continue to build a future in which every single veteran receives the care, support and opportunities that they rightfully deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Local Audit (Amendment of Definition of Smaller Authority) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Audit (Amendment of Definition of Smaller Authority) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. The regulations were laid before Parliament on 16 June 2025. Local audit is vital for ensuring the proper use of taxpayers’ money and maintaining trust and confidence in local public services, but for too long it has been placed under significant pressure. That has left an unacceptable backlog, which we are determined to resolve so we can be assured that the sector is fit, legal and decent.
It is on that basis that the Government are committed to reforming the local audit system, including by addressing long-standing concerns around proportionality and capacity. Smaller authorities include bodies such as parish and town councils, internal drainage boards, port authorities and parish meetings. They deliver important local services, from maintaining local community halls and allotments to managing small ports and drainage systems, but they do not have the same financial reporting requirements or full audit processes as larger authorities.
Many of our reforms focus on the principal audit regime for larger authorities, which is, quite frankly, broken. However, we also need to ensure that the smaller authority audit system is sustainable and functioning well. A small element of the reforms, which includes the draft regulations, aims to ensure that the overall system is proportionate and responsive to concerns and feedback. We are not removing assurance and accountability for smaller authorities; that will continue to be provided through the annual governance and accountability return, which we have committed to reviewing. We aim to ensure that it remains fit for purpose by improving transparency and ensuring that administrative burdens on smaller authorities are proportionate while enhancing the effectiveness of local reporting, assurance and audit processes.
Uplifting the threshold for smaller authorities is primarily a pre-emptive measure that aims to avoid smaller authorities ending up in the principal audit regime, which would be disproportionate to their size and functions. Raising the threshold to £15 million is not about reducing accountability, but about ensuring that our regulatory framework is fair, proportionate and fit for purpose. Doing so will allow smaller authorities to focus their efforts on delivering much-needed local services, rather than navigating disproportionate reporting, assurance and audit processes.
The current threshold for smaller authorities has remained unchanged since its introduction in 2014. More than a decade has passed, and yet the threshold has not been adjusted to reflect the evolving financial landscape. What was once a reasonable level is now outdated, placing an unnecessary burden on smaller authorities whose financial activity has grown over time because of spikes in grant funding or other revenue, without any increase in risk or responsibilities. Smaller authorities, such as parish councils or drainage boards, are unlikely to have the equivalent range of service delivery, asset base or liabilities of even the smallest district council, and yet they are at risk of becoming subject to full financial audits at far greater resource levels and cost, as well as drawing on the limited capacity in the audit market for principal authorities.
The current threshold no longer reflects the principle of proportionality. In 2024-25, 12 bodies that were previously classed as smaller authorities had income or expenditure above the current £6.5 million threshold. These bodies are generally regarded as lower risk, and their exceeding the threshold simply reflected growth in activity or budget rather than an increase in risk profile. It is not proportionate for such smaller authorities to be subject to the same level of financial reporting, assurance and audit requirements as large organisations such as unitary and metropolitan councils, which have responsibility for a wider range of public services. Such smaller authorities have significantly lower risk profiles and more limited resources, and this has resulted in disproportionate financial reporting requirements and audit costs.
There have also been knock-on consequences for audit appointments. The appointing body, Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd, has been unable to secure auditors for two bodies, Salisbury city council and Lindsey Marsh drainage board, meaning that they are without any external assurance. My Department has included measures in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to resolve this issue retrospectively in relation to the financial years when the two bodies were unable to get any external audit assurance. The audit of bodies that have recently exceeded the smaller authority threshold is considered unattractive to auditors, and has contributed to the struggle to appoint an auditor for Salisbury and Lindsey Marsh.
There is a significant difference in the complexity of financial reporting requirements between the preparation of accounts in the smaller authority limited assurance regime and the full accounts prepared by bodies in the principal audit regime. As a result, smaller authorities often find it difficult and more challenging to produce such accounts and there is currently no support framework for assisting smaller bodies in the transition to the principal audit regime. We have acknowledged in the local audit reform strategy the need for a different approach to audit regimes to reflect an organisation’s duties and complexity, not just its financial size. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Local Audit Office will work with the Department to take that work forward.
This statutory instrument raises the audit threshold for smaller authorities to £15 million. This change will apply from the 2025-26 financial year and aims to bring proportionality and efficiency to the system. It will reduce unnecessary financial reporting and audit requirements, help to free up capacity in the principal local audit market, and allow auditors to focus on areas where assurance is critical.
The regulations will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provision in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, and their provisions will come into force on the day after the day the regulations are made.
We published the local audit strategy in December 2024, which included consultation on these proposals. Over 230 responses were received, and on the specific question of uplifting the smaller authorities threshold, 85% of respondents were in favour of this change. The Government responded in April this year confirming our intention to implement the new increased threshold. The change will support smaller authorities by ensuring they are subject to the appropriate governance and accountability arrangements. It will also protect value for money, and it is part of our measures to ensure a more sustainable local audit system.
I am sure our discussion today will demonstrate that we are all committed to ensuring audit arrangements remain proportionate, so that local leaders can focus their time and resources on serving their communities effectively. I look forward to answering any questions raised in the course of the debate.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am sure we are all delighted to be here—I could sense the excitement in the room when Members read the subject matter.
The Opposition commend the Government for their efforts to bring about a greater degree of fairness in local government audit. This has been a challenge for many years, in particular as a result of many larger audit businesses stepping away not just from very small public bodies, as the Minister described, but even from large local authorities, where the fees have not been large enough to justify the risks. A slew of big names, with which we are all familiar, have departed from that area of work.
We should recognise that efforts have been made over the years to address that problem. In my time in government, I was involved in launching Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd as a means by which local authorities, working together, sought to increase the supply of effective and accredited auditors to undertake this work, but all of us, whether we represent areas with larger metropolitan authorities, or rural areas where small parish meetings sit within the audit envelope of a large local authority, are conscious of the importance of transparency. Because there is a large degree of consensus on this subject, we will not oppose the regulations this evening.
Jim McMahon
I thank the shadow Minister for his usual pragmatism and support in these matters. We all recognise the importance of Parliament having oversight of public money and making sure that it is spent fairly and appropriately, and that there are checks and balances—but it must be proportionate to the authorities that are bearing the cost. That is what we achieve with these measures.
These regulations deliver a clear benefit to smaller authorities by aligning audit requirements with the scale and risk of their operations, and they help to ensure that the local audit system is proportionate and effective. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 2025
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. The purpose of the order, laid before this House on 1 July, is to ensure that the full range of maritime legal powers currently available in relation to ships is also available to make regulations for hovercraft operating in the United Kingdom.
We can be proud of the industry as the only commercial hovercraft application, we think, in the world—my officials searched in vain for anywhere else that had one. We manufacture hovercraft for a range of purposes in the UK, and they are one of our great exports, so I am delighted to speak about them in this Committee. Christopher Cockerell, in the 1950s, came up with the modern-day design of the hovercraft, which crossed the Dover strait in 1959, although Emanuel Swedenborg actually came up with the concept in 1716, before it could be developed properly.
The UK has one commercial hovercraft operation, comprising two hovercraft that operate in inshore waters between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight. The hovercraft are regulated as high-speed craft and comply fully with existing legislation. The principal legislation governing hovercraft is the Hovercraft Act 1968, which provides for Orders in Council to be made to bring hovercraft within the scope of any relevant ship requirements under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, because hovercraft operate at sea in the same way as ships.
The powers in the 1968 Act were used to make the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1989, which is the basis on which current relevant ship requirements are applied to hovercraft. The new order, if approved, will amend the 1989 order to make it possible to apply future relevant legislation made under the 1995 Act to hovercraft as it applies to ships. It is our intention to make this order now because, for the purpose of extending the current merchant shipping fees regulations in November 2025, it is necessary to ensure that, in relation to all possible future hovercraft operations, the Department will be able to charge fees for regulating hovercraft in the same way that it charges for regulating other types of ships and vessels.
This order will contain powers to ensure, through the use of provision for ambulatory reference, that legislation for hovercraft can keep pace with changes in shipping legislation where necessary. The order will cover provision relating to safety requirements, pollution prevention measures and inquiries and investigations into ship casualties, ensuring that hovercraft remain subject to the same modern regulatory standards as ships where necessary. Doing so supports consistency, safety, the protection of the maritime environment and growth across maritime operations.
The order updates and refreshes some provision in the existing 1989 order to bring it up to modern drafting standards. The order also makes specific provision in respect of the ambulatory reference powers in the 1995 Act, which will mean that provision in regulations for ambulatory reference to ship requirements, where those ship requirements are applied to hovercraft by this order, will also cover those requirements as they apply to hovercraft in the same way that they apply to ships. That will ensure that the relevant legislation for hovercraft keeps pace with international standards in the same way as ships, ensuring a level playing field for UK industry and international competitors.
I have highlighted the importance of this Order in Council for ensuring that hovercraft operating in the UK are subject to the same regulatory regime as ships, and that the Department has appropriate powers to ensure compliance with relevant safety and pollution prevention standards. I therefore commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to speak to the statutory instrument before us, which concerns hovercraft and the invaluable role they play in supporting the local economy, particularly on the Isle of Wight, and our wider transport network. We welcome the Government’s step to modernise outdated references and ensure that hovercraft fall under the same rules as other vessels on safety, accident investigations and pollution prevention. Simplifying the legislative structure under which hovercraft operate seems to be the right way to go.
The Opposition have no objection to these measures in principle, but we have some small questions for the Minister. As he said, the UK hovercraft sector is small, with a single significant operator. It is therefore vital that this order does not create hidden costs for operators or passengers. I would be grateful if he confirmed that this is a purely administrative simplification and that there are no plans for fee increases or additional burdens that could risk the future of this unique and iconic part of our transport system. There are already concerns about the cost of crossing the Solent, particularly from residents of the Isle of Wight, who rightly and understandably wish to be sure that this change is purely administrative.
I hope that the Government have gone about consultation with industry in the proper manner and engaged with Hovertravel—I am sure they have. I also hope that a genuine assessment has been made of any potential disproportionate impact that this instrument may have on this small but vital sector. Can the Minister confirm that that consultation has taken place?
Finally, while the introduction of the ambulatory references may streamline regulation, the automatic application of future treaty changes always poses potential risks. As the Minister said, international maritime treaties are generally drafted with conventional ships in mind. Our hovercraft sector is somewhat unique, and requirements designed for vessels of that scale may not always be suitable for hovercraft operations. I would therefore be grateful if the Government set out what assessments have been made to ensure that this approach will remain appropriate, and what safeguards exist if future international standards prove ill-suited to the unique character of our hovercraft sector. I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to provide ample answers to clarify those points and prevent us from having to divide on these measures.
Mike Kane
I thank the Opposition for their support for this statutory instrument and welcome the right hon. Member to his elevated place. This is like the ghost of Christmas past, as we shadowed one another in opposition not so long ago, and I wish him well in his new position. He asked me a number of questions. Yes, the sector is unique—that is a good point. It operates only in the Isle of Wight. I have an ongoing relationship with Hovertravel as we try to solve some of the long-standing issues around transport to the Isle of Wight. My officials have worked closely on standards with Hovertravel at least since I have been in post, along with Wightlink Isle of Wight ferries. There is a good working relationship there.
This order is an administrative change, and engagement is not necessary yet. The engagement will take place when changes happen around the regulatory fees or marine pollution. That is what the order allows us to do.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about costs. As this is a technical instrument, it does not contain regulatory requirements, and does not impose any immediate costs on businesses, charities, voluntary organisations or the public sector. I reiterate that we are unique in having the only commercial service on the planet—or so we think; if anybody knows of anywhere else, please let me know. We manufacture and produce hovercraft. We sell them across the world to maritime and coastguard authorities and for defence applications. More power to our elbow as a nation; may we carry on doing that.
I hope that I have fully answered the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. As I said, the order makes provisions to ensure that hovercraft will remain subject to the same regulatory standards as ships; that is what we are after. It is necessary to support consistency, safety and growth across the maritime sector, as well as to ensure relevant powers to change fees. Regulatory oversight of hovercraft as well as ships is desirable. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Rural Post Offices
Waste Provision on Lea Hall Road, in the Garretts Green Ward in Birmingham, Hodge Hill and Solihull
Reform of Planning System
Anti-stab and anti-slash protective gear in prisons
Accessibility at High Brooms Station
Operation Brock
Parking enforcement at Castle Bromwich Infant School
Justice
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Recently, I attended a service marking 40 years since William Heenan was murdered by the IRA for being a Protestant. While we honoured his memory, the self-proclaimed “First Minister for all” in Northern Ireland was visiting the newly erected statue of IRA terrorist Bobby Sands, glorifying the movement responsible for the cold-blooded murder of men such as William. Will the Minister agree to meet me and innocent victims from Northern Ireland regarding the review and improvement of the glorification of terrorism legislation that applies to Northern Ireland?
Shabana Mahmood
As I think the hon. Lady will be aware, that is primarily a policy area for our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, but I will make sure that we raise those issues with them.
[Official Report, 3 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 167.]
Written correction submitted by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood):
Shabana Mahmood
As I think the hon. Lady will be aware, that is primarily a policy area for our colleagues in the Home Office, but I will make sure that we raise those issues with them.
Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions
The following extract is from the debate on Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions on 9 July 2025.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
What Sir Brian’s comprehensive report demonstrates is the terrible state that our once envied criminal justice system was left in by the shadow Lord Chancellor and his colleagues. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with Sir Brian that digging ourselves out of the hole in which they left us will require more investment, greater efficiency and structural change? Is that the debt that we owe to victims of crime in particular, to ensure that they get justice? It is up to this Government to put right the wrongs that have been done over the past 14 years.
Sarah Sackman
As ever, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee, gives a considered response and he is absolutely right. There needs to be a recognition of the scale of the problem and two things are required: investment and reform. When hon. Members read the report, they will see that Sir Brian is very clear that we need investment. This Government are already beginning to make that investment, through the additional Crown court sitting days that we have laid on this year; running the system at system max; additional funding for legal aid lawyers and criminal legal aid; and £92 million to keep the sector going, on both the defence and the prosecutorial sides. We are making that investment but, critically, as Sir Brian makes absolutely clear, that alone will not be enough…
[Official Report, 9 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 951.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman):
Sarah Sackman
As ever, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee, gives a considered response and he is absolutely right. There needs to be a recognition of the scale of the problem and two things are required: investment and reform. When hon. Members read the report, they will see that Sir Brian is very clear that we need investment. This Government are already beginning to make that investment, through the additional Crown court sitting days that we have laid on this year; running the system at system max; additional funding for legal aid lawyers and criminal legal aid; and £92 million to keep the sector going. We are making that investment but, critically, as Sir Brian makes absolutely clear, that alone will not be enough…
Cabinet Office
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Government are clearly very happy to claim that all is rosy after their first year in power, yet on the ground in my constituency and around the country, the opposite story is being told. The Government’s policies are hitting my constituents hard—whether it is the impact of increased national insurance contributions on local charities, the prospect of more red tape for landlords, or moving the goalposts for the most vulnerable. Given the Government’s amazing claims, why are they so reticent to share the plan for change metrics in one place, so that the good people up and down the United Kingdom can see the reality of this Labour Government in hard facts?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady seems to want more delivery stats, so let me help her out. As my right hon. Friend, the Minister without Portfolio, said, we have had the highest growth of any G7 economy in the first quarter of this year, cuts in interest rates and an expansion of the warm home discount, which will mean that 6 million households will benefit from better insulated houses. I do not claim, in reading out these statistics, that everything is perfect—far from it—but I do believe that we have had change in the past year: change in the investment pattern of the country; change in real wages; and change in our trading position. That is change well worth having.
[Official Report, 10 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 1104.]
Written correction submitted by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Pat McFadden):
Pat McFadden
The hon. Lady seems to want more delivery stats, so let me help her out. As my right hon. Friend, the Minister without Portfolio, said, we have had the highest growth of any G7 economy in the first quarter of this year, cuts in interest rates and an expansion of the warm home discount, which will mean that 6 million households will benefit from lower energy bills this winter. I do not claim, in reading out these statistics, that everything is perfect—far from it—but I do believe that we have had change in the past year: change in the investment pattern of the country; change in real wages; and change in our trading position. That is change well worth having.
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torsten Bell
An important consideration in the Government making this decision was that evidence showed that sending people unsolicited letters is unlikely to affect what they know. That is why letters are sent only as part of wider communication campaigns. This evidence was not properly considered by the ombudsman. Another consideration was that the great majority of 1950s-born women were aware of the state pension age changing, if not of a change in their specific state pension age, as several hon. Members have pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned the statistic of 43%, referring to the 2024 rather than 2023 survey. However, as she will know, that refers to all women, including some women as young as 16; if we look at the cohort of women born in the 1950s, the figure is far, far higher. On those and other grounds, we rejected the ombudsman’s approach to injustice and remedy.
[Official Report, 3 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 513.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell):
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned the statistic of 43%, referring to the 2004 rather than 2003 survey. However, as she will know, that refers to all women, including some women as young as 16; if we look at the cohort of women closest to those born in the 1950s, the figure is far higher. On those and other grounds, we rejected the ombudsman’s approach to injustice and remedy.
Other Corrections
Antonia Bance
Black Country Day
The following extract is from the Westminster Hall debate on Black Country Day on 22 July 2025.
Antonia Bance
…The other investment that I want to talk about relates to a wonderful, timely announcement being made today by colleagues at the Department for Transport. They have announced the third round of the advanced fuels fund; I am delighted to say that Sumo Engineering in my constituency will get £4.5 million for its CLEARSKIES initiative, a demonstration project that will help to produce sustainable aviation fuel.
[Official Report, 22 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 252WH.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance):
Antonia Bance
…The other investment that I want to talk about relates to a wonderful, timely announcement being made today by colleagues at the Department for Transport. They have announced the third round of the advanced fuels fund; I am delighted to say that Sumo Engineering in my constituency will get £4.2 million for its CLEARSKIES initiative, a demonstration project that will help to produce sustainable aviation fuel.
British Steel
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
The Government committed to updating Parliament on British Steel every four sitting weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry Special Measures Act 2025.
The Government priority remains to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces at British Steel. To that end, Government officials are continuing to provide on-site support to continue steel production, ensure that health and safety issues are being remedied, stabilise operations and improve the steady state of the business.
This month, I am pleased to confirm that British Steel will be welcoming its first cohort of apprentices in over 3 years. The programme will offer apprentices a high-quality training experience blending technical knowledge and practical skills, while helping the business to develop its next generation of engineers and technical experts.
Work continues to develop an impact assessment, which will be published in due course following Regulatory Policy Committee scrutiny. We are also continuing work on regulations under section 7 of the Act, to introduce a compensation scheme for steel undertakings that have received a notice under the Act.
On funding, the position remains that all Government funding for British Steel will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out at spring statement 2025. To date, we have provided approximately £180 million for working capital, covering items such as raw materials, salaries, and addressing unpaid bills, including for SMEs in the supply chain. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26.
As I have stated previously, our long-term aspiration for British Steel will require private investment to enable modernisation and decarbonisation, support jobs, safeguard taxpayers’ money and retain steelmaking in Scunthorpe. We are continuing discussions with Jingye on options to achieve that objective.
The Government commitment to the steel sector goes beyond our intervention at British Steel and we continue to see tangible benefits resulting from the wide-ranging actions we have taken. Since early August, UK steelmakers have been able to export more construction grade steel to the EU tariff-free, following a major win secured at the UK-EU summit earlier in the year to restore our country-specific steel quota to historic levels. This bespoke agreement provides a significant boost to producers including British Steel, cutting costs and providing more certainty when exporting to one of our largest trading partners.
This builds on a series of recent milestones delivered under the plan for change, including targeted action to reduce electricity costs, strengthen procurement rules and bolster our trade defence measures. Looking ahead, we will be publishing a steel strategy later this year, setting out our long-term vision for a revitalised and sustainable industry and the actions needed to get there.
This is a pro-steel Government that are taking decisive steps to restore our steel industry after years of neglect. We are working to secure good jobs in Scunthorpe and other steelmaking communities for many years to come.
[HCWS889]
Liberty Speciality Steels UK: Contingent Liability
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)
I have laid before Parliament a departmental minute setting out the particulars of a new contingent liability associated with Liberty Speciality Steels UK.
Speciality Steels UK Ltd, part of Liberty Steel Group, and the third largest steel manufacturing company—by capacity—in the UK was issued with a winding up order by the High Court on 21 August, following a petition from its creditors. SSUK employs 1,400 people across four sites in Rotherham, Stocksbridge, Wednesbury and Brinsworth. The company has now entered liquidation and the official receiver, an officer of the Insolvency Service, has been appointed as liquidator by the court.
The Department for Business and Trade has provided the OR with a letter of comfort and a letter of indemnity in respect of:
Carrying out the proper performance and duties expected as the official receiver and liquidator of the company; and
Investigating the cause of failure and identifying any asset recoveries against the company, current/former directors of the company, and any other parties; and
The winding-down of the company’s business and affairs and distributing assets of the company in the ordinary course as the official receiver's duties as liquidator.
The sudden nature of the announcement of SSUK entering into insolvency on 21 August and the urgency of the need to ensure that the OR can immediately formulate and implement a plan to address site risks, means we have sought to expedite the approval process. It has not been possible to observe the usual 14 Parliamentary sitting day waiting period for this contingent liability, since it only materialised when the company entered liquidation on 21 August when Parliament was not sitting.
On the 19 August, the permanent secretary for the Department for Business and Trade wrote to the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and the Business and Trade Committee, outlining our intention to provide funding for the official receiver to allow it to fulfil its statutory duties—noting the contingent liability that would be created for HMG—and asking for any objection to be notified within five working days. I can confirm that neither the PAC nor the BTC have raised any objections to the issuing of this overall funding and indemnity.
It is not possible at this stage to accurately quantify the value of the overall funding requirement with relation to the letter of comfort and letter of indemnity. The OR will assess the likely scale of any liability to Government, and costs will be reported to Parliament once a more accurate quantum is known.
HM Treasury has approved this proposal. The Department will consider any concerns raised by a Member of the House regarding this contingent liability and indemnity. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply process.
[HCWS898]
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with India
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
On 24 July 2025, the Government signed the UK-India trade deal. This deal will unlock economic growth in every corner of the UK, put money back into working people’s pockets, and delivers on the plan for change. It is expected to increase bilateral trade by £25.5 billion, increase UK GDP by £4.8 billion, and boost wages by £2.2 billion every year. We are showing the world that we stand for free, fair, and open trade. In an increasingly unstable and volatile world, this deal provides businesses with confidence as they grow and expand.
This agreement drops the average Indian tariff on UK products from 15% to 3%, with tariff duties falling by around £400 million from entry into force, rising to £900 million after staging. This is alongside securing unprecedented preferential access to India’s federal procurement market, locking in guaranteed market access for UK service suppliers, and making trade quicker, cheaper, and easier through improved customs and digital processes.
This agreement will unlock new opportunities for businesses in every corner of the UK, including an expected £190 million boost for the west midlands and Scotland and £210 million for the north-west of England. The deal also aligns with our industrial strategy, supporting the UK’s high growth sectors.
And as India grows, so will the opportunities for the UK, giving businesses a competitive edge with the fastest-growing economy in the G20.
The UK Government have published a Command Paper titled “Informational Copy of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of India and associated documents, including the Impact Assessment and draft Explanatory Memorandum”. Copies of these have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Further information on the trade agreement has also been published on gov.uk.
The Government have commenced the necessary pre-ratification steps. On 24 July, the UK Government formally commissioned the Trade and Agriculture Commission as well as the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland to provide independent advice. Informed by this advice, the Government will then lay its own report under section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020. After the TAC and section 42 reports have been laid before Parliament, the Government will begin the processes under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in order to ratify the agreement. All needed legislation to implement the agreement will follow standard procedures. In parallel, negotiations for the double contribution convention will be finalised, which will then also be subject to the CRaG process.
I look forward to working closely with the business and trade and international agreements committees on the scrutiny of this agreement and updating the House further in due course.
[HCWS892]
Indoor Cricket Domes
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
The Government are deeply committed to supporting the growth of grassroots sport across the UK. High-quality, inclusive facilities provide opportunities for connection and cohesion, as well as supporting people of all ages and backgrounds to participate in sport and physical activity wherever they live, helping to drive forward this Government’s plan for change.
As part of this ongoing commitment, on 25 August, the Government announced £1.5 million investment into two indoor cricket domes in Luton and Farington in Lancashire.
Luton and Preston are currently poorly served by cricket facilities. The aim is to increase opportunities for access to cricket and wider sport opportunities for underserved communities, in line with our broader strategic objectives for grassroots facilities investment. The cricket domes will offer significant benefit to under-represented groups, and increase the overall number of opportunities for physical activity by providing a covered outdoor environment which enables all-weather, all-year-round training and match play.
As we look forward to future sporting events in the UK, including next year’s women’s T20 cricket world cup, we will continue to prioritise grassroots clubs and facilities, getting more people involved in sport and physical activity.
This £1.5 million investment is in addition to the £400 million for grassroots facilities which the Government announced in June. The longer-term investment will prioritise underserved places, and through working closely with sporting bodies—including the England and Wales Cricket Board, devolved Government, and local leaders —the Government will establish what each community needs and then set out further plans in due course.
[HCWS890]
Geelong Treaty: Contingent Liability
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I am today laying a departmental minute before Parliament describing a contingent liability that His Majesty's Government will take on relating to the United Kingdom’s participation in the AUKUS security partnership with the United States of America and Australia. His Majesty's Government will hold this liability following entry into force of the Geelong treaty between the UK and Australia, which I have recently signed along with the Australian Deputy Prime Minister.
As set out in the strategic defence review, AUKUS is an enhanced security partnership that will strengthen security in the Indo-pacific and Euro-Atlantic, along with growing the UK economy. The first major initiative of AUKUS is our historic decision to support Australia acquiring conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines. The treaty builds on the strong foundation of trilateral co-operation between Australia, the UK and the United States, advancing the shared objectives of the AUKUS partnership. It will enable the development of SSN-AUKUS and resilient trilateral supply chains.
As part of the co-ordinated approach to our respective SSN-AUKUS build programmes, Australia and the UK have decided to provide an appropriate indemnity to each other related to the supply of material, equipment, information and services transferred or to be transferred on a Government-to-Government basis in connection with SSN-AUKUS.
This contingent liability will not be incurred until entry into force of the treaty, which has also been laid before Parliament today. In accordance with usual practice for contingent liabilities, it will therefore not be incurred until at least 14 parliamentary sitting days have elapsed from the date on which the departmental minute is laid before Parliament.
[HCWS895]
Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces Annual Report 2024: MOD Response
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I am pleased to place in the Library of the House today the MOD’s formal response to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces annual report for 2024 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
The ombudsman’s report assessed the service complaints system and the work of her office in 2024. The response sets out MOD’s comments to the report and our view on the two new recommendations she has made.
The MOD values the strong independent oversight that the ombudsman brings to the service complaints system.
Part of the improvements we intend to make will be the establishment of an Armed Forces Commissioner in 2026, with greater and more far-reaching powers than currently possessed by the ombudsman.
Additionally, the Ministry of Defence has committed to the creation of a new tri-service complaints team to take the most serious complaints alleging bullying, harassment and discrimination out of the chain of command for the first time.
We will continue to build upon this, as part of our Government commitment to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-09-01/HCWS891/
[HCWS891]
Sizewell C Funded Decommissioning Programme: Contingent Liability
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I am pleased to have laid a departmental minute describing the contingent liabilities arising from the signing of the funded decommissioning programme and Government support package for Sizewell C. Once operational, Sizewell C will deliver clean power for the equivalent of 6 million homes and support 10,000 jobs, representing a major boost for energy security, jobs and economic growth.
It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability of £300,000 and above for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Department concerned to present to Parliament a minute, giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances.
Following the Government final investment decision on Sizewell C, and subject to satisfaction of the relevant conditions precedent, both the funded decommissioning programme and Government support package will come into force at the time of revenue commencement. This is when the revenue collection contract between Sizewell C and the revenue collection counterparty is entered into, giving effect to the regulated asset base mechanism under which Sizewell C will be funded.
Context and rationale
The funded decommissioning programme sets out the operator’s intended approach to decommissioning of Sizewell C, including how costs will be met and the corresponding cost estimates. A funded decommissioning programme is required in statute as per the Energy Act 2008. The objective of the regime is, as per the funded decommissioning programme guidance 2011, to ensure that the risk of recourse to public taxpayer funds for the decommissioning of new nuclear assets is remote.
The Government support package respond to “high impact, low probability” risks that either investors or the supply chain cannot take or cannot price at a level that is good value for money for UK taxpayers or consumers, or it is not otherwise appropriate for consumers to take through the regulated asset base. The Government support package documents have been published on gov.uk.
Details of contingent liabilities
Funded decommissioning programme
The funded decommissioning programme at Sizewell C will be funded via the regulated asset base. The regulated asset base contains a series of protections that aim to minimise the risk that public funds will be required to meet decommissioning costs. However, in certain remote circumstances whereby all the protections afforded by Sizewell C’s economic licence fall away or a shortfall in the fund materialises, public funds could be used to contribute towards decommissioning costs and this liability would crystalise.
Based on best estimates by the Government Actuary Department, the maximum potential exposure from the liability is £12 billion—in 2022 terms. This has been estimated on a worse-case scenario whereby the Government were required to meet the full costs of decommissioning the Sizewell C power plant. The figure is based on the publicly available estimates contained in Sizewell C’s decommissioning and waste management plan. Due to the safeguards built into the funded decommissioning programme’s structure, it is highly unlikely that these full costs would ever crystalise.
Government support package
There are four contingent liabilities associated with the Government support package. Risks have been quantified based on best estimates of the costs that the package could be called upon to cover.
For three of the four limbs, the total maximum exposure is estimated at the maximum regulated asset base value. Further detail on each limb is provided below:
The contingent financing agreement allows the Secretary of State to provide additional finance or discontinue the project and pay investors compensation under the discontinuation and compensation agreement, in case of the project higher regulatory threshold being reached and shareholders choosing not to provide additional finance. We are not able to accurately quantify the maximum exposure level due to uncertainty over the point at which the agreement would be triggered.
The discontinuation and compensation agreement provides for the project to be discontinued in certain remote circumstances, in which case the Secretary of State will pay compensation to debt and equity, capped at the value of the regulated asset base.
The nuclear administration and statutory transfers agreement gives the means to introduce a form of special administration regime in respect of relevant licensee nuclear companies as per the Nuclear Energy Financing Act 2022.
The supplemental compensation agreement provides “top-up” insurance for certain circumstances on top of the insurances that Sizewell C is required to maintain through the commercial insurance markets. Under the SCA, the Secretaries of State would be liable for 95% of an uncapped amount for claims, with shareholders liable for 5%.
Due to the risks and market sensitivities around the Sizewell C equity raise and final investment decision, this notification could not be sent prior to the final investment decision being taken. Due to summer and conference recess timings, there will not be 14 sitting days prior to the liability being undertaken on 1 October. I am therefore announcing this liability today in order to allow as much parliamentary sitting time as possible prior to conference recess for the liabilities to be scrutinised.
The Treasury has approved this proposal for the contingent liabilities in principle. My Department will keep Parliament informed of any changes to this contingent liability as appropriate.
[HCWS893]
Medical Evacuation of Children: Gaza
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Today I want to update the House on the evacuation of children in urgent need of medical care from Gaza to receive specialist treatment in NHS hospitals across the UK. This was announced by the Prime Minister on 25 July, and a further update was published on gov.uk on 22 August.
No one who has watched the intolerable humanitarian crisis unfolding nightly on our TV screens can fail to be distressed by the devastating consequences for the people of Gaza. They are exhausted, scared and hungry. And they are dying. As of now, there are also no fully functioning health facilities and the few that remain open are operating under the most extreme and dangerous conditions. Water, fuel and medical supplies are all in short supply. Missile strikes are a constant hazard. It is a soul-destroying situation that compels us to act.
That is why a cross-Government taskforce, on the orders of the Prime Minister, are working urgently to get some of the critically ill and injured children medically evacuated from Gaza. We expect the children and their immediate family members to arrive in the UK over the course of the autumn where they will receive first-class care, from first-class medics in surroundings that are safe and welcoming. This is a UK-wide process, and I am grateful to the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for their willingness to participate.
The UK Government are partnering with the World Health Organisation, which works on the ground and plays a critical role in supporting medical evacuations from Gaza. Participation in the UK Government evacuation is solely through the WHO supported process, and the UK Government cannot consider direct requests for assistance. The WHO will provide a list of potential patients assessed as priority cases by Gazan medical specialists, for an expert NHS clinical leaders team to review. Gazan children needing highly specialist medical care will then be matched with locations where capacity exists within the NHS to treat them.
Mindful that for these gravely weak and vulnerable children this is a potentially hazardous journey, children will only be transferred to the UK where it is clinically safe to do so and in the interests of each individual patient. As such, we will ensure medical assessments are undertaken before they travel.
On arrival in the UK, patients and their immediate family members will be granted access to the NHS, housing and other services for an initial two years. Should these individuals and their families wish to remain in the UK beyond that, they can apply for further permission to stay under existing routes within the immigration rules.
Robust security checks will be undertaken on all individuals who enter the UK as part of this process. Biometrics will be collected as part of the visa application process and prior to the final decision on the terms on which they will be granted entry to the UK.
The Government are working with both the NHS and the relevant local authorities to make sure both the children and their immediate families receive the help and support they need for the duration of their time in the UK. These are the innocent victims caught in the crosshairs of a bloody and brutal conflict. The least we in Britain can do is play our part and do our utmost to help them.
I expect to provide a further update to the House when the first cohort of children have arrived in the UK.
[HCWS899]
Public Health Update
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I would like to inform the House of several updates from the Department of Health and Social Care over the summer recess.
Licensing of non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England
On 7 August the Government published our response to the 2023 consultation on the licensing of non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England. The response confirms the Government’s commitment to introduce legal restrictions to ensure that cosmetic procedures that are deemed to pose the highest level of risk to the public, such as the liquid Brazilian butt lift, are classed as Care Quality Commission regulated activities that can be performed only by specified regulated healthcare professionals.
The response also signals the Government’s commitment to developing and implementing a local authority licensing scheme for lower-risk, non-surgical cosmetic procedures using the powers granted through section 180 of the Health and Care Act 2022, and to introducing age restrictions for those undergoing cosmetic procedures.
The proposals will be developed through further stakeholder engagement and public consultation before being taken forward through secondary legislation and the requisite parliamentary processes.
Voluntary guidelines for commercial baby food and drink
On 22 August the Government published new voluntary guidelines for commercial baby food and drink as part of our ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children ever.
These guidelines challenge baby food manufacturers to reduce levels of salt and sugar and to improve product labelling. Businesses have 18 months to meet the guidelines, and we will monitor progress.
Data from the national diet and nutrition survey shows that more than two thirds of children aged 18 months to three years are eating too much sugar. This increases the risk of weight gain and dental decay in the crucial early years of development.
Reducing salt and sugar in products means that parents and carers across England will be able to buy healthier food and drinks for their children. Clearer labelling guidelines will help parents understand what food they are buying, and support healthier choices.
Chickenpox vaccination programme for children
On 29 August the Government announced that we will be introducing a vaccine to protect against chickenpox into the routine childhood immunisation schedule from January 2026.
Eligible children will receive the MMRV vaccine, which protects against measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox, at routine GP vaccination appointments.
The vaccine will help reduce cases of chickenpox and protect children from serious complications that can cause hospitalisation and potentially death.
Eligibility for vaccination will be based on a child’s age on 1 January 2026, with further details to be announced later this year.
The vaccination programme supports the Government’s ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children and ensure that young people thrive as part of our 10-year health plan.
[HCWS897]
NRS Healthcare: Insolvency
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I would like to inform the House about an important issue concerning NRS Healthcare—also known as Nottingham Rehab Ltd —a supplier of integrated community equipment services, which became insolvent on 1st August 2025.
NRS Healthcare provided essential services and equipment such as wheelchairs, hoists, and technology that supported disabled and older people to live independently at home. This helped avoid admissions to hospitals or care homes and assisted people in returning home after leaving hospital.
Local authorities have statutory duties under the Care Act 2014 and the Children and Families Act 2014 to arrange for the provision of disability aids and community equipment to meet the assessed needs of individuals in their area. While some local authorities provide these services themselves, many have contracts with external suppliers, such as NRS Healthcare. Customers of these services also include the NHS, private customers, pharmacies, and other adult social care and healthcare settings.
Before their insolvency, 44 local authorities had contracts with NRS Healthcare and relied on their services. NRS Healthcare supplied around 50% of hospitals with equipment used in adult social care across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Since the company filed for insolvency, the court has appointed an official receiver as the liquidator, supported by special managers, who are overseeing the wind-down of operations, managing the company's assets, and ensuring that statutory duties and obligations to creditors and people who draw on these services are met. The official receiver is an independent officer of the court required by law to carry out these duties.
As part of the liquidation process, the Government have made available short-term funding to the official receiver to cover the essential operating costs of NRS Healthcare and its affiliated companies. This funding has ensured that trading was able to continue for a limited time, to minimise disruption by providing crucial time for local authorities to put alternative supply in place. The use of this funding, should it be necessary, will be subject to robust scrutiny and governance by the Government and the insolvency office holders. The final cost to HM Government will be known when the insolvency process is complete. Costs will be reported in the DHSC annual report and accounts.
The Government have also provided the official receiver with a legal indemnity to protect them against financial loss or legal claims incurred while carrying out their duties. This indemnity is unlimited and will remain in place until the official receiver’s services are no longer required. The indemnity is a standard mechanism in high-risk or complex insolvencies where appointees are expected to act in the national interest without undue risk to the appointees. Crystallisation is expected to be limited.
Without the Government providing the above support, there was a risk that the official receiver would have had no choice but to close services immediately following their appointment, in line with their statutory duties. This could have had an immediate and significant impact on hospital flow and the safety of people in the community who relied on NRS Healthcare’s services.
These measures were therefore essential to enable the official receiver to discharge their duties for the benefits of creditors and protect public spending by avoiding additional hospital admissions or preventing discharge to care settings, while minimising risk to vulnerable people who previously relied on NRS Healthcare’s services. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure. The Treasury has approved this arrangement.
My officials in the Department of Health and Social Care are continuing to monitor the situation closely and will continue to do so until its conclusion.
We would like to acknowledge and thank all colleagues, particularly those in HMT, UKGI, MHCLG, NHS England, and Partners in Care and Health—a sector support programme funded by DHSC—for their efforts throughout this challenging period. Their support leading up to, and following the insolvency in brokering discussions, sharing vital information, and helping local authorities prepare and respond has been invaluable in minimising disruption and protecting those who rely on these essential services.
[HCWS896]
Young Futures Hubs
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I am making this statement to bring to the House’s attention the following machinery of Government change.
I am today announcing that delivery responsibility for the cross-Government Young Futures hubs will move from the Department for Education to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. This will bring ownership in line with overarching youth policy and delivery.
This change is effective immediately.
[HCWS894]
Deaths of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the deaths of the noble Lords, Lord Desai, on 29 July, Lord Sawyer, on 3 August, and Lord Paul, on 21 August. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lords’ families and friends.
Death of a Former Member: Lord Boswell of Aynho
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, on 30 August. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Retirements of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirements, with effect from 25 July, of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan of Partick, and from 31 August, of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lords for their much-valued service to the House.
Civil Service: Artificial Intelligence Productivity Gains
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Camrose
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of productivity gains across the Civil Service resulting from the deployment of artificial intelligence; and how they are measuring and evaluating these gains.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in so doing, draw noble Lords’ attention to my technology interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
The Government have assessed the potential productivity gains from AI across the Civil Service, identifying which solutions are most effective and that will scale. We conducted the world’s largest trial of general-purpose AI tools, such as Copilot, to measure their impact and benefit. These evaluations inform which technologies deliver which outcomes and will enable us to prioritise adoption. Our assessment indicates significant economic benefits from widespread, well-targeted AI deployment across His Majesty’s Government.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, in May, the Government announced a rightly ambitious plan to drive tens of billions of pounds per year in Civil Service productivity savings through AI. In June, they estimated that use of AI tools was saving civil servants 26 minutes a day. Even if that is true, the Minister will agree that time savings, however welcome, do not equate to productivity. Now that the Government have spent £573 million on AI tools and consulting for the Civil Service, how will they measure productivity gains to rapidly build on successes and shut down failures?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The figure of £573 million is, of course, forward spend, so that is not what has been spent; it is a commitment over the next few years. It is important that we measure this. Guidance on how to measure the impact of AI tools was issued last year; there is a rigorous process for doing that. On the 26 minutes that has been picked up by the Copilot study, it is of course a general AI tool. Much greater savings come with specific uses in specific areas, which will not be general across the Civil Service.
The noble Lord is quite right to point out that time saving is not productivity, but what we do know from studies elsewhere and across business is that, when you get those time savings, about half of it goes on core tasks, about a quarter is on other strategic and creative work and about 25% goes on enhanced well-being. That is what we might expect as a result. There is a lot to do to make sure that we implement this properly across the Civil Service.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister also consider assessing productivity gains from basing civil servants in the regions rather than in London? In my view, as an ex-regional Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber, that would be an effective way of ensuring that the Government were focused on reducing regional inequalities and encouraging regional growth.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. I am not going to try to add the regional Civil Service to my brief, but I will say that this is exactly the sort of area where AI is rather good at working out whether there is a benefit, because it can spot patterns that are difficult to spot individually or by human endeavour. This is a place where you could begin to see what the real impacts are and what drives success rates in the regions.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation. Given that the Government have just set up a sovereign AI unit with a budget of £500 million to promote domestic AI leadership, what steps are being taken to ensure that British companies and start-ups have fair access to Civil Service AI contracts rather than defaulting to large US tech corporations? Why is the UK Civil Service so heavily reliant on procurement from major US technology firms such as Microsoft—the Minister mentioned Copilot—OpenAI and Google, rather than focusing on developing its own domestic AI tools and platforms?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I have a full Question on sovereign AI on Wednesday, when I will answer that question in more detail, but in the meantime let me say that there is not a some inbuilt bias against that; it is just that many of the large language models are, of course, from US companies, and those are the ones that are available at the moment. However, the sovereign AI unit will use that £500 million specifically to stimulate UK companies as well.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have time to hear from the Cross Benches.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, while the results from the landmark Civil Service AI trial are clearly encouraging, does the Minister agree that it highlights the urgent need to train up public sector workers across all departments on the effective and appropriate use of generative AI? I suggest that such training and guidance apply in particular to us—by which I mean noble Lords on all sides of this Chamber.
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
It was interesting to see the report from MIT last week on the use of AI across companies, which noted that 95% of companies got very little benefit and 5% got massively disproportionate benefit. One of the reasons why you get much greater benefit is training people properly and allowing there to be proper disruption of existing workflows—so I completely agree with the question. What the noble Lord is talking about is an important part of this, which is why there is a series of schemes across the Civil Service, including the senior Civil Service, both to recruit people with AI skills and to train staff.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former Minister for the Civil Service—although it was an awfully long time ago. The record shows that the biggest increase in output and productivity in the Civil Service and the biggest fall in numbers in modern times occurred between about 1972 and 1982. Of course, the driving force for that was not so much energy efficiency, although there were attempts to improve that, as removing whole industrial functions from the public sector. The Civil Service numbers fell from about 815,000 down to about 510,000 in 1982. That was an enormous cost. The lesson of that is that, if one really wants to increase productivity and slim the Civil Service, as I believe the Government do, there should be the removal of whole functions from the Civil Service—in this case, the industrial Civil Service—into the private sector.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
The question is: what areas are the Government going to look at now to remove functions from the state sector, which will be the sure way to increase productivity and reduce numbers?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
It is an area where AI is important, because AI does just that. There are certain things AI does to improve the efficiency of what is already done, and certain areas in which it does things that cannot currently be done. Both of those areas will lead to disruption of current workflows. This goes back to my previous answer: the disruption of workflow around AI is the big change management challenge.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, my experience of introducing technology—not AI but other technologies—to large organisations is that there is a huge cultural aspect. I agree that training is very important, but does the Minister agree that, for AI to succeed, the entire workforce has to want it to succeed? How are the Government and Civil Service going to embrace the huge cultural change required to take full advantage of this technology?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I agree, and I have alluded to that in previous answers. The challenge is a cultural one around workflow. I go back to the MIT report, which shows that, especially in big companies, there are high levels of adoption and low levels of disruption. The challenge is to get high levels of adoption with appropriate disruption taking place. That is a cultural challenge. That is why not only training but leadership are needed to make this happen.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, we are all aware that probably the biggest challenge in government is productivity in the NHS, which has declined by about 20% since the pandemic. However, in none of the conversations and negotiations on the resident doctors’ dispute have we heard about productivity being a key part of the solution. Can the Minister reassure us that we really are trying to drive productivity gains, so that any wage increases can be fully justified?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I can certainly reassure him that AI in the health service is going to be one of the big areas where changes occur. It is going to introduce changes in a number of ways. The first is in workflow organisation, which is key for the NHS to look at. The second is in new treatments and ways of diagnosing. It is already being used to reduce the need for humans to look at X-rays and so on to get them through more quickly, so there is an efficiency gain. There are also new approaches, such as using AI to make sure that remote monitoring—for example, taking photographs of suspicious moles and seeing if they are malignant—is potentially massively enhanced. There are many opportunities for productivity improvement through AI.
Palestinian Territories: Development Support
Lord Polak
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps, beyond the potential recognition of a Palestinian state, they are taking to support the development of the Palestinian territories, including best practice in governance, anti-corruption measures, and institutional capacity-building.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise that a reformed Palestinian Authority is essential to long-term stability and development, and in advancing a two-state solution. The UK continues to contribute substantial official development assistance for the OPTs, alongside providing humanitarian relief for Palestinians and support for Palestinian economic development. We will strengthen governance, accountability and civic space in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including supporting the Palestinian Authority to deliver its reform agenda.
Lord Polak (Con)
I was at Kerem Shalom last week and saw full trucks going into Gaza and empty ones coming out. What talks have HMG had with COGAT to support the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which gets food supplies directly to the people at no financial cost, as opposed to other agencies, where food is confiscated by Hamas, forcing the needy to pay?
Capacity building is important, but are we not wasting British taxpayers’ money when Palestinian textbooks for the new academic year—this year, and I am holding the book—are teaching 14 year-olds, on page 40, to lionise suicide bombers, praise Palestinian daggers slashing Israeli throats and call on students to remember the image of burned Israelis? Is there any point in sending the British people’s hard-earned cash to support a Palestinian state, when Palestinian children are being indoctrinated and incited by these grotesque images, and 48 hostages are still being held?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I recognise and commend the work that the noble Lord does to bring about a future for the people of Israel and the people of Palestine. He knows and I know—and I think there is broad agreement—that the right future here is for a two-state solution. Our view is that the best way to bring that about, or when that does happen, is for there to be a Palestinian Authority that has the capacity and capability to be able to run the future state in a way that we would all wish to see.
The points that the noble Lord raises about textbooks are valid. That is one reason why we want to work with the Palestinian Authority to reform how this is done—and there are other issues, too, which I am sure will be raised in this exchange.
On the issue of food, I am glad that the noble Lord has been, and I am glad that he saw some aid trucks going in. However, the sad truth of this is that what is going in is a very small fraction of what is needed. More than 2,000 people have been killed trying to access aid through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation; it is failing to deliver aid in the volume needed. The IPC has now designated famine, and we expect that thousands of children will die in the coming months unless the levels of aid are dramatically increased. I know that that is what the noble Lord wants to see as well—nobody in this Chamber is arguing that that is an acceptable situation. What we have to do is to work out how to persuade the Government of Israel, who are the only people who are able to allow that aid in, to get the aid, the medical supplies, the people and the water to where it is needed to save those lives, and that must be done immediately.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, today is the 695th day in captivity of the hostages taken on 7 October. Do the Government accept that there can be no progress in addressing the tragedy of Gaza unless and until all those hostages, and the dead bodies retained by Hamas, are returned to Israel?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I cannot see a situation where there is any kind of peace, lasting or otherwise, that comes about without the release of those hostages. What their families have been forced to endure for far too long is unimaginable for many of us. Many of us here have met the families of those hostages. Thank goodness some of them have been released, but, as the noble Lord says, many have not. We call on anybody who has any ability to help to bring it about that those people are released and tragically, in too many cases, that their bodies are returned, and for that to happen immediately.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a future Palestinian state is going to need as many well-qualified individuals as possible to make things happen? In the light of that, I congratulate the Government on having agreed to take some students from Gaza. Will the Minister confirm that about 80 of these have been offered places in British universities? Will they all be able to come, and will they be given the financial support to take up their places?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Clearly, what has happened in regard to the students is through no fault of those students—it is a very difficult situation. We are talking to our colleagues in the Home Office, and they obviously—and we understand why—want to make sure that all the necessary security clearances are obtained. That is not easy in this context, and we may well in the next few minutes talk about the medical evacuation of children as well. These things need to be done, and they need to be done responsibly. It is absolutely devastating what has happened to the life chances and educational prospects of some of the brightest and most able young people in Gaza, who, as the noble Lord says, should be making a contribution to the future of their country.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, Prime Minister Netanyahu has spoken openly of his vision for a so-called “Greater Israel”: a vision of permanent war, illegal settlement and, presumably, the occupation of other sovereign countries. Do the Government accept the reality that Israel seems determined to make a Palestinian state impossible and will continue to expand, at the expense of Palestinian survival and the prospects for peace in the entire region? What concrete action have the Government taken to make it clear that these outrageous plans are completely unacceptable?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
One of the reasons that the Prime Minister made the statement on recognition at the beginning of the Recess was specifically to keep the prospect of a two-state solution alive. Some of the actions that the Government of Israel have taken recently have made that less likely and harder to envisage, so we have taken the decision that, should the situation remain as it is at the UN General Assembly at the end of this month, we will take what I think is the hugely significant step of recognising the state of Palestine.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, following on from the answer that the noble Baroness has just given, of course, the Government lose no opportunity to lecture us on how much they support and are bound by the concept of international law. The Montevideo convention sets out in international law the four criteria that constitute a state. Will the noble Baroness tell the House specifically which of those criteria are filled by the state of Palestine that they are about to recognise?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am afraid that there is nothing in my tone this afternoon that has been in any way lecturing or hectoring. I have been clear about our reasons for reaching a position where we feel that we have to consider recognising the state of Palestine. We will do that in the right way, in the situation that I have described and that the Prime Minister has described at great length, at the General Assembly at the end of September.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, one of the most important things we can do to help create a Palestinian state that we all want to see is the Government’s work to support reform of the Palestinian Authority, which should form an embryonic state. What update can the Minister provide us specifically on Michael Barber’s vital work supporting governance reform of the PA?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness’s question is incredibly constructive and it is our view that the Palestinian Authority is the only viable leadership for a future Palestinian state. As she said, Sir Michael Barber has been doing work for some time now on trying to improve capacity and to work with the Palestinian Authority on issues such as taxation, civic space and democratic reform, all things that we fully accept need to happen in order for a future Palestinian state to be safe and successful.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the viability of any potential Palestinian state must surely depend not just on effective institutions but on credible, capable political leadership. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the prospect of that emerging in the Palestinian Territories in the near term?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I might suggest that the noble and gallant Lord defines “near term”. Clearly, there is a great deal of work to do, but that should not put us off. If it is our position, which it is, that we want to see a two-state solution and that the Palestinian Authority is the only viable leadership for the state of Palestine, it is our duty and responsibility to work with those people in as constructive, open and positive a way as we can. I am very pleased with the support that we have been able to provide and I am glad that Michael Barber has done what he has done. My only regret is that it may well be some considerable time before we see the fruits of our work in the establishment of a sustained peace and the two-state solution that so many of us wish to see.
Children: Dangers of Screen Time
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Laing of Elderslie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the dangers of screen time for children.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise concerns about the impacts of screen time and are committed to protecting children online. We are continuing to explore how the evidence base on the impact of screen time on children can be improved, because the science is uncertain on the relationship between screen time, social media use and child development. We are assessing evidence gaps and will consider what, if any, further research and action are needed.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer and appreciate what she says about conflicting evidence, but does she agree with me that there is a problem and that teachers need help solving it? Given that situation, will the Government now advise schools to strictly limit screen time for children, including the screen time in which it is expected that they will do their homework, and thus strengthen the ability of individual teachers to deal with what is undoubtedly recognised as a problem?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that teachers, parents and early years settings are concerned to make sure that they get the use of screens right and bear in mind what the evidence tells us—for example, that overuse of screen time will tend to displace other important activity, such as physical activity or sleep. That is why the Government have already issued advice to parents on those issues and updated our advice for early years settings. It is also why we are clear that mobile phones have no place in schools, for example, and that new criteria around filtering and monitoring standards should be in place. We will continue to support our teachers, as well as parents, in trying to get the balance right for all our children.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Department for Education is requiring the reception baseline assessment for four and five year-olds to use the format of touchscreen devices. There is concern that the introduction of a screen-based element to assessment for the youngest children will encourage and embed an approach to early years education that is at odds with a healthy approach to child development. There is considerable evidence that even limited screen use by very young children carries negative impacts spanning cognitive, linguistic and emotional development, and educational attainment. Will the Minister tell us how we can allay those fears?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There are two separate points in the noble Lord’s question. I very much agree that the safety of our youngest children in particular should be a priority and that we should continue to monitor and review early years safeguarding requirements and guidance. As I suggested earlier, we have already updated the guidance regarding online safety and appropriate device and screen usage in early years settings. That is linked to advice from the World Health Organization on appropriate usage, particularly sedentary usage, of screen time. The point about assessment is different. My understanding is that the tool the noble Lord references will be used on a short-term basis and largely by teachers, working alongside students. We do not want to be in a position of suggesting that there is no use for technology and screens as we develop our assessment, whether for young children or older children. However, his broader point is right. That is why the Government have provided advice already and are continuing the research necessary, to be clear about what is appropriate use for children.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister may well have seen an interview with some young people at the end of last term. They are in a school where there has been agreement between the school, the parents and the young people that there will be no screen time, other than for educational purposes, in the school. The thing that was most striking about the reaction of these young people was how they had made a whole range of other friends. Previously, when they had breaks they would always go on their phones—and their thumbs would be going at 90 mph—but once that was not allowed they actually talked to their fellow pupils and developed a whole range of new friendships. It is a very important part of children’s social development.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord, with his very extensive knowledge, makes two important points. First, when we are talking about the impact of screen time we need to involve young people in describing and thinking about where there should be controls and what the alternatives are. Secondly, to go back to my point about screen time displacing other activity, there are fears that screen time displaces appropriate sleep, appropriate physical activity and, sometimes, as the noble Lord has rightly said, the interesting conversations that we are able to have with our colleagues that I am so much looking forward to now that we have returned from the Summer Recess.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it appears that mobile phones have replaced dummies, with children using them at a very early age? Do we not need to get across to parents that this is not a good idea, given that we know that young children’s brains are developing faster than at any other time in their lives?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This is precisely why advice is provided by the Government—for example, through the Chief Medical Officer; by ParentZone through videos that it has produced specifically to focus on screen time, with practical advice to parents on how to set boundaries; and the early years guidance that I was talking about that links to the World Health Organization guidance, which, as the noble Lord says, identifies that there is really very little benefit, particularly from sedentary use of screen time, for very small children. I hope all those things will support parents in making the appropriate decisions to support their children in doing things other than simply looking at screens.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Given what the Minister has just said and the points made by the noble Lord opposite, what is stopping the Government following the French health ministry in banning screens entirely in childcare settings for children under three?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think here, once again, it is important that we are clear, first, about the evidence of the impact of screens and, secondly, that there are times when there are benefits from the active use of screens. I know that noble Lords opposite have pushed on bans—whether that is for mobile phones in schools or apparently a new ban now—but, while all of us are concerned about this, it is a complex area in which there are benefits as well as disbenefits. It is appropriate for us to build our policy developments and the practice in our schools and early years centres on evidence and that is why the Government are also working hard to build the evidence base in this area.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, many young people watch a variety of shows on their small screens, including new films. How are the Government encouraging these films to be seen more widely in the cinema, where they belong?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Earl has tempted me very far out of my policy area, I have to say. My understanding is that cinemas have seen a growth in people going to see films there. Certainly, I know that young people in my life are very keen to carry on going to the cinema as well as watching a whole variety of media in different ways on their screens. The important thing is that we have control over the content of what they are watching, and that is why the Online Safety Act is so important. As I said previously, we are also clear that excessive time spent on a screen can prevent you from doing a whole range of other things which are also fun and important for your life.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if schools—especially those for younger children—were to place more emphasis on reading books, that would help ameliorate the problem to a certain extent? There is a follow-on problem in that many state schools, especially those for younger children, have very poor libraries, which need a lot more books.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about reading, which is why I am sure he is pleased that the Government have announced that 2026 will be a national year of reading, with lots of opportunities through our schools, communities and libraries for children to learn about the benefits of books and reading.
Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to introduce activity regulations under the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023 provides a framework for the introduction of future bans on the advertising and offering for sale, in England and Northern Ireland, of low-welfare animal activities abroad. We are currently engaging with both industry and stakeholders to explore the most effective way to protect animals in specific low-welfare activities abroad from considerable suffering and unacceptable practices. We are therefore looking at both legislative and non-legislative options.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply. She said that this is an important piece of legislation, which was piloted through this Chamber by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood. It is now two years since this important legislation was passed with strong cross-party support from the then Opposition, and indeed from the Minister herself, and we still have not seen these regulations. Can the Minister now give us a clear and transparent timetable for the introduction of the regulations?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct. As he is aware, I strongly supported the then Bill when it went through Parliament, because I do not want to see the abuse of animals in any circumstances. However, having looked at the Act and how to take it forward, there are certain challenges to ensure that it is effective when it is brought in. There is no point having legislation that is not going to do what we want it to do. First, it has to be clear for advertisers and enforcement bodies which activities are in scope, so we are looking at which activities to prioritise and bring into scope. We need to determine whether an advertised activity meets the criteria for being low welfare, because we need to ensure that high-welfare activities are not inadvertently impacted. We also need to ensure that the party placing the advert can be identified. This is complex, because it is about banning advertising only in this country, whereas many advertised holidays are not from organisations based here and the activities are abroad. It is complex, but I am determined that we get this right.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of media reports suggesting that this appalling practice is on the increase? In the light of that, what urgent support and guidance can she provide for the UK tourism industry that could be used right now to reduce this immediately, particularly given the current delay that she described in the introduction and implementation of the Act?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One reason I talked about non-legislative options is that we want to stop people buying such holidays in the first place. One problem is that, when people book a holiday with an elephant ride, they simply do not understand what has happened to that elephant and how it has been treated so that it can be ridden—so there is an education piece. It is currently the case that ABTA, which represents around 90% of British travel agents, offers guidance, working with its own members, as to what kind of activities are considered to be unacceptable. That guidance is there and we have been working with ABTA to look at how we can encourage further uptake—90% is a high number, but it is not everybody.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I do not often ask questions. I am prepared to bet that if the Minister was still sitting on this side, she would be berating the Government for dragging their feet. I would like to ask that selfsame question, connected with another more practical one: when may we expect some regulations? Will it be in months or in years?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am so sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I cannot give her a date. All I can say is that it is something I am actively looking at and working on. We are shortly going to be publishing the animal welfare strategy, which I have been preparing over the last 12 months; that will be out before the end of the year. We are including this within the animal welfare strategy as something that we want to deliver.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, following my almost namesake, since we humans are also animals, is there any way the Government can stop Members of Parliament carrying out low-level activities abroad rather than attending Westminster or their constituency—mentioning no names?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I would imagine that is probably an education piece.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm what specific criteria or evidence the Government are using to determine which activities abroad will be considered low welfare under the forthcoming regulations?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am determined to look at what makes the biggest difference. The whole essence of my approach to animal welfare is what makes the biggest difference, where are the most animals suffering abuse, and what can we do to try to reduce that. Those are the criteria we are looking at.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I had the privilege of taking this legislation through this House, with the support of the Minister. I am profoundly disappointed that, two years after it reached the statute book, it has not been implemented, letting down the 150 charities which campaigned for it and the animals it would protect. Does the Minister recall the terrible fate of 20 year-old Andrea Taylor, who was violently killed on a visit to the Nongnooch resort in Thailand when an elephant which had been brutalised charged her? She is one of the many tourists killed or injured because this legislation is not yet effectively in place. Is it not unacceptable that until this law is implemented by regulation, tragically, there will be more Andrea Taylors?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Lord on sponsoring the Bill; I was very happy to support him. I point out that it may be two years since the legislation, but I have not been the Minister for two years. That is not to say that it has not been some time. I have met campaigners and stakeholders, and I am determined to take this through. It is, unfortunately, proving to be more complex than I would have liked, and I am absolutely aware of the tragic case he talks about. That is why we need to work not just on the legislation but more broadly than that. People can still buy these holidays online, advertised from other countries. We need to look not just at the legislation we can bring forward through this particular Act but much more broadly.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, there is a pattern emerging from the Minister’s department, in that we continue to have a similar situation around the regulations on deforestation and forest risk products. What can she do to ensure her department turns the will of Parliament into legislation rather more quickly than seems to be happening at the moment?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am aware of what the noble Lord is talking about regarding deforestation. I have been working with Minister Creagh from the other place on this and we are looking at the best way to take it forward.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the civil servants working on this and other issues have timeframes for these decisions? It seems to me that they should know how long it will take to conduct some sort of investigation and come forward with policies, so that the House will have some idea of when things are going to change.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Civil Service animal welfare team in Defra is extremely committed and works incredibly hard. This is a very broad area, with many areas of animal welfare that we are working on at the same time. This is something that we want to deliver on. I know the team is working very hard with both industry and stakeholders to look at the best way to bring legislation forward.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the commitment previously given to provide an opt-out for certified zoos will be part of these regulations when they are published?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I assume that the activities the noble Lord is referring to regarding zoos are high-welfare activities. As I said, we are looking at how best to bring legislation forward. For any activity to be exempt, there would need to be compelling, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the activity was high welfare and therefore not to be constrained by any legislation coming forward. Part of the work in developing future legislation is considering how best to do that.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 1st September 2025
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-III(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (1 Sep 2025)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting correction which would remove the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” from clause 16. The definition is unnecessary because the term is already defined for the purposes of clause 16 in clause 13(8).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 72 in my name seeks to leave out lines 12 and 13 on page 22 of the Bill, removing the additional definition of “qualifying distribution agreement”. It is a straightforward technical amendment. Its purpose is to tidy up the drafting of the Bill by removing a definition that is no longer required. The term “qualifying distribution agreement” is already defined in Clause 13(8), following other changes made during the passage of the Bill. The amendment will help ensure that the legislation is clear, coherent and free from unnecessary or redundant definitions. It will not alter the substance or effect of the policy but support the overall clarity and workability of the Bill.
I hope that the Committee will support this amendment. I look forward to the debate on the other amendments in this group; I will reserve comment on them until I make my winding-up remarks. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for being so brief and to the point and for allowing me the opportunity to explain the purpose of the other amendments in this group in my name, which are Amendments 73 to 76. Like the Minister, I look forward to hearing from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about grid capacity in his Amendment 79. I remind the Committee of my registered interest as chair of development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire.
My amendments relate to Clause 17, which contains a power to give Ministers the opportunity to designate strategic plans for the purposes of the connection reforms that are taking place in relation to the transmission and distribution networks. I suppose it would be helpful—not least because it will connect to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will raise—for me to remind the House that this process is under way. In effect, it was commenced by the Connections Action Plan under the previous Administration in November 2023. A simple way of expressing it is by saying that there was a lot of commitment to future substantial increases in generating capacity in a range of technologies, which were increasingly forming a queue to book their potential connection to the transmission or distribution networks. However, there was considerable risk related to whether those projects would be delivered on time or at all.
The volume of such commitments made it very clear that a significant proportion of them would not be viable, because there would be an excess of what was required. The numbers varied, but I think the latest figure was something like 714 gigawatts of grid capacity relative to about 500 gigawatts of demand. Instead of the old regime, which can be characterised as “first ready, first connected”—namely, those who were planning to provide capacity simply booked a place in the queue and then, when they were ready, they were given a right to be connected—the intention now is for there to be strategic planning behind the process leading to the net-zero objectives in 2030, which were published under the Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan last December.
Since then, Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator have been working on this. For the avoidance of doubt, references in Clause 17 to the independent system operator and planner, ISOP, are actually to the National Energy System Operator, or NESO. Ofgem agreed on its methodologies, I think in April, and has now, after consultation, approved the processes. I think that we are in a position—but the Minister can correct me if there is more detail—where we are anticipating, potentially in a matter of weeks, the first allocation of commitments by Ofgem to what is known as Gate 2. As I understand it, Gate 2 means that Ofgem will say that it is committed to these projects and that they will be connected to the transmission or distribution networks when they are ready and because they are needed.
There are two differences with that approach. First, the queue will be straightforward; it will be not just “first ready, first connected” but “first ready, first needed, first connected”. Secondly, the two criteria that Ofgem will apply, in the first instance, will be that there is a clear timetable—with milestones, which, if they are not met, may cause such projects to lose their place in that queue—and that they will be connected when they are needed. There is therefore a direct relationship between the strategic planning for electricity capacity in a range of technologies and the projects that NESO agrees will be brought in to supply the grid at given times in the future.
If I understand it correctly, the present strategic objective is set out in the connections annexe to the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. It sets out a range of technologies, and capacities that are required in those technologies, and then breaks them down by regions across the country. There is therefore a plan to which the alignment should relate. The Explanatory Notes state that the designated strategic plan according to which the National Energy System Operator should work may be, for example, the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, so we can see the relationship with that.
The Explanatory Notes do not say this, but the Delegated Powers Committee’s memorandum from the department did: in addition, the designated plans are intended to include the strategic spatial energy plan intended to be published in 2026. That is in addition to what is in the clean power plan, which has 2030 targets and ranges for its potential capacity requirements through to 2035, and will extend that to 2050 so that there is a longer strategic alignment between the people who are making substantial investments and the commitment on the part of the grid to take that supply into the grid.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my recorded register of interests: I am a non-executive director and a board member of the Water Retail Company. I will speak to my Amendment 79 and respond to the amendments on connections reform.
Amendment 79 calls on the Government to insert a new clause into the Planning and Infrastructure Bill under the heading of “increasing grid capacity” and proposes that, within three months of the Bill becoming law, the Secretary of State should publish a plan to achieve two simple yet crucial objectives: to reduce the cost and the time taken for new connections to the electrical transmission or distribution system; and to permit the development of local energy grids. The need for this amendment should be beyond reasonable doubt. I am concerned that, if these reforms are not made, we will not be capable of meeting the Government’s stated objective, which we share, to achieve clean power by 2030—a key step on our overall climate change and energy targets.
To decarbonise, we must electrify. Electricity demand is set to rise by at least 11% before 2030 and at least double by 2050. How we heat our homes, how we travel and how we power our industry must all be by electricity, which demands wiring everything up and ensuring that both low-voltage and high-voltage networks are fit for purpose. I would argue that this is one of the biggest societal energy changes since the Industrial Revolution and is only some five years away, which is merely the blink of an eye in planning terms. At present, the delay in getting grid connections is one of the greatest obstacles to decarbonisation, to developing new housing and industry, and to increasing our economic output as a country. Our businesses and communities are waiting seven to 10 years—even longer in some cases—before they can secure the right to feed clean energy into the system or to make power connections. Developers in grid hotspots—or “not spots”, potentially—are reporting connection waits of several years as being typical.
We need to be prepared and to get this stuff done. My amendment is designed to help do that. If we are going to be a leader in renewable energy and to get all the renewable energy in place, the grid connection system needs to be reformed. I very much recognise the Government’s recent reforms to try to update the grid connection system. In April 2025, working alongside Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator—NESO—the Government announced reforms to prioritise clean energy and infrastructure for grid access, aiming to eliminate so-called zombie or speculative projects and to fast-track the shovel-ready schemes that are set to go. The new target model option, TMO4+, introduces stricter queue management, milestone targets and progressive penalties for lagging projects, as well as prioritising the projects that are crucial for clean power and our overall economic growth.
These reforms are intended to help deliver that 2030 clean power plan, unlocking up to £15 billion in investment and supporting a more responsive and modern grid system. These are all steps in the right direction, and we definitely welcome how the Government have made progress since they came to power, but I feel that more needs to be done, hence the amendment that I put forward here. I worry that, if we do not do more, we will simply not be ready and will not hit these targets.
The second element of my amendment touches on local energy grids. Local energy grids are still in their infancy, but my party very much supports them. They empower our local communities and help them to benefit from the clean power revolution that is coming. Their efforts are quiet, modest and determined, and I want this Government to do more to support them. I believe they are essential in galvanising public support and helping the Government to take communities with them on this journey. Alongside many others across both Houses of Parliament, I fought to get community energy into the Great British Energy Act and I am delighted to have done that.
However, more help is needed to get this stuff over the line. Local energy grids are important and will benefit the country. They help to make the grid more secure and resilient. They reduce the need for transmission and the loss of transmission time, and they reduce the need to invest in the high-voltage grid overall. They take our communities with us and bring support. We all need that: this Government need that and we need that. Our communities should benefit from the revolution that is taking place. My amendment is designed to help and to support the Government. My hope is that the Government can support this amendment, or it would be appreciated if they brought forward an amendment on Report.
I turn briefly to the other amendments in this group. I recognise that the Minister has put forward a drafting amendment and we are fine with that. On Amendments 73 to 76 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, we recognise what they are about and welcome the questions that the noble Lord raises. These are important issues, which we should discuss in Committee, about the replication of policy and policy statements, and how those systems are set up and will work in practice.
However, as we go into this rapid period of change, my worry is that, if his amendments are passed, we could end up with a system that is centralised more in Westminster, is less responsive to the changes that need to happen at pace and at scale and is not as well connected to the communities and those on the ground facing change. Those would be my general concerns with those amendments, if agreed, but I look forward to the Minister’s response and I think it is important that those amendments were raised. I look forward to further debate on this group.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, connections reform is very important if we are to give the grid capacity. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right in wanting to speed things up and to ensure that these connections are not too costly. That matters whether you want more renewable energy in the mix or would prefer—as I would—to continue with a mixed supply, including better and continued use of North Sea oil and gas.
However, the fact is that the grid is not resilient and everything is too slow. We have too many layers of decision-making, too much strategising, too many bureaucratic rules and, therefore, not enough speed and determination. I know that that is behind the Government’s planning reforms. I fear that my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendments could also slow things down, but he may be able to reassure me on that. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how we can ensure that these changes will speed things up and get us the reforms that we need, if the economy and the energy economy are to work well in the months and years ahead.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley’s approach of being specific about what it is that developers and investors should be looking at instead of what the latest designated strategy might be. This approach also makes sure that we do not end up with more reasons for judicial review, when it is left to judges to determine what is the strategy or where there is nuance and so on. My noble friend made points about making that direct link to understanding a moment in time and that the measure has been through the parliamentary aspect of the process, initiated by the Government of course. That simplicity will in fact help the Government in achieving a lot of the aims which they seek.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments, which relate to the connections reform provisions within the Bill. These are largely technical and drafting amendments, but they are none the less important to ensure clarity and alignment across the legislation. I agree with many of the issues raised by my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Coffey, particularly anything that slows down the grid connections process or adds more cost to the consumer.
Let me start by welcoming Amendment 72, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, which, as she stated in her admirably brief opening, makes a simple drafting correction. It removes the definition of “qualifying distribution agreement” from Clause 16, as it is already defined in Clause 13(8). This is a helpful tidying up amendment that improves the consistency of the Bill’s language, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing it forward.
Amendments 73 to 76, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, would also serve to improve the clarity and coherence of the Bill, particularly in relation to NESO and its responsibilities. Amendment 73 would ensure that NESO is required to have regard to the strategy and policy statement under Section 165 of the Energy Act 2023, rather than the designated strategic plan. This helps to bring the language of the Bill in line with existing legislation and policy frameworks.
Amendment 74 makes a similar adjustment to Clause 17, ensuring that NESO must have regard to the strategic priorities set out in the strategy and policy statement under the 2023 Act. Amendment 75 then defines “strategic priorities” as those contained in the most recent strategy and policy statement issued under that Act—again reinforcing consistency and legal precision. Amendment 76 replaces references in Clause 17 to “designated strategic plans” with “strategic priorities”, to align terminology with Section 165 of the Energy Act 2023. My noble friend Lord Lansley has put forward a strong case for these changes to the Bill, and they appear to be sensible and constructive amendments.
Finally, Amendment 79, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raises an important issue by highlighting the delays and high costs associated with connecting to the national grid. This amendment addresses a key barrier to energy development and considers the use of local grids as a way of improving efficiency.
This has been a good, thoughtful and short debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, it is reassuring to hear such a degree of consensus across the House that we all want to deliver the same thing from this—speeding up the connections process. I have expressed my frustration many times before in this House that it can take longer to get a grid connection than it did to build the whole of the A1(M). That is a just a nonsense and we have to move on from it.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Coffey, for their comments.
I am afraid I have to oppose the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I understand how well intentioned they are and I greatly respect his experience in these areas, but they would have significant unintended consequences for the Government’s ability to respond swiftly and effectively to the evolving needs of our energy system.
At the heart of the amendments is a proposal to require that the strategy and policy statement, also known as SPS, designated under Part 5 of the Energy Act 2013 is used for the purpose of prioritising connections to the electricity network. I recognise the helpful attempt by the noble Lord to ensure consistency and clarity with regard to the obligations of Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator, NESO. I also fully recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and do not for a moment suggest that we should seek to avoid that. But we must also be honest about the practical implications of this approach.
The SPS is subject to a rigorous process that is entirely appropriate for a high-level, overarching statement of policy. But it is not designed to accommodate the pace or specificity required to support the complex and fast-moving reforms we are undertaking to unblock and accelerate electricity network connections. We are entering a period of rapid transformation. The grid must decarbonise. New technologies are emerging. Electricity demand is shifting and increasing and the connections process must evolve to keep up.
In that context, the Government must be able to designate timely targeted guidance, potentially in the form of multiple documents, tailored to different parts of the sector, such as generation or demand connections, or technology-specific plans and strategies. Indeed, the Government have already signalled their intention to designate the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and the Industrial Strategy—both existing documents published recently—when the necessary powers are available. These are concrete, strategic documents that will help the industry to plan and invest with confidence, hopefully meeting some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. But these amendments would prevent that. They would limit us to a single document—the SPS—and, in doing so, tie our hands at precisely the moment we need the most flexibility, creating potential delays and preventing the granular and specific strategic direction required for the grid connection process.
There is a further and more fundamental issue. Distribution network operators—DNOs—have no legal obligation to have regard to the SPS. These companies are critical to the delivery of connections reform and are responsible for connecting a significant volume of new generation and storage that will connect directly to the distribution network. They are privately owned and operated and the SPS was never intended to bind them. To attempt to do so now would be not only inappropriate but unworkable.
If we are serious about reforming the connections process—as I believe we are; we have heard that this afternoon—we must ensure that our strategic plans can apply to the full range of actors involved. That means having the ability to designate plans that are fit for purpose, timely and applicable to the right parties. The strategy and policy statement is a high-level strategic document intended to provide Ofgem and NESO with clear direction over the Government’s strategic priorities and desired outcomes for the duration of our term to inform decision-making. In contrast, as I have said, designated plans for the purpose of connections reform may include more granular, tactical guidance. These documents are designed to complement, not conflict with, the SPS.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I would also say that plans are in place and being implemented for the connections to the transmission and distribution system. In November 2023, as the noble Lord mentioned, the Connections Action Plan was published, setting out expectations for the scale and pace of reform. This formed the basis for the National Energy System Operator’s connection reform proposals, which Ofgem have just approved. The broad ambition, on which legislative measures have been based, will see faster electricity network connection dates offered, at both transmission and distribution.
The noble Lord asked me a very specific question around the Gate 2 process. The implementation of current connection reforms is under way, as I said. We are working closely with NESO and Ofgem, and we are anticipating the Gate 2 decisions in the coming weeks; “coming weeks” is one of those expressions that I have got used to as I have been a Minister.
The Bill as drafted is intended to ensure that we have the tools to deliver the energy transition effectively. The measure as drafted strikes the right balance. We believe that it provides a clear mechanism for designating strategic plans while preserving the flexibility —which we know we will need—to respond to a rapidly changing sector. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.
I turn now to Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He said that he believes this is the biggest change since the Industrial Revolution in terms of power accessibility. I do not disagree with that statement. Let me begin by stating that we are in full agreement that the current delays arising from the first come, first served approach to grid connections are absolutely no longer tenable; I hope I have made that very clear. For this reason, in December 2024, the Government published the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. This document outlines our plan to work collaboratively with the National Energy System Operator—NESO—and Ofgem to deliver a fundamental overhaul of the connections process.
The objective is to accelerate connection timelines for the most critical projects and to unlock billions of pounds of investment for renewable energy generation. Through the implementation of these reforms, it is estimated that up to £5 billion in unnecessary network reinforcements could be avoided. In turn, this should lead to long-term savings for consumers through lower electricity bills.
The reforms in question have been developed by NESO in close consultation with both industry stakeholders and Ofgem, following all requisite formal procedures, including public consultation. Ofgem has since approved these proposals and implementation is now well under way, as I have already mentioned.
This Bill is intended to support the reforms. Notably, the Bill will confer powers on the Secretary of State to designate strategic plans. These plans must be taken into account by both NESO and distribution network operators when exercising their functions in relation to grid connections.
It is anticipated that the Secretary of State will initially designate the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and the Industrial Strategy, followed in due course by the proposed strategic spatial energy plan. These strategic documents are designed to reflect the needs of the nation’s energy system, including measures to address the inefficiencies of the current grid queue by prioritising projects of greatest national importance. Introducing a new statutory requirement for a further plan would risk delaying this progress and might introduce unwelcome uncertainty for industry participants.
On the matter of local energy grids, we do not consider that there is any regulatory impediment. The necessary infrastructure, including local networks that integrate both generation and demand, is already permissible. Such networks may be developed and operated by distribution network operators or independent network providers, or under private wire arrangements via statutory licence exemptions.
We are also firmly committed to supporting local and community energy initiatives. These play a vital role in the UK’s broader energy landscape and we are determined to ensure that communities continue to benefit directly from the transition to clean energy. We will be discussing more about that later this afternoon.
To that end, Great British Energy will work in partnership with mayoral combined authorities, community energy organisations and the devolved Administrations. This collaboration will include the provision of funding and strategic support, from planning advice to technical guidance, for local community energy stakeholders. I trust this explanation provides sufficient reassurance to noble Lords.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I thank the Minister for that. Is it then the Government’s intention to publish a new strategy and policy statement under the Energy Act? At the moment, legislation requires Ofgem to have regard to what is effectively an out-of-date strategy.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope I picked up that question during my response. I will just check back to make sure that I got the wording right. I think that is the case but I will confirm it to the noble Lord in writing. Still, I think he is correct in his assumption.
I trust that explanation provides a sufficient response for the noble Lord, and I ask him not to press his amendment.
Earl Russell
“Extension of permitted developmentThe Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed—(a) make provision for the following to be included as permitted development—(i) upgrading of existing electricity lines from single to three phase;(ii) alteration of conductor type;(iii) increase in the height of distribution network supports to maintain minimum ground clearances under the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;(iv) increase in the distance of supporting structures by up to 60m from their existing position when replacing an existing overhead line;(v) in relation to new connections from an existing line, an increase in nominal voltage to a maximum of 33kV and related increase in pole heights;(vi) upgrading of existing lines from 6.6kV to 11kV;(vii) installation of additional stays supporting wooden poles;(viii) upgrading of existing apparatus, including the increase of capacity of pole mounted transformers, subject to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 (consent required for overhead lines) and the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/2665);(ix) temporary placement of a line for a period of up to two years;(b) consult on the introduction of further measures for the purposes of enabling electricity distribution network upgrades and reinforcements to be delivered as permitted development.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would expand permitted development rights for upgrades to the transmission network.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are all on the extension of permitted development. My Amendment 77 concerns the extension of permitted development rights for low-voltage electricity networks. It intends to help this Government achieve their ambition of a clean, affordable and secure energy system by 2030.
The amendment would enable clearly defined and modest upgrades to be treated as permitted development. That includes the upgrading of electricity lines from single to three-phase, the alteration of conduct type, modest increases in pole height where required by regulation, the temporary placement of lines to facilitate works and the reinforcement of existing apparatus such as pole-mounted transformers.
This is not a revolution; it is about pragmatism. These are modest technical improvements that would make our national grid fit for the 21st century. This is not about new infrastructure on green fields. This is needed simply because our electricity network, built decades ago, is fundamentally ill-equipped for the task required of it. I am increasingly worried about the capacity of the low-voltage grid and the investment in it. This is needed to bring electricity to our homes and to ensure that we can make the transitions we need to make—having electric vehicles and installing heat pumps to help us hit our clean-power targets.
At present, these modest network upgrades face planning processes that can take months and sometimes even years, often longer than building the relevant generation plant itself. That results in higher costs and, in some cases, stranded investment. Companies across the energy sector report the same difficulties: planning bottlenecks, slow permissions and land-acquisition rules that lag behind those of gas, water and telecoms. That is not right; there should be a level playing field for these things.
Without reform, costs for paying for clean generators to turn down because the grid cannot handle their power could soar from £2 billion a year today to £8 billion by the end of the decade. These costs are absorbed by companies and passed on to bill payers, who face higher bills. We need to get this stuff done and it needs to work. It takes a series of minor but essential upgrades and technical adjustments to equipment, not new developments, and relieves them of lengthy planning processes. Nothing in this amendment would reduce safety. Electricity safety, quality and continuity regulations remain firmly in place under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, which still governs overhead powerline consents. The safeguards endure. What would change is that we would no longer require the full machinery of a planning inquiry simply to raise a pole by a few feet or to replace a conductor with a modern equivalent.
The benefits are clear. First, it would speed up bureaucracy and get things moving. Secondly, it would lower costs and avoid delays. Thirdly, it would help us achieve our climate and renewable targets. Fourthly, it would provide us with security and resilience in the system and help get electricity to our front doorsteps, where we need it. This amendment would also require consultation on further measures, ensuring that where wider reforms are proposed, the public and stakeholders are fully engaged. I am not asking for a blank cheque here; this is a carefully drafted step forward. The Government have said that this Bill is central to their plan for clean power by 2030, and we agree. This amendment is modest and seeks to help unlock the arteries to make sure that electricity can be delivered.
As I have said, this is slightly complicated because it is a shopping list of very minor improvements. But it reminds me of the approach of British Cycling, which found that a number of very small incremental differences, if implemented as a philosophy, made huge fundamental strides and gains in its ability to win and achieve its goals. The same is true with these amendments. More importantly, these are reforms and changes that DNOs and wider industry bodies are calling for, and that they say they need to achieve clean power. This is about making sure that they can do what they signed up to do to help secure more investment and get things moving.
As I am opening this group, I will circle back to the other amendments at the end. I do not want to speak to other people’s amendments before they have introduced them.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 185B, and I completely agree with the noble Earl on his amendment. I have tabled amendments on permitted development elsewhere in this Bill. It is a hugely important part of getting planning right. The Government should take some courageous decisions on what delays we do not need. What do we recognise that we have to do and how do we allow people to get on with it? Getting an efficient transmission network is something we absolutely need to do.
Moving a transmission pole may upset someone locally, but it is part of a national need. That it should be delayed, that people should take huge amounts of time on whether it should be here or there or whether an extra prop to a pole should be allowed, is just ridiculous. I am very sorry that we have allowed this to accumulate over the years. I am delighted to find the Liberal Democrats in support of reducing regulation; long may this continue. This is a really constructive way forward.
I have added the idea that we ought to allow a bit more freedom for wind generation. When I grew up, it was common to see agricultural windmills—those galvanised towers with clanking blades—all over the rural landscape. They provided power of a kind, type and price which suited the local conditions.
I remember when land wind turbines were introduced, and we all thought that they would be horrid, would desecrate the landscape and that it would be miserable, but we are used to them now—they are part of everybody’s landscape, just about. If we do not overdo it, I think that we have a reasonable basis for saying that we should experiment on allowing people to put these down for local need to generate electricity where it is needed and in a way that it is needed. It will not get done unless there is a commercial requirement for it, but we should look at freeing up the restrictions that we have placed on people putting up wind turbines and ask what is really needed here. Have we not learned enough to allow us to free this up a bit?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 94E, but I start with Amendment 77 and simply say that I completely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We are not talking about the horrific, huge pylons; these are quite simple, and it makes much more sense to make it as straightforward as possible to up the energy locally.
I say to my noble friend Lord Lucas that there already are, I think, permitted development rights for turbines to the level that he suggests. I suggest that the permitted development right is solely for a single turbine, and I note that his amendment refers to “turbines”. I would not want this to be a back door to having significant numbers of wind farms on a variety of land, if he were to press this any further.
The reason my amendment is in this group is that also has to do with permitted development rights, regarding solar. We will debate solar today under other parts of this legislation, but this amendment seeks to try to get permitted development rights for solar on reservoirs. There are certain reservoirs, some very close to London, where sometimes a bit of sailing happens but, by and large, they sit there empty. Important as these reservoirs are for the water supply that we need, this would be quite a straightforward way of allowing for a modest amount of solar extension, which may only be that which is needed for the local facility, or perhaps a little further. I would not suggest that any would have to have an automatic connection to the grid, because that would probably be exceptionally expensive. The point is that, if we are going to increase the amount of renewable energy, why not allow reservoir owners to put this sort of solar development somewhere we are not then displacing agricultural land and where it does not require the huge extensions or connections that we see today right across agricultural land all over the country?
Floating solar is apparently seen as a nascent technology in the solar road map, so has not really been included in this Bill. I am conscious that we have read in the press this summer that there might be a second planning Bill, but I suggest to the Government that they should carpe diem. Why do we not get on and get this sort of permitted development right? Elsewhere in the Bill, I have suggested an easier way to try to include reservoirs and large ponds. In fact, the Secretary of State for Defra, Steve Reed, has been very specific in some of the open meetings that he has had that it needs to be easier for farmers to be able to access reservoirs and have them on their land. From my perspective, this could be a double win.
The other aspect that people may not be aware of with regard to the benefit of floating solar on reservoirs is that it could potentially help boost water security. One of the things with reservoirs is that it is not just about usage and them being drained ineffectively; it is also about evaporation levels, which means that we start to see a significant reduction in how much water is available. By simply having these solar panels, we can have a physical barrier between the water and the sun.
It is suggested that it is possible that such development could boost biodiversity on reservoir sites. Any opportunity that we can take, in a mutually beneficial way, to boost nature as well as energy resilience is something that I would hope that the Government could consider.
I understand that the UK is home to Europe’s largest floating solar farm, on the QEII reservoir, and I know there has been a bit of on and off, literally, about how effective it has been. Nevertheless, it is important that we consider all opportunities to make sure, at very limited or ideally no cost to the bill payer, that we maximise the amount of energy that is directly available to us.
On energy security rolling forward, trying to get more homegrown electricity is key. That is why I hope the Government will look at this carefully and consider the benefits of permitted development rights for floating solar on our reservoirs.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, like many Members in the Committee, when I read the list in my noble friend’s Amendment 77 I was absolutely incredulous that we are in the position where planning permissions still have to be given for that scale of change to our electricity distribution system. It is incredible. I hope that whichever Minister is answering on this group will be able to give us concrete guarantees that action will be taken in this area, whether through accepting this amendment or through secondary legislation. We need to get on with this and with the Government’s own programme.
I very much welcome the boldness of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which is perhaps unusual coming from those Benches, and the tenor of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. One thing that strikes me, and she mentioned it, is that a lot of reservoirs, certainly in my part of the world, the south-west, are used as recreational facilities, and obviously we would not want to squeeze that out. The other thing that occurs to me, particularly this year, is that floating solar on reservoirs is very likely to become non-floating fixed solar panels, given the rate of rainfall that we have been having, or not having, over some of these summers.
I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to these very positive suggestions for how we can move renewable energy forward in this country.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, with the solar energy that is reaching me at the moment, it is actually quite hard to see whether there is anybody out there, but I will take it for granted that there is and that they are all listening with rapt attention.
I apologise that I was unable to participate in earlier debates on the Bill, but I have been following it closely. I should declare that my family farm has some of what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to as “hideous”—or was it “horrendous”?—pylons and poles coming across it. My grandfather actually welcomed these as signs of the inevitable march of progress, but, even then, and certainly now, not everybody is quite as enthusiastic as he was.
While I see and support the logic of Amendment 77, it makes no provision overtly for wayleaves or compensation for those whose homes and businesses are affected by any additional poles et cetera. I hope that any amendment along these lines would accommodate such arrangements, as is the case with current power lines. Will the Minister, or perhaps the noble Earl himself, confirm that that is the intention?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, to pick up the point of the noble Lord, I remember my uncle getting pylons next to his house and how the compensation saved the day for his small business.
My own view is that it is good to have permitted development rights for minor changes, particularly if energy providers are calling for them. It makes sense to use this Bill to allow permitted development. My noble friend Lord Lucas said that it was hugely important, and I think it is hugely important to speed things up. As we have already heard, it is a surprise that some of these things require planning permission, and there is a lot of potluck as to whether you can get planning permission quickly in any particular area.
I just believe that we need to get things moving so I am not sure why the changes need to be in a regulation, as proposed in Amendment 77 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Can the Government not work out what can be easily excluded from planning control and put it in the Bill? That is how we used to do things in the Bills I remember presiding over in the 20th century when I was a civil servant. Is there anything that we can do to get rid of these things, rather than wait for further regulations and consultations, if it is straightforward?
I agree with my noble friend Lady Coffey that we should be careful not to allow multiple wind turbines through a back door. Clearly, the detail of this needs to be looked at; it has to be genuinely smallish things. I am less sure about permitted development rights for floating solar simply because I know so little about it; if we were to proceed with that, it should be in regulations. I am always asking the Minister how we can speed this process up. Permitted development rights here, and perhaps elsewhere in the Bill, can play a part.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require the Secretary of State to designate certain electricity network upgrade works as permitted developments within 12 months of the passing of this Act. I refer the Committee to my register of interests, including as a developer of solar and wind energy generation infrastructure.
The amendment is detailed and specific, covering a range of necessary and often routine upgrades to our distribution network. These upgrades are not exceptional; rather, they are part and parcel of the essential modernisation of our grid. As demand for electricity grows, driven by electric vehicles, heat pumps, an increasing shift to electrified systems and the construction of new data centres, so, too, does the need for a distribution network that can meet that demand safely and efficiently.
The concerns raised by the noble Earl in bringing forward this amendment have merit. Local electricity distribution is hampered by regulatory delays, planning burdens and procedural hurdles, which can slow down or increase the cost of what are in many cases necessary infrastructure improvements. We understand the motivation to streamline these processes and provide industry with greater certainty. However, there are important questions around local engagement, visual impact and environmental considerations, which would need to be worked through. Permitted development rights by their very nature bypass certain planning safeguards, and we must take care not to undermine public confidence in the system by extending them too broadly or too quickly. I ask the Minister whether there are other ways of simplifying the decision-making on such upgrades.
Amendment 94E in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to extend permitted development rights to include the installation of floating solar panels on reservoirs. At a time when we are seeking every opportunity to expand renewable energy without placing additional pressure on land, utilising existing bodies of water in this way may present a pragmatic and low-impact solution. My noble friend makes an important and timely point about the potential of underused spaces to contribute to our energy goals. I hope that the Government will look closely at how permitted development rights can help facilitate the responsible deployment of floating solar technology.
In a similar vein, Amendment 185B in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas seeks to expand permitted development rights for small-scale onshore wind turbines up to a height of 30 metres. This, too, is a proposal worthy of consideration. Enabling more local generation of renewable energy, particularly where there is community support, can play a valuable role in decarbonising the grid and improving energy security.
I look to the Minister to provide clarity on the Government’s current thinking in this area and to address the important questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Lucas. Specifically, I hope that he can reassure the Committee that the Government recognise the need for timely electricity network upgrades and are actively considering how the planning framework can support that aim while balancing the interests of local communities and the environment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising this important issue through Amendment 77. The Government fully recognise the need to accelerate electricity network upgrades to support the transition to net zero. We agree with the intent behind this amendment and with many of the specific proposals that it contains. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill at this time. The amendment proposes exemptions from the consent process under the Electricity Act 1989. These are technical and regulatory matters that are generally best addressed through secondary legislation, following proper consultation.
The Government launched a public consultation on 8 July; it closes tomorrow. It includes proposals that closely reflect those in this amendment and seeks views from a wide range of stakeholders, including network operators, landowners and local authorities. The Government must undertake a thorough evaluation of consultation responses to understand any stakeholder concerns or unintended impacts ahead of implementation. Introducing changes now, whether through primary or secondary legislation, before that work has been done would pre-empt the consultation process and risk undermining the careful balance that we are trying to strike between speeding up delivery and protecting landowners’ rights. We are committed to acting quickly once the consultation process is complete, but we must do so in a way that is informed, proportionate and legally sound. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for raising the important issue in Amendment 94E. The Government are committed to achieving clean power by 2030. We will need to see significant increases in the development of all types of solar, whether sited on land, rooftops or water, to achieve this mission. The Government are therefore supportive of floating solar and consider it a technology ripe for development, especially considering the increased efficiency of solar panels on water and the wider benefits of preventing algal blooms and reducing climate-related evaporation. An effective planning system is pivotal to delivering our clean power mission. The system must work in a way that supports both new infrastructures, such as floating solar, and more established technologies.
The noble Baroness may have seen that the Government published their first ever solar road map on 30 June; it commits to more than 72 ambitious actions across several areas, including planning. The road map includes a section on the opportunities of floating solar and identifies the needs both to provide clarity on the planning requirements for what is a relatively new technology in the UK and to ensure that these measures are proportionate. In the solar road map, the Government made a clear commitment to explore how planning levers could further support floating solar projects. This work will be overseen by a new government and industry solar council, which is being set up to assist in driving forward and monitoring progress on solar road map actions. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill. I believe that it is only right that we conduct further work to ensure a strong evidence base on potential proposals and ensure that we have considered the breadth of benefits and impacts. I hope that the noble Baroness is content with this response; I kindly ask her not to press her amendment.
Amendment 185B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to classify some small-scale wind turbines as permitted development, provided certain conditions are met. I am grateful to the noble Lord for this amendment. He may have seen that the Government published their first ever dedicated onshore wind strategy on 4 July; it commits to more than 40 ambitious actions across several areas, including planning. One of the opportunities identified in the strategy regards small-scale deployment. The Government recognise the importance that small-scale onshore wind developments could play in achieving our wider decarbonisation goals and want to consider changes to the planning system to better support it—[Interruption.]
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the rules that determine whether a turbine can be classed as permitted development and not require a full planning application have not been updated for over a decade. With advances in technology and increased demand for small-scale generation, there may be opportunities to update these rules. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that the Government committed in the onshore wind strategy to publish a consultation this year on whether existing permitted development rights are fit for purpose and could support other forms of small-scale onshore wind deployment. I believe it is only right that we conduct a full consultation to gather views, insights and evidence on potential proposals, and ensure that we have considered the breadth of the benefits and impacts.
I hope the noble Lord is content with this response. Before I ask him to withdraw his amendment, I will respond to the very important point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The Government recognise the urgency of reform and have already taken action. We have published the 8 July consultation; we will gather views on proposals and we are committed to bold and effective reform, but it is essential that we understand the full impact of these changes on all those involved. We will move at pace to bring forward any necessary legislation once the consultation analysis is complete. I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Coming back to Amendment 77, I mention one word: growth. We are trying, with cross-party effort, to reform the planning system and speed it up. I hear some good ideas from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Lucas and others, yet we are having another consultation and another quango—doing something “in due course”, at some time, somewhere else. This is the flagship planning Bill, and I want the Minister to consider whether there is more we can do in it to set a better tone on speed and growth, and to get local authorities to move forward on the things which, as many agree, are bureaucratic and unnecessary.
Lord Teverson (LD)
Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, can the Minister give us some idea of a timetable for this, given that there is total unanimity that we are not in a sensible position and we need growth and to move this whole proposition forward? The consultation is about to end. Will we get this fixed by the end of the year, for instance? Could we be revolutionary and have something ready for Report? I am interested to hear from the Minister.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
We all share the opinion that we need to get this Bill on to the statute book speedily and to ensure that we have the growth to which the noble Baroness alludes. However, we need to do this by reflecting on and responding to the consultation, and for that to happen, we have to wait for it to finish—which is tomorrow, by the way. We will look diligently and carefully at the responses and ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose, growth and development, so that this country grows. This Bill will play its part, but there will be secondary legislation following consultation. We hear noble Lords’ desire, which is also the Government’s; we are all on the same page, and we want to move robustly and diligently in considering the consultation that we launched.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group of amendments. It has been a very useful group, and I note the unanimity around the House on these issues.
I thank the Minister for his response. I note that there is a consultation, which is closing tomorrow, on some of these matters. I would be interested to know which bits of my amendment are not in the consultation and how the Government plan to take those forward. I also press the Minister to take them forward as quickly as possible. If there is any scope for having conversations between now and Report, I would welcome that. If we can collectively take action on these matters where we agree, and make progress, that would be welcomed across the House. A government amendment on Report would also be greatly appreciated.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her important amendment. It is important that floating solar is not excluded. As she said, it is a nascent technology, subject only to the issues of not taking up water and leisure space, and perhaps that of drought. I absolutely welcome her amendment and hope that it can progress as well.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his amendment. I am not certain I can promise him a bonfire of regulations from my party hierarchy, but I support the amendment he has put forward, subject only to that one drafting issue. It is in exactly the same spirit as my amendment but comes from a different place, looking at what we can do to provide permitted development for such things.
Across these amendments, there is some interesting uniformity and common purpose on getting these things done, and I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 77.
Earl Russell
“Electricity distribution networks: land and access rights(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution network operators powers in relation, but not limited, to—(a) the acquisition of rights over land for new and existing overhead lines and underground cables;(b) the acquisition of land for new substations or the extension of existing substations;(c) the entering into of land for the purposes of maintaining existing equipment;(d) the entering into of land for the purposes of managing vegetation growth which is interfering with the safety or operation of overhead equipment.(2) Any powers granted must be compatible with the need to complete works related to development in a timely, inexpensive and uncomplicated manner, and may include the provision of compensation to relevant landowners.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in group three are all on electricity distribution and cabling. I apologise that there is quite a lot of crossover between my amendment in this group and those in the other group; in retrospect, it might have been better to have kept them together. A lot of the overarching general points that I made in the last group apply to this group. I am introducing a series of practical measures that I would like the Government to take forward to help them achieve their stated aim, which I share, of getting to clean power.
My Amendment 78 is about land access rights. It would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land. Land access rights need to extend to renewable energy operators as well, and that is my mistake; the drafting of my amendment was not as clear as it should have been. If the Minister, in responding to my speech, could also include the issue of renewable energy operators’ ability to access land in building renewable energy facilities, that would be greatly appreciated.
This is about using the opportunities the Bill provides. This measure, which the district network operators and industry bodies are calling for, is not in the Bill, which is why I have brought it forward. These are small, practical steps—like the British Cycling example I gave earlier—which, if implemented, would help to get done the things we all agree on.
If we do not address these issues, we will have delays, increased costs and issues in getting towards clean power. At present, electricity licence holders have fewer statutory rights when it comes to acquiring and accessing land compared with other utilities such as gas, water and telecommunications. I am not aware that the Government have done any consultation on this, but if the Minister could let me know when he responds whether consultations are ongoing, that would be greatly appreciated. We are looking to resolve the lack of parity, remove the unnecessary bureaucracy and make sure that we can get this stuff done.
The amendment would ensure that electricity distribution network operators are given carefully defined powers to acquire rights over land for overhead lines and cables, to purchase land for new substations, to enter land for the maintenance of existing equipment and to carry out vegetation management critical to the safety and reliability of the system. These powers will not be unlimited; they will be subject to both proper consultation and fair compensation for the landowners concerned, but they will mean that we can proceed with essential infrastructure works in a timely, straightforward and cost-effective way, in line with other utilities.
I welcome the fact that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has launched a consultation on land rights, published last month. However, it falls short of what is required to make clean power 2030 a reality. It does not extend to renewable electricity generators themselves, despite their central role in the energy transition. Without legislative reform in this Bill, we risk kicking the issue down the road.
As I said, the amendment enjoys the backing of the sector, which has been lobbying Members of this House—and, no doubt, the Government, including the Minister—on it. It has long been called for by the Energy Networks Association. These are the people operating on the front line, investing in green power and taking the risks. They are the people with the contracts to deliver this stuff for the Government, so it is important that the Government do what they reasonably can to help these companies succeed, so that we can share that joint ambition and achieve things together.
To conclude, my intention is to help the Government; I share their intention to hit our clean power targets. I want to work with the Minister; I am happy to look at amending my amendment and to speak to him between now and Report. The intention is for further consultation with the industry to look at these things and try to find some practical solutions to these relatively easily surmountable issues. I hope that is possible. I will circle back to the other amendments in this group after they have been introduced. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I would like to ask for a point of clarity from the noble Earl, of which I gave him due warning earlier today. As neither he nor the Minister picked up my question in the debate on Amendment 77, I hope that I will be luckier in this debate on Amendment 78.
Subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 78 refers to
“the acquisition of rights over land”
by network operators. Will the noble Earl confirm that he does not have in mind compulsory purchase powers? We will hear a lot about them later in the Bill—in fact, they probably should have had a Bill on their own, but we are where we are. Will he just confirm that? Giving operators compulsory purchase powers, in effect, has been a disaster in the radio mast arena. I would not want to see it happen again here.
Earl Russell (LD)
That is not my intention. I apologise for not being able to respond to the noble Lord’s email this morning. It is not my intention to give compulsory purchase powers. This is wayleaves, not compulsory purchase.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my probing Amendment 79A. They say that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. That could be extended to making the same point again and again and getting the same answer, which I have been doing over the past few months about burial and the different options for dealing with the great explosion we are going to witness of overhead power lines.
I am slightly nervous about the seeming consensus across the Committee this afternoon that nothing must stand in the way of the Government’s own date of 2030 for clean power, nothing must stop growth, and nothing must stand in the way of progress.
I fully concede that the Government have inherited a grid of which all Governments of every persuasion, over the last 20 or 30 years, have been neglectful. We have power being distributed in wrong parts of the country and shortages in other parts of the country, and the bearing loads of some of the grid are simply not up to the capacity that it is now required to meet. Additionally, we have an explosion in offshore wind, which has to be brought onshore, and that necessitates a great increase in the number of substations and, in turn, linkages to the grid.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am sympathetic to what my noble friend Lord Swire just said. I think it is fair to say that it was actually the previous Conservative Administration who changed aspects of a policy statement that there be a strong presumption in terms of overhead distribution. I will not pretend otherwise. I did try and fight that at the time, but failed. It is fair to say that the cost comparison has actually fallen considerably. It is still about four or four and a half times the cost of doing it via pylons, but I think there is a lot to be said for what my noble friend has put forward.
I was somewhat relieved by the clarity brought by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that he was not considering this to be compulsory purchase, given some of the issues that I have been contesting for some time. That is what has led to my Amendment 94FA—in the supplementary list—which provides for
“Electrical or communications cables under land in active agricultural use”.
I have shared with your Lordships before that I have quite a lot of experience dealing with energy projects and NSIPs, recognising the concentration of such projects on the Suffolk coast, and that is a theme that I will return to later. One thing that struck me was that, in consideration of getting the cabling underground because these projects were going principally through an AONB—I do not know if it is in legislation, but by default what has happened is that any cabling in an AONB ends up being underground—what was clear was a complete lack of understanding of what was there underground already. In agricultural areas, one thing that is significantly underground and is very sensitive infrastructure, which is not put in by the Government, water companies or the like but is actually put in by local farmers, is underground networks for water. Considering quite how much less water there is, particularly in the east of the country, these are critical in order to make sure that we can continue to have food being grown.
Something that is very important for water and other networks is the production of Christmas trees. Christmas trees are very hungry for water in their development, which takes some time. One thing that came to light in the consideration of the creation of various substations and cabling is the fact that the electricity companies had no clue at all about this important infrastructure that is just below the surface. Of course, there is no doubt that having the cables as close to the surface as possible is definitely an economic interest, but, candidly, it ends up disrupting the agricultural potential for a lot of this land. I do not think there is any chance that Christmas trees can be grown above electricity cables. Unfortunately, Redhouse Barn, a farm that I would recommend, grows a lot of Christmas trees—it supplied No. 10 Downing Street one year—and I know that the family there was concerned, but somewhat understood and accepted that sometimes these things happen, although I hope that the compensation they get for this is a lot more generous than they were initially offered.
Nevertheless, the Government should consider speaking a lot more to the internal drainage boards around the country. We do not have internal drainage boards in every part of this country, but I expect that, where a lot of the energy generation is happening and the initial connections through cabling need to go, there will be. They will have intricate knowledge of exactly what you need to navigate. One way to avoid having to do site-by-site surveys, which we have already been told cost a hell of a lot of money, and to do all this pre-consultation, is simply to make sure that, when cabling is put in place, those trenches go sufficiently deep that we can continue to have agricultural production as well as the benefits of the transmission of electricity.
That is why I hope that the Government, although I expect they will firmly reject my proposals, will at least start to consider what is happening in reality in our productive countryside when we are trying to have this rather complicated map of cabling, pylons and the like, in order to make sure that we continue, as far as possible, to keep farming our land as well as making sure that that land—of course I will give way.
Lord Swire (Con)
Has my noble friend heard about the possibility of growing tomatoes over these cables?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am sure that the heat that my noble friend was about to allude to will make it attractive to certain kinds of rapid acceleration of growth. It is not the only thing that would benefit there, but it is more about trying to neutralise the impact of what seemed to be necessary infrastructure with the ongoing operations rather than disrupting those who are already farming our land for the food that we need for continued food security. With that, I put forward the benefits of my amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. I commend the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment and for introducing this group. I will speak to Amendments 79A and 94FA—if your Lordships will pardon the expression—tabled by my noble friends Lord Swire and Lady Coffey and will end with a question for the Minister.
There are environmental and financial reasons for undergrounding these transmission wires. The environmental reasons are mostly because they are wasteful. It is debatable how much they waste, but I think it is between 7% and 10% of the energy that is transmitted, which seems nonsensical. As my noble friend Lord Swire said, they are also unsightly, which in tourist areas is very unwelcome. They are also extremely vulnerable to storm and extreme weather conditions. We have just had the first storm names for the forthcoming season—I do not know whether my niece and god-daughter will be delighted that Storm Amy will be the first one to hit us, but there we go. I remind the Minister that Storm Arwen caused such damage to the north-east of England and North Yorkshire that large swathes of north-east England and North Yorkshire had no electricity for up to 10 days. That is unacceptable.
The second power lines, which I think I referred to at Second Reading, run through the spine of North Yorkshire, from Middlesbrough all the way down to York, where they join the national grid. Only three months prior to those being built, an ethanol pipeline had been laid, tracking more or less the same route through agricultural land that the overhead pylons were following. It makes sense that if you are digging the land up once then at the same time you put the transmission lines there. Underground lines are less vulnerable to storms, extreme weather and extreme frost. In one year, we had temperatures of minus 17 degrees for six days running in North Yorkshire in the winter. Those are the environmental reasons that I put to the Minister.
We are frequently told that we cannot afford to place these transmission wires underground. I remind noble Lords that every single customer is paying, through the standing charge, for the infrastructure. Why do we not have a say, as customers, on the infrastructure that is being used? I give three examples of the latest profits for electricity companies. They are eye-watering and beg the question: why are we told that it is not affordable to place these transmission wires underground? The latest figures I have seen from Octopus Energy are of a 0.7% profit margin, delivering a net profit of £83 million. For OVO Energy, the latest figures I can find are for 2023—I cannot find the figures for 2024, though they are probably available—when OVO Energy announced a pre-tax profit of £1 billion. That is one electricity-generating company alone. For Centrica, there was a £1 billion profit for 2024. Why are we being told that it is unaffordable when there are monstrous profits to which we are all contributing as consumers?
To sum up my short contribution, I strongly support Amendments 79A and 94FA, and argue that there are absolutely no environmental and financial reasons not to underground these transmission wires.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Swire’s application that these things should be buried. I am the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation; that is not relevant to this debate, but it is somewhat relevant to the discussion about renewables.
My noble friend raised a few points about how previous Governments over the last 30 years have been somewhat deficient in managing the grid. The grid was perfectly adequate when we had large, central power stations, whether coal, gas or nuclear. Of course, our nuclear fleet is diminishing and nearly all those stations will be turned off by the end of this decade—probably before any of the new ones are turned on. We have obviously closed down all our coal power stations now, and gas is rather intermittent; it has to be put on stream when renewables fail us, which unfortunately happens more and more regularly. The old system worked when we had centralised, big power stations. The problem now occurs because we have decentralised that.
We could put that right by going down a domestic gas route, which I would recommend to this nation as a means to bridge the gap before nuclear is properly on stream. We could put small modular reactors in the places where old gas and coal stations used to be, because we have the huge grids, supplies and existing pylons that served that old infrastructure, which is now a redundant and dead infrastructure.
We are being asked to despoil our countryside because of the dash to renewables, in trying to link up offshore and onshore wind farms. Each of those produces fairly small amounts of energy, but we need new pylons to get it into the grid. I agree entirely with my noble friend that the required cables should be underground. I have never believed that some behemoth of an aluminium and steel platform to carry cables can be that much cheaper than an underground cable, which does not require such support. I recommend that the Government ask for some independent advice on what these things really cost.
I am very surprised to have had a discussion—started, again, by my noble friend Lady Coffey—about Christmas trees. I will discuss Christmas trees at the appropriate time, because my family was very involved with Christmas trees and, as a young lad, every winter I bore scars all the way up my arms from selling them. I hope to discuss that in the future.
The whole concept of electrification and the problem of serious storms was raised very well by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I do worry. As I said at the time, if you live in that part of the world—and I think another storm hit Scotland at almost the same time—you rely entirely on electricity cables to run your internet, which runs your telephone, as the old 50-volt copper system is being wound down. You obviously need electricity for the internet generally, and one will need electricity to power one’s car, if the Government have their way and traditional cars are put on the scrap heap. One will also need electricity to heat one’s home. Storms go through parts of this country with some regularity, and I have always made the point that you can lend a neighbour a bucket of logs but you cannot lend them a bucket of electricity.
I agree with the amendment that was put by my noble friend Lord Swire. I request that the Government look at this rather more carefully, rather than say flippantly that “Thou shalt have dirty great pylons”. Norfolk and Suffolk in particular will be hit by this massively. I think my noble friend who is following me will make some similar observations about what will be hitting parts of Kent, including those that I used to represent.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 79A in the name of my noble friend Lord Swire about the presumption in favour of burying cables as the default method. He spoke of insanity, but I did not think I was going mad—I believed and agreed with every word he said. Not only is burying cables less visually intrusive but, storms notwithstanding, as we have seen in the Ukrainian conflict, surface infrastructure is more vulnerable to malign and military disruption. I have not seen any calculation anywhere that takes that national security angle into account. That is an omission that should be corrected, and would be if my noble friend’s amendment is accepted.
I do not stand entirely shoulder to shoulder with those who accept the construction of pylons in any circumstance but I am not the Luddite who is in denial about the difficulties of strengthening and hardening the grid. We all need to be realistic about what it takes for the lights to come on when you flick that switch, with fluctuating renewables on the one hand and new demands from electrical vehicles on the other. But that should not give National Grid a right to be judge and jury in its own court and carte blanche to ride roughshod.
My interest in the amendment has been piqued because I have experienced at first hand the process undertaken by National Grid when it seeks to promote a new pylon power line, in this case from Norwich to Tilbury to transport electricity from the wind farms off the Norfolk coast down to the smoke. At that time, I was leader of the South Norfolk Council, an area to be bisected across its entire height by new HV power lines. What I experienced was institutional arrogance from National Grid and its agents. It thought that a single consultation event, offered at short notice on an afternoon in a remote village hall for an area of 400 square miles, was sufficient. It had a boneheaded refusal to accept that burying was even an option—even just in part across the picturesque Waveney Valley or the Roydon Fen county wildlife reserve.
National Grid exhibited a steadfast refusal to demonstrate or explain why the option of providing a future-proof offshore ring main, connecting the existing infrastructure that used to serve the redundant Bradwell nuclear power station, was even a possibility. The suggestion that offshore was impractical was wholly disproven by the offshore link that is currently proposed from Sizewell to the Richborough marshes—I am stood next to the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, and I expect him to intervene in a moment to say how wonderful that part of the world is and how it should not be despoiled.
National Grid had unevidenced assertions relating to the unaffordability of burying lines, as opposed to having them overhead, without either explaining or quantifying the quantum of those extra costs for the whole line or just per kilometre. There was a failure to consider parallel running to the existing pylon line to minimize visual impact, with the result that the wonderful and historic market town of Diss is now proposed to be fenced in on all four sides by huge steel pylons to an unacceptable degree. This lack of understanding, further, that the mooted community compensation schemes for overhead lines, but not for buried cables, might undermine the business case for pylons now turns out to be the case because it stands as part of Clause 26 of the Bill. There were other questions to answer, which I will not detain the Committee with.
Now, of course, there may have been good reasons why National Grid might be right on all the points I mentioned, though I struggle to see how, but with friends like these, who needs enemies? National Grid has gone out of its way to pick fights rather than bringing people together. As a council leader, I met officials from National Grid and put the points privately, to try to have a neutral forum where it could make an improved case for the proposals and build consensus. That olive branch was spurned, so it is little wonder that there is now widespread resistance to new pylon routes. Opposition has been carelessly and recklessly whipped up by a ham-fisted approach from the people who need all the friends they can get.
I like this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Swire because it would set the default expectation that new lines will be buried. Of course, that does not mean that they must be buried, but for the operator to go above ground as the preferred option, he will need to make the evidential case and have it scrutinised, and to build friendships and not enemies. That is a much better approach and balance of power, literally, between the parties than the regrettable and aggravating behaviours that we have seen thus far, where the lazy overhead option is chosen and everybody else be damned.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I just underline that the missing ingredient in this debate is actual numbers on the costs. There is a lot of theoretical toing and froing this afternoon but what we really need in this discussion is a hard number cost for, say, 100 metres of buried cable as opposed to, say, the cost of a pylon. I asked a Written Question about a pylon some months ago and got a wonderfully “Yes Minister” Answer: “Of course, all pylons are different and some pylons are more equal than others, but it is all very difficult so I can’t give you an answer”.
I hope that we can do a bit better than that. It would be great to know the cost of, say, 100 metres or 500 metres—whatever is the right metric—of buried cable and pylon with the equivalent cable. Until that answer is before us—I suspect that it will be a lot more expensive—we are not going to lay this debate to rest. I think that everybody, on all sides of this Committee, would like to see the cables buried. The question is at what cost and whether that cost is worth it. Until we have that number, we are just talking theory.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 78 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendment 79A from my noble friend Lord Swire deal with the critical issue of grid capacity and connectivity, which sits at the heart of the Government’s ambitions to decarbonise the UK’s energy system and deliver the infrastructure necessary to meet their ideological clean power 2030 target.
Amendment 78 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution operators new powers. The distribution and transmission of electricity is intrinsic to the production and utilisation of clean energy. Without access to the grid, energy infrastructure remains little more than an expensive stranded asset.
The case for action is clear. As we know, the great grid upgrade is a vital part of our pathway to net zero, yet, at present, new energy developments such as wind farms and solar parks are experiencing unacceptable delays when it comes to grid connection. Some projects face waiting times of up to 10 years—delays that threaten both investor confidence and the credibility of our decarbonisation goals. That is why the previous Conservative Government took decisive steps in commissioning the Windsor review, which examined the obstacles to timely grid connectivity. We are of course proud to say that all 43 recommendations of the Windsor review were accepted by the Government—a clear signal of our commitment to reforming the system and bringing forward vital improvements.
Yet we must recognise the scale of the challenge. Even with those reforms under way, projects without current grid connectivity may not come online until the mid-2030s. That is simply not compatible with the Government’s aim of a decarbonised grid by 2030. It is essential that the development of the national grid moves in lockstep with the pace of renewable energy production and infrastructure delivery.
Therefore, Amendments 78 and 79A raise serious and timely issues. We must ensure that our grid strategy is not only fit for today but future-proofed for the decades to come. The principles of transparency—clear delivery timelines and strategy—and strategic planning for capacity must be at the core of that effort. That said, I note that Amendment 78 would require the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to establish these new powers. There is perhaps a case to make for Parliament to have a say before the Secretary of State takes steps to implement powers that have come up as part of the consultation. I would be interested to hear whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, might be open to strengthening parliamentary oversight here.
Amendment 79A from my noble friend Lord Swire is a good and thoughtful probing amendment. I recognise his continual efforts in drawing this issue to this House’s attention. It seeks to explore how the planning system might better encourage the use of buried cabling as an alternative to overhead powerlines. This is an important point, particularly for rural communities where overhead transmission infrastructure can have a significant visual, environmental and social impact. Although undergrounding is not without cost or technical complexity, the long-term benefits in certain locations can outweigh those challenges. My noble friend is right to raise this. I hope that the Government will consider whether there are planning reforms that could help to support a more strategic and locally sensitive approach to powerline deployment.
The Minister may not be aware of the very active groups in Wales resisting the march of pylons through the Teifi and Tywi valleys. These groups are uniting the opposition parties against the Senedd Labour Government. The one I know particularly well is the Llandeilo Community Group Against Pylons.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I just want to welcome that speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. It was excellent in its tone and entirely different from that of her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, when he spoke from the Front Bench. I congratulate the noble Baroness.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, let me take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to her place on the Front Bench. I look forward to the exchanges ahead.
I turn to Amendments 78 and 79A, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I thank them both for tabling these amendments and for their interest in and commitment to improving grid capacity and electricity distribution infrastructure.
Amendment 78 seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to grant distribution network operator powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land, with the aim of accelerating electricity distribution network infrastructure build and maintenance. The Government are fully committed to achieving clean power by 2030. It is clear that a rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to delivering that mission. Although we agree with the intent behind this amendment, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill.
As previously outlined, the Government launched a public consultation on 8 July; it closes tomorrow, on 2 September. That consultation includes proposals on land access and rights and seeks views from a wide range of stakeholders, including network operators, landowners and local authorities. Once the consultation closes, the Government will undertake a thorough evaluation of the responses to understand stakeholder concerns and to assess any potential unintended impacts ahead of implementation. Introducing changes now, before that work has been done, would pre-empt that process and risk undermining the careful balance that we are trying to strike between speeding up delivery and protecting landowner rights.
We are committed to acting quickly once the consultation process is complete but we must do so in a way that is informed, proportionate and legally sound. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is reassured by this response; I kindly ask him to withdraw his amendment. I will take his offer forward with my officials and look forward to meeting the noble Earl, alongside my noble friend Lady Taylor, on the issues raised in this area.
I move on to Amendment 79A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire. This amendment would introduce a statutory presumption in favour of undergrounding power lines. It would require developers to demonstrate that undergrounding was their preferred and initial option, and that it was infeasible on cost or engineering grounds, before overhead lines could be approved. We understand that some communities hold strong views in favour of undergrounding, particularly due to concerns about the visual impact of overhead lines. We are aware that the support is partly driven by examples seen internationally, where undergrounding is used in certain contexts.
The Government’s position is that overhead transmission lines should be the starting presumption for electricity network developments except in nationally designated landscapes, where undergrounding is the starting presumption. That is because overhead lines are significantly cheaper, as undergrounding can cost up to four and a half times more, with costs ultimately passed on to bill payers. Overhead lines are also quicker to build, cause less environmental disruption and are easier to maintain and connect to existing networks.
That said, we totally understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I reassure him that neither I nor my noble friend Lady Taylor answered the Question that he asked in relation to pylons, but we look forward to speaking to and working with officials to get more detailed examples of costs and how they work in different ways in different combinations. The noble Lord asked a question that I did not previously answer on whether the network permitted development rights proposals in the current consultation cover compulsory purchase. I can confirm they do not, but there will be a huge debate—well, hopefully not a debate, but a huge discussion—on compulsory purchases in due course.
Strategic network planning is critical to ensuring that transmission infrastructure is designed and delivered in a way that meets system-wide needs. The National Energy System Operator, NESO, through the forthcoming centralised strategic network plan, will assess technology options against key criteria—including cost, deliverability, operability and community and environmental impact—and recommend optimal solutions. Developers will then apply those recommendations at a project level, refining routes and designs within existing planning and regulatory frameworks.
Accepting the amendment would move us away from a strategic, co-ordinated, system-wide approach to grid development and towards a more fragmented process. While undergrounding is already used on a case-by-case basis where justified, the amendment could lead to more frequent project-level decisions, undermining strategic system-wide planning. That risks creating inconsistency, reducing efficiency and ultimately slowing down the delivery of the infrastructure. We need to meet our clean power 2030 and net-zero targets. Further, the amendment would shift the burden of proof onto the developer, which would add complexity, legal risk and delay to an already lengthy consenting process. Given the significantly higher costs and technical complexity of underground lines compared with overhead, the amendment is unlikely to increase the use of undergrounding but would add additional time to the planning and delivery process.
Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would require that electrical or communications cables under land in active agricultural use must be buried to a minimum depth of two metres from the surface level, and deeper if required. Existing legislation for electrical cabling is contained in the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2022. They require that:
“Every underground cable shall be kept at such depth or be otherwise protected so as to avoid, so far as is reasonably practicable, any damage or danger by reason of such uses of the land which can be reasonably expected”.
This legislation is supported by industry codes that provide the specific standards for the relevant minimum burial depth, considering different factors and use cases. These industry codes must comply with the legislation that forms the quality standards that network operators must legally operate within.
For agricultural land, the minimum recommended depth for electricity cables, set out in the Energy Networks Association’s engineering recommendation G57 for cable laying on agricultural land, is 910 millimetres. This is intended
“to provide sufficient depth to safeguard against damage from deep ploughing and cultivation, and from the mechanical installation of drainage systems”.
Recommendation G57 says:
“This depth requirement takes account of the wishes of the National Farmers’ Union”.
Agricultural activities including deep cultivations, subsoiling and mole draining rarely extend deeper than 700 millimetres below the soil surface. Installing cables at depths greater than 910 millimetres can introduce engineering and environmental constraints, such as increased heat generation from the cables, which may require additional mitigation measures such as increased pole spacing. Deeper installation would necessitate a wider and deeper trench, raising the risk of potential detrimental impacts on the soil resource due to soil handling and storage. The existing legislation is supported by detailed industry standards, ensuring an agile framework whereby the relevant standards can be flexibly updated and refined in line with evolving circumstances such as innovation while minimising potential impacts on agricultural land.
To conclude, similarly for communication cables, the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 include a requirement that code operators must install apparatus such as cabling at a depth that does not interfere with the use of the land. This ensures that the land can continue to be used for the purpose that the landowner wishes, even where there is electronic equipment buried in the ground. Introducing a new requirement for the depth of communications cables could increase digital infrastructure deployment costs substantially, slowing network build and potentially preventing the Government’s ambition of a nationwide coverage of stand-alone 5G and gigabit-capable broadband.
For the reasons outlined, I do not think that these amendments are necessary and I therefore kindly ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting group of amendments, and I thank everyone who has tabled an amendment or taken part in the debate. I thank the Minister for responding so thoroughly and welcome his commitment to work with me between now and Report in relation to Amendment 78.
My only real concern is that I am aware that renewable energy operators are not included in the Government’s consultation. Equally, they were not included in my amendment, but they are an important part of the picture. If we could work together to try to find a solution so that they could be included in the process, preferably prior to Report, it would be appreciated.
I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to her place and recognise the point that she made on parliamentary scrutiny in relation to my amendment. I will take that on board. It was not my intention to exclude it.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire, it is important that these issues are raised. I welcome the fact that this was put forward as a probing amendment. These are difficult issues that need to be balanced. I do not think that anybody knows the true cost of burying cables, because it depends on what you are burying them in, so I do not think there is an absolute answer. It seems clear that some of these costs are coming down. That may be something that the Government want to look at again.
There is an important need in this debate to balance the cost, which ultimately goes to consumers, with the need for the Government to be open, able to listen, to vary plans in response to communities’ concerns and to be able to persuade and hold the energy companies to account to take more expensive options where there are particular impacts. To that end, I also welcome that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Swire, would be against the EN-1, the overriding energy policy statement. I ask the Government to be open to the idea. I know that there are legislative conditions around areas of outstanding natural beauty, but the Government should be open and mindful of community concerns and make sure that budgets are available for burying cables where communities raise particular concerns or there are particular types of landscapes. I welcome the news that we had yesterday of the cable from Norfolk going south. In response to the consultation that took place with communities, bits of that have been buried. I think that is the right approach. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Roborough
“(4) Any fees received by the Scottish Ministers under paragraph (2)(d) may only be used to fund—(a) consumer benefits packages, or(b) local planning authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that any fees paid to Scottish Ministers are allocated to either community benefits packages or to support local authority planning departments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 80 I will also speak to Amendments 81 and 82, which are in my name, as well as Amendments 85A, 88B and 88C in the name of my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe.
The amendments in my name deal specifically with consent and the exercise of planning powers in Scotland under the provisions of this Bill. I begin with Amendment 80, which seeks to ensure that any fees collected by Scottish Ministers for purposes related to planning are hypothecated—that is, ring-fenced—for either community benefit packages or the direct support of local authority planning departments.
There is a simple but important principle at the heart of this amendment—that money raised locally, ostensibly for planning purposes, should be used locally for planning purposes. It is about transparency, accountability and trust in public institutions. If the Scottish Government are to charge fees for planning processes, it is only right that those funds are seen to benefit either the communities directly affected by a development or the planning departments tasked with delivering and managing this complex work.
This is not a theoretical concern. As noble Lords will be aware, Scottish local authorities are chronically underfunded by the SNP-run Scottish Government. Planning departments in particular have suffered disproportionately. According to recent studies, planning is now the most reduced and lowest-funded local authority service area in Scotland. That is simply not sustainable, and it is certainly not compatible with any Government’s stated ambitions around housing delivery, infrastructure development or environmental management. Amendment 80 is, therefore, not just a matter of good governance but a matter of necessity. Without proper funding, planning departments cannot attract the right skills, cannot deliver timely decisions and cannot properly engage with local authorities.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I rise, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said a moment ago, to speak to my Amendments 85A, 88B and 88C, which seek to effect the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member, on this Bill. I shall speak to them briefly.
The amendments fall into two parts. The first part refers to benefits that shall arise for people who live in homes near electricity transmission projects—a very good principle and one which I am sure that we all agree. The question then follows: who should be eligible for this scheme and who should be eligible to receive these benefits? The Government say that that should be decided by regulation—and, again, that seems perfectly reasonable.
The question is about the level of parliamentary procedure that the regulations in question should receive. The Government propose that only three aspects of these wide-ranging new sections, Sections 38A to 38D of the Electricity Act 1989, which this Bill amends, require the affirmative procedure, and that all other aspects of the scheme will be made by negative procedure resolutions, on the grounds that those regulations are merely of an “administrative or technical nature”. However, the committee’s view, many aspects of the regulation-making powers proposed by the Government are
“important matters of substance rather than mere ‘administrative or technical’ matters”.
I shall cite just three of them as quoted in our report. There is:
“making provision determining whether premises or works are qualifying … conferring and delegating functions in connection with the scheme”
and
“providing for payments by electricity suppliers to meet costs incurred in the carrying out of functions in connection with the scheme”.
The argument of the committee is that those matters are not merely administrative or technical but rather more substantial, and it concluded:
“The affirmative procedure should apply to all regulations made pursuant to the provisions inserted by clause 26 of the Bill, not just those matters mentioned in new section 38A(6) of the Electricity Act 1989”.
That is the first matter. The second matter is the use of forestry estate for renewable electricity, which is again a perfectly sensible aim and one with which I am sure noble Lords will agree. Clause 28 inserts new Section 3A into the Forestry Act 1967 to give forestry commissioners powers to use land in England for this purpose, and it gives the same powers to the Natural Resources Body for Wales. The Government say, in effect, that the two bodies should not worry because they will not interfere if those bodies wish to engage in small-scale projects of this kind—they will do so only if they believe that the projects that those bodies wish to undertake are significant. That is fine, but the committee noted that
“this requirement of significance does not appear on the face of the Bill”.
It went on to say:
“We do not judge delegated powers on how the Government say that they will use them but on how any Government might use them … Clause 28 should state explicitly that Ministerial consent to Forestry Commissioners’ and the National Resources Body for Wales’ renewable electricity projects should only apply to significant projects”.
In conclusion, my understanding is that the Attorney-General is of the view that delegated powers have been used by previous Governments, especially the last one, in a somewhat slipshod manner, and that this new Government will do better. If the Minister on the Front Bench is to follow in the footsteps that the Attorney-General has laid out, I look forward to him being able to give a positive response to what I have said and to the committee’s report, and I look forward to hearing from him in due course.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I turn to Amendments 80, 81, 82, 85A, 88B and 88C, which relate to Clause 18 and consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland and delegated powers in the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for tabling the amendments on consenting in Scotland and the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Blencathra, for supporting him. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for the amendments relating to the Bill’s delegated powers.
I turn to Amendment 80, which seeks to prescribe that any fees paid to Scottish Ministers for processing electricity infrastructure applications and for any pre-application services provided may be used only for consumer benefits or local planning authorities. Clause 18 creates a power to make regulations relating to fees to be paid to Scottish Ministers on the application for consent or anything done by them in relation to a proposed application under Sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.
Scottish Ministers already have the power to make regulations for determining the fees to be paid on applications, with the Bill creating a power to make regulations for fees for pre-application services. This aims to allow the Scottish Government to resource their own efficient processing of electricity infrastructure applications and pre-application services. The UK Government recognise the importance that local planning authorities have in the consenting process, and that they therefore need to be appropriately resourced.
While I welcome the spirit of the amendment, the resourcing of local planning authorities in Scotland is a devolved competence. Scottish Ministers will consider the resourcing of statutory consultees and local planning authorities to ensure that they are adequately resourced and have the skilled workforce to carry out any additional responsibilities created by these reforms. It would therefore not be appropriate for the UK Government to be prescribing in statute how Scottish Ministers direct their resources.
The amendment would also provide for the directing of fees to community benefits packages. Over the past 12 months, renewable energy developers in Scotland have offered more than £30 million in community benefits. The UK Government are committed to the provision of community benefits for energy infrastructure. On 21 May 2025, the UK Government issued a working paper for public comment on proposals to mandate community benefits for low-carbon infrastructure and next steps for shared ownership. The deadline for comment has now passed and responses are being analysed which will inform next steps.
In Scotland, the provision of community benefits is already a well-established element of renewable energy developments. The Scottish Government have had good-practice principles for community benefits from renewable energy in place since 2014, and these are currently under review following the response to a public consultation that closed in April 2025. Similarly to the position on local planning authorities, it would not be appropriate for the UK Government to prescribe in statute that Scottish Ministers should direct fees received for processing consenting applications to community benefits packages.
Amendment 81 would require Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing whenever an objection from the relevant local planning authority is received regarding an application for consent. Additionally, Scottish Ministers would not be able to make a decision on an application until at least one month after a public hearing session has taken place. The Scottish consenting reforms are intended to make the electricity consenting process in Scotland more efficient, while retaining opportunities for local communities and planning authorities to participate meaningfully in the process. A key aspect of the reform package developed with the Scottish Government is to move away from the current prescriptive methods of handling objections by local planning authorities to consent applications, which has resulted in a slower system, with decisions that can be delayed for years.
To deliver efficiencies, the proposed provisions allow for various procedures to be used in such circumstances, at the discretion of a reporter appointed by the Scottish Government. These may include holding one or more hearing sessions, or a public inquiry. Reporters are experienced specialists. In addition to considering written representations on the application, they may conduct site visits, request further written submissions from specific parties, and/or conduct hearings or inquiries. The amendment would introduce an additional requirement to the consenting process, mandating a public hearing regardless of other procedures a reporter may determine necessary, which could already include a hearing session or written representations. These reforms will bring in a more efficient consenting process that brings certainty to both applicants and communities. To achieve this, it is vital that the Scottish Government are able to examine objections by local planning authorities through the most appropriate and proportionate method.
Amendment 82 would remove Clause 18(4), which changes the way in which local authority objections to applications for consent for electricity infrastructure are managed. At present, public inquiries are required to be held in Scotland when the relevant local planning authority objects to an application under Sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, no matter the nature of the objection. Public inquiries tie up many electricity infrastructure consenting applications in Scotland for months and even years. This adds both time and uncertainty to the consenting process, leaving communities and applicants in limbo. It is a major barrier to the timely deployment of low-carbon electricity infrastructure when we need it most. While public inquiries have a key role to play in ensuring that there is a transparent and thorough assessment of significant objections to electricity infrastructure projects, it is not proportionate or sensible that all such objections should be referred to this process.
As noble Lords will be aware, a primary aim of the Scottish consenting reforms is to streamline the process wherever possible, while retaining the right for local communities to have meaningful opportunities to comment on and influence applications. Clause 18(4) retains the right for relevant planning authorities to object to applications for consent, while bringing in a targeted, effective process fit for a modern consenting system. This is essential to end delays in electricity consenting and put in place the infrastructure we need. The policy intent of this clause is to move away from the current prescriptive methods for handling objections by local planning authorities to consent applications, which has resulted in a slow system, with decisions that can be delayed for years.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his response to my amendments and to those of my noble friend Lord Goodman. I am afraid that the track record in Scotland does not inspire confidence in the planning process and the application of those fees, but obviously I will withdraw my amendment today. I will just underline, though, that Amendment 80 is about fairness and accountability: the public must be able to trust that money taken for a specific purpose guarantees that that purpose is delivered. That is what we are trying to achieve with this amendment.
Amendments 81 and 82 are about clarity, co-ordination and respecting local voices. By clarifying jurisdictional processes and ensuring better co-ordination between UK and Scottish systems, we can reduce confusion, avoid unnecessary delay and make sure that communities are not cut out of the conversation.
We share the Government’s aim of speeding up the planning process and the delivery of projects and getting the balance right. These are constructive amendments. I hope the Minister will agree that proper resourcing, clear governance and meaningful local engagement are not obstacles to infrastructure but are essential to getting it right. As I mentioned earlier, we are fully supportive of my noble friend Lord Goodman’s amendments and we would very much like to see the Government make progress with implementing them. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 80.
Lord Fuller
“10Q Long duration electricity storage: safety(1) The Authority must ensure that the scheme established by section 10P includes measures to be taken by LDES operators (as defined by that section) to reduce fire risk and protect public safety.(2) The scheme must ensure that before installing long duration electricity storage, LDES operators consult the local fire authority who must assess the fire risk posed by the installation.(3) The LDES operator must pay the local fire authority a reasonable fee for their assessment of the fire risk under subsection (2).(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, define a “reasonable fee” for the purpose of this section.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that proposals for long duration energy storage systems, which may contain flammable batteries and equipment, are designed in consultation with the local fire authority to minimise fire risk and protect public safety.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee greatly with this amendment. It seeks to ensure that, when electricity storage systems are planned, it is with the full knowledge and consent of the local fire authority, so that fire and public safety risks are understood and mitigations are put in. Surprisingly, there is no duty for promoters of these schemes to consult the local fire authority, so my amendment would correct that omission.
As the grid is reinforced, the ability to stabilise and isolate the electricity supply from surges and shocks is essential, and a number of short-term and long-term technologies exist to smooth the path of electricity from the generator to the consumer. The people of the Iberian peninsula will attest to the consequences of failing to have network stabilisation in place, especially when dashing for renewables. Some of these smoothing technologies contain highly flammable materials such as lithium. Hydrogen is another but, given the time constraints today, I will focus on the lithium side for the purposes of proving the point.
Not a day goes by without a fire being caused by a lithium battery. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is promoting a Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill; this does not seek to trespass on that, but it demonstrates that fires caused by batteries are a thing. The issue is clear: when a lithium battery, for example, catches fire, huge quantities of water are required to extinguish it. Your Lordships will recall the car-based conflagration at Luton Airport, where the multi-storey car park was totally consumed. Whether or not that fire was started by an electric vehicle, once it took hold the batteries in those cars quickly made the fire unfightable for longer—more so than had petrol or diesel alone been involved.
The dangers are further illustrated by the number of fires in bin lorries. Even a small computer battery can consume an entire refuse freighter. Airline passengers are now routinely warned about the dangers of phone batteries catching fire and imperilling the whole aircraft in an inextinguishable blaze. Imagine the scale of the flames if an entire grid-scale battery storage facility caught alight.
This issue needs to be taken seriously, and the Bill as drafted fails to do so. It just glosses over the consequences of failures in long-term and short-term energy storage, including large-scale battery systems—especially those storing huge electrical capacity and containing flammables. You do not need to be a bright spark to realise that an electrical spark can spell danger.
Many of the proposed LDES and BESS schemes are in the countryside, where the existence of fire hydrants is limited. Rivers and ponds may be far away across the fields or along narrow lanes. Water carriers may be miles away and, during a dry period, deep-seated and hard-to-fight fires can spawn secondary blazes that can run wild across a whole area. In towns, the proximity of businesses, schools, homes and buildings adds a further dimension of public safety to the mix. In both cases, consideration of the leakage of lithium, in particular to the underlying aquifer, from the firefighters’ runoff water is essential.
Of course, there are other risks: the availability of water carriers, of appliances and of specialist equipment in areas which may be staffed by part-time retained firefighters are just a few. This amendment would therefore enforce a duty for an applicant for an energy storage facility and the local fire authority to fully assess the risks, including fire and public safety, and to pay a reasonable fee to do so. If the Government resist this stipulation, we risk damage from uncontrollable fires to people, property, businesses and the environment at significant cost to the wider taxpayer and local government—costs which should be borne by the developer.
I have had representations from councils that the costs of providing water storage lagoons, additional appliances and staffing should be fully borne by the applicant, not the taxpayer. I have not gone that far with this amendment, but I wonder whether the Minister would meet me to explore this if other noble Lords feel that it is a good idea, in which case I would consider bolstering this proposal on Report. For the moment, if we just take the issue of fire safety for these high-value, high-consequence electricity storage systems, we would be doing not just this House but society a favour. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 82B in my name would require the Government to evaluate and report on how this legislation affects the UK’s capacity for long-duration electricity storage. Clause 25 outlines the introduction of a scheme intended to stimulate investment in long-duration electricity storage. Yet, as with any initiative of this scale, we must pair aspiration with scrutiny. It is one thing to launch a scheme, but quite another to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
We hear regularly that storage will solve the challenge of intermittent renewables. It is a reassuring narrative that excess wind and solar can simply be stored away, ready for when needed, but that message risks masking the scale of the task ahead. To get the facts straight, the UK’s average electricity consumption is around 780 gigawatt hours per day. Current grid-scale battery storage stands at roughly 12 gigawatt hours, enough to meet national demand for just 30 minutes. On a global scale, the picture is not much better. All the batteries in the world combined could keep the UK powered for less than a day.
Storage is not futile. However, we must acknowledge that we are starting from a very low base. We must also ensure that any storage added to our energy infrastructure does not undermine grid stability and that it is available to release power in the timeframe needed. This could be seconds for battery through to hours for pump storage. My amendment seeks to ensure transparency. We need regular reporting to Parliament on whether the measures we are introducing are expanding our storage capacity at the pace required.
Moreover, as we look to scale up these technologies, safety must be a central concern. My noble friend Lord Fuller rightly highlights the risks associated with high-capacity storage, particularly lithium-based battery systems. These systems often contain highly flammable materials and, when they fail, the consequences can be catastrophic. Fires involving lithium-ion batteries are notoriously difficult to control and demand vast quantities of water to extinguish. In rural areas, where many of these installations are proposed, access to that water is limited. Climate change and restrictions on the preventive burning of fuel load in wild environments are leading to greater wildfire incidence and severity. In urban settings, proximity to homes, schools and critical infrastructure raises additional risks. We must ensure that local fire services are not only consulted but properly resourced to assess and manage these risks. Any developer seeking to install large-scale storage must be required to engage with emergency services and contribute fairly to risk assessments and preparedness.
We must also consider the environmental impacts. In the event of a fire, runoff containing hazardous materials could seep into groundwater or flow into rivers. This is not just a fire safety issue; it is a matter of public health and environmental protection. We cannot afford to be complacent. As our electricity system becomes more complex and decentralised, so too do the risks. It is the responsibility of this House to ensure that those risks are identified, assessed and addressed. Long-duration energy storage may be a useful addition to our energy mix. However, we cannot rely on this technology alone to support our renewable future.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will respond briefly to this group of amendments on long-duration energy storage. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for bringing forward Amendment 82A. These are important topics. While long-duration energy storage facilities are essential to the energy transition and have a very high safety record, they are still an emerging technology and it is right that we seek to balance planning and safety regulations with the need to build these facilities. To be clear, a number of the fires that he referred to were from individual batteries and not big long-duration energy storage facilities. As far as I am aware, there have been only two such fires in the UK. These big long-duration energy storage facilities have a very strong safety record.
However, it is true that UK fire and rescue services have described BESS and long-duration energy storage facilities as an emerging risk, noting that when these fires occur, they can last for hours or days and produce toxic emissions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward this amendment, as it rightly highlights the critical importance of the safety of long-duration energy storage as we accelerate towards our energy transition.
The amendment would establish a specific statutory duty requiring operators of long-duration energy storage systems to consult local fire authorities prior to installation, with the authority empowered to assess fire risks and levy a reasonable fee for doing so. On the face of it, I recognise the merits of such an approach. These can pose material risks and it is important that the fire brigade is involved and included in some of these planning decisions. It is also important that our fire services are aware of and prepared for particular hazards and have clear plans to deal with them should anything untoward happen. That being said, there are questions as to whether a statutory provision of this kind is the right or appropriate mechanism at this stage. A number of regulatory avenues already apply, including planning law, the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, and general fire safety legislation. The Government have also indicated their intention to update planning and permitting frameworks, considering the rapid growth of battery storage technologies. It is absolutely right that they do so.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 82B from my noble friends Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Roborough would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of this Bill on the UK’s long-duration electricity storage capacity. It is both reasonable and necessary. The new clause in Clause 25 makes reference to a scheme designed to encourage the development and use of long-duration electricity storage installations, but, as with any major intervention in our energy system, it is essential that we couple ambition with accountability. That is precisely what this amendment seeks to ensure.
The case for energy storage is seemingly clear. All sides of this Committee recognise the need to address the intermittency of renewable sources, particularly wind. Storage is seen as part of that solution, but we must be realistic about the scale of the challenge. We are often told that battery storage will save us; that it will plug the gap when the wind does not blow. But let us look at the numbers. The UK’s average daily electricity demand is 780 gigawatt hours. Our current battery storage capacity is roughly 12 gigawatt hours, which would keep the lights on for approximately 30 minutes. Globally, total battery storage is around 369 gigawatt hours—enough to power the UK for barely a day. This is not to dismiss the importance of innovation nor the promise of new technologies but to say we must deal in facts. We must measure progress and we must understand whether the scheme we are legislating for is delivering results. The requirement to report to Parliament on the impact of this Bill in this crucial area is not bureaucracy; it is oversight and it is responsible governance.
I now turn briefly to Amendment 82A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fuller, which addresses the important and growing issue of fire safety in relation to long-duration electricity storage systems. However, I should say not all long-duration energy storage systems—and I think I can probably justify squeezing in another Welsh reference here to First Hydro’s schemes at Dinorwig and Ffestiniog power stations and the proposed Dorothea pump storage scheme, none of which will cause safety or fire issues.
As we move towards decarbonising our energy grid and increasing our reliance on renewable sources, long-duration energy storage is set to play an increasingly central role in stabilising supply and ensuring resilience. These technologies, whether battery-based, thermal or otherwise, are argued to be essential to the UK’s clean energy future. But with innovation comes responsibility, and we must be alert to the safety implications that accompany some of these new forms of infrastructure.
Amendment 82A rightly recognises that some forms of long-duration energy storage, particularly those involving large-scale batteries or other flammable components, pose inherent risks, especially in the event of fire. These are not theoretical concerns. We have seen incidents, both here and internationally, where energy-storage sites have suffered fires that require significant emergency service intervention and in some cases posed serious threats to nearby communities. This amendment seeks to introduce a sensible precaution that proposals for such technologies should be developed in consultation with the local fire and rescue authority. This would help ensure that any fire risks are assessed and mitigated early in the planning process and that emergency services are properly informed and prepared should an incident occur. As we roll out more of these systems in urban and rural settings alike, that reassurance will be crucial not just for planning authorities and operators but for the public.
This is a pragmatic and proportionate amendment. It reflects legitimate public concern and supports our wider objectives without compromising safety. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, I hope, his assurance that public safety and fire risk will remain at the forefront of policy and operational planning as we deliver the energy infrastructure of the future.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 82A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to require long-duration electricity storage—LDES—operators to consult local fire authorities to assess the project’s fire risk before installation. I want to assure the noble Lord that this Government take fire safety extremely seriously, but we do not feel this amendment is necessary or proportionate, and it risks unintended consequences. I personally want to say to the noble Lord that, since fire has come from the Home Office into MHCLG, I have the ministerial responsibility for fire, and the noble Lord is welcome at any time to drop me a line to discuss anything related to this point or any concerns around fire safety.
The Health and Safety Executive regulates battery-energy storage system—BESS—sites within a robust framework that mandates battery designers, installers, and operators to uphold high safety standards. Our planning practice guidance encourages developers of BESS sites to engage with local fire and rescue services prior to the submission of their planning application and to consider the National Fire Chiefs Council’s guidance, so that matters relating to fire safety can be considered at the outset. However, we are going to go further than this. The Government are considering additional measures to enhance the regulation of the environmental and safety risks of BESS. Defra recently published a consultation on proposed reforms to environmental permitting for industry, including the principle of including BESS in scope of the environmental permitting regulations. This would give further safeguards for both people and the environment.
This amendment would add burdens to local fire and rescue services. Further changes to the long-duration electricity storage cap and floor scheme would add complexity to the system, which would lead to increased cost and time for the applicant. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is satisfied with my response, and I kindly request he withdraws his amendment.
Amendment 82B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Roborough, requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of the Planning and Infrastructure Act on the UK’s long-duration electricity storage capacity within five years of it being passed. I want to assure the noble Lords that this Government are committed to monitoring the development of the UK’s long-duration electricity storage capacity, as well as our wider clean power 2030 ambitions. Ofgem is proceeding at pace with the delivery of the first window of the cap and floor regime, and expects to announce final decisions on successful projects, in both the 2030 and 2033 delivery tracks, in the second quarter of next year. Ofgem will remain closely involved in monitoring delivery of those projects, and information on their features and progress will of course be made public at the appropriate stage, as they would be for any other major generation projects.
The Government publish statistics on the UK’s electricity storage capacity annually in the Digest of UK Energy Statistics—DUKES. This currently includes pumped storage hydro and grid-scale batteries. Other types of LDES will be added to the publication when they become operational. The Government also have a statutory duty to report on their carbon budget progress under the Climate Change Act 2008. For instance, the Act requires the Climate Change Committee to provide an annual report to Parliament on the UK Government’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and we would expect future reports to include all relevant and significant developments in this regard, including those on delivery of the LDES cap and floor. The Government have a statutory duty to lay their response to the Climate Change Committee’s progress report before Parliament.
Given these existing monitoring and reporting commitments, this amendment to create additional reporting requirements is not necessary. I trust that the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Roborough, are satisfied with our responses and I therefore kindly ask them not to press their amendments.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the news that my noble friend has given us about the further checks and balances and reports on fire safety are very encouraging. However, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised the question of the fire on top of the multi-storey carpark in Luton. There was a similar incident—just as bad, if I may say so—on a ship, somewhere between the Netherlands and the UK, which was carrying several hundred cars with these batteries. Apparently, the ship set itself on fire and the cars set each other on fire, and it was very lucky that nobody was hurt, because there was no way to put out the fires. I think the ship sank in the end.
My concern, to which I am sure my noble friend can respond, is that all these new reports are very useful, but what is missing is some transparency as to what actually happened. What happened on the roof of Luton airport carpark? We do not really know. Everybody denies that it was anything to do with lithium ion, but most people think that it probably was and that the then Government said nothing because they did not want to upset people. I hope my noble friend will agree that transparency is a very important part of the ongoing work.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Let me reassure my noble friend that transparency is absolutely important in this situation. Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, provided examples; of course, it would be remiss of me to comment on them, but I am sure there will be some investigation and learning from them. If the point is to go away and find out what lessons have been learned, and look at them as part of our transparency, it is a good one and I accept it.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting, brief debate which actually had a few twists and turns. The Minister asked me whether I was satisfied with his response and I regret to say that I am not satisfied at all, for reasons I will give in a moment. Before that, I will deal with the interventions from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I was not sure whether he was for or against this amendment, but I regret that he fatally undermined the Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill, brought forward by his noble friend Lord Redesdale, which now must be pointless from the Liberal Democrats’ point of view. I would have thought he would have been standing full square behind my amendment, which highlights the dangers of lithium.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, quantified the value of battery storage in terms of amp hourage and capacity. However, the value of battery storage is not necessarily purely in the storage capacity; it is in the smoothing of voltages at an aggregate level, across a whole grid, and maintaining the hertz. It is a difference of only 0.2 hertz in the Iberian catastrophe that caused the contagious knock-on effect that brought down the entire grid in Iberia, in Spain and Portugal. So we must not look at battery storage in terms not only of current but of stability.
Baroness Coffey
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Baroness Coffey extend benefits schemes to energy generation infrastructure and requires them to be in place, including for any infrastructure still being under construction at the time of Royal Assent of this Act.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 82C; I have also tabled a number of other amendments in this group. In essence, this amendment considers bill discounts and community benefits.
I think it is fair to say that the Government have recognised the need for some benefits, but they have not been generous enough, in my view. That is why I also strongly support Amendment 83, tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench, to make sure that we are sufficiently generous. I am convinced that that will go a long way to persuading—or at least giving some comfort to—householders in large parts of our United Kingdom who will suffer some of the consequential impacts of the acceleration of renewable energy involving pylons and similar.
In essence, I am also concerned that we seem to have lost the amount of electricity generation happening around the country. It seemed quite odd to me that people might get compensation for there being a pylon within 500 metres of them, but people living next to the generation of new substations and new nuclear power stations are not, as it stands, intended to receive any community benefit.
One of the successes of the French Government was to try to reduce the electricity bills of people living close to generation. That has long been considered a sensible way forward for a local community. I am not saying that everybody in those local communities wants to be, to use their words, “bought off” by a reduction on their bill, but it would go a considerable way with some of the frustration in the preparation of those huge construction projects as well as being an ongoing reminder that they are living near a nuclear power station. They may not have realised one was going to be built there—or a substation, or the like—when they moved to that area.
Clause 26 enables the establishment of the energy bill discount scheme. I have tabled a couple of amendments, that it should not be “may” but “must”. I am conscious that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has also included “must” in Amendment 86. That matters to give absolute certainty to local communities that this will happen and that we will not have to wait for further consultation, commencements and the like, and that it will actually be done.
It is important that we consider not just nuclear, which I have referred to already—I do not think that I would qualify for any of that, by the way; I do not live too far away from Sizewell C, but nevertheless, there are plenty of people who qualify. We should also consider it for other energy projects, including wind farms and the like, especially recognising the Government’s proposals.
The Government’s proposed discount is only 25% of the £1,000 bill discount that the previous Government suggested, which has already been referred to in Amendment 83. However, it is clear that we need to make sure this gets to the households, so there are parts of this clause which are absolutely right to be included by the Government.
On Amendment 86, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I recall that I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Fallon a long time ago. I think it was back in 2013 that we started discussing what amount of money local communities should get. That reflects quite how long this discussion has been going on for. At one point, it was about business rate revenues: what would be retained, what would be kept by the council and what would be given to bill payers. It is important to make sure that as much of this money goes directly to local people as possible.
In terms of thinking this through, the Ministers may not have the answer today, and I do not expect them to have an answer on every single part of discussions about business rates retentions. However, it would be useful to understand where the Government have ended up on how much of business rates would be retained by local councils for the operation of all these different power plants which are busy being built around the country. I am sure that local government would welcome that clarity. Certainly, if 100% of the business rates of Sizewell C were to be retained in East Suffolk—indeed, by the new unitary authority in due course—they would be very happy indeed. That is not to say that East Suffolk keeps all that money; right now, it participates in pooling. Nevertheless, it is about recognising that this significant infrastructure in a very modest way provides some local community benefit which can be used for a variety of factors. It is for those reasons that generation as well as pylons need to be recognised in any bill discount scheme. I hope that the Government will be generous in that regard.
Forgive me, but there is one other amendment that I have forgotten to speak to. It would make sure that this cost is not borne by other taxpayers or bill payers. This needs to be considered in the cost of the project. We will discuss this more in the Moses Room on Wednesday, but, too often, when it seems that the Government are being very generous about discounts, rebates and similar, it is actually bill payers in other parts of the country who simply pay for that. We need to recognise that we have an electricity system that will of course bring some disruption in certain parts of the country where generation and other aspects of transmission are happening—we all need to pay our energy bills—but, for once, we should see some of the energy companies recognising the significant profits they will be making from those projects and that, for the future, they do not have to rely on bill payers paying for those benefits in the short term. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 85 in my name seeks to explore the extent and purpose of the compensation proposed for new energy infrastructure, particularly with regard to electrical infrastructure that already exists. Can the Minister explain how the clause enhances schemes that currently exist in the form of wayleave arrangements and payments for use of land for pylons, for example? Will the new scheme, for instance, be consistent with current arrangements for compensation?
Clarity about the parameters used to determine those residents who will qualify for compensation for the new infrastructure is important in understanding the scale of the scheme as anticipated by the Government. In a press statement, the Government stated that households within 500 metres of new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure will get electricity bill discounts of up to £2,500 over 10 years, and that this will see rural communities receive hundreds of pounds in their pockets for hosting vital infrastructure. It continues:
“Alongside money off bills, separate new guidance will set out how developers should ensure communities hosting transmission infrastructure can benefit by funding projects like sports clubs, educational programmes or leisure facilities”.
That press release sets out the principles behind what the Government are proposing for new electricity infrastructure. As I am sure the Minister will know, there are already over 20,000 pre-existing pylons, which have been associated largely with coalfields. Hence, many of the clusters of pylons are close to those sites; in Yorkshire, for example. For those communities at that time, there was an expectation by the state that electricity transmission was for the common good. The question I want an answer to today is: where has that sense of common purpose gone? Why are we not still considering the idea that for major infrastructure projects where the whole nation will benefit communities will need to accept that for the benefit of everybody, as was done in the past?
In their press release, the Government state categorically that it is rural communities that will see huge financial benefit from the scheme. Obviously, I do not have any argument with that, but I question the argument for compensating residents in those communities now when communities with infrastructure constructed in a different generation were not. Can the Minister explain, for example, whether the compensation will be extended to the Yorkshire GREEN scheme, which is upgrading existing infrastructure down the spine of Yorkshire to enable more green infrastructure to be linked to the grid? It is an upgrade of older infrastructure. Will those communities benefit from this scheme?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 86 in this group on bill discount schemes and community benefits. It sets out a scheme for providing financial benefits to communities in areas connected with major infrastructure schemes. The amendment proposes a new clause that would establish a statutory scheme to provide community benefit from major energy infrastructure projects, ensuring that those who host the infrastructure necessary for our clean energy transition are directly recognised and rewarded.
Let me begin by acknowledging and welcoming what the Government have already done in this space. The provisions now in the Bill for compensation for households living near transmission lines represent, without question, an important step forward. Households living day in, day out under new pylons or beside substations reasonably expect that there should be some benefit for them and their local communities. I welcome the fact that the Government have done that. I also take on board my noble friend’s point that this stuff is also good for all in our communities and our future.
I welcome the position that the Government have taken in the Bill but, as part of this broader group, it is important that we discuss some areas of how the Government have designed their own compensation; for example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, clearly mentioned, there is the point about generation not being included, as well as the fact that a fixed 500-metre distance was used in the DESNZ consultation. There are strange situations in which you could get compensation and not have visible sight of pylons, and there are other situations where you could have visible sight of pylons and not receive compensation. All of that needs a bit of working through; I welcome the other amendments in this group that are trying to do that. We should circle back to this on Report, but the important thing is that there is a compensation scheme. We on these Benches welcome that.
My amendment wants to go a bit further; it is additional to what the Government are doing. Although individual compensation is welcome, it has more limited scope and is of more limited benefit than pooling money together and using it to provide community benefits. I fundamentally believe that that is a better way of bringing real transition and change to the lives of the people who are impacted by this stuff.
Crucially, my amendment seeks to tie the benefit directly to the scale of the project, amounting to 5% of annual revenue. This is important because it requires not one or two pieces of infrastructure but lots of the stuff that we will have. As I said at the beginning, in energy terms, this is as big as the Industrial Revolution. Our communities will carry this weight; they should be able to be transformed by, and to get benefits from, it. I believe that pooling those benefits is a better way of helping our communities.
For example, I know that, over the summer, the Labour Party had a real concern about what happens to our coastal communities, which are some of our country’s poorest and most deprived communities. In the GB energy Act, we have community energy. It struck me that we could be doing a lot more if we used this type of money to help build local windmills and provide energy to these people living in poverty; that could be a really good scheme. It is important that this is about not the Government doing things to people but them doing things with people—that is, taking people with them on this journey and allowing them to be included in it, to benefit directly from it and to see it. I want people to go down the pub and say not, “Green energy is going to make my bill more expensive”, but, “We’ve got a local windmill or solar farm and we’re benefiting from it. We’re included in it. We participate and we get something back from it”. That is a very different conversation from the conversations that are happening now.
I recognise that my amendment is not fully workable; there are areas that obviously need reform and change. What I am trying to do is make a point. I am asking the Government to go further and go beyond what they have done already. In this country, there is a lot of conversation about and resentment of the Norwegian sovereign fund. When Norway started developing its oil and gas wells, it had the foresight to create that sovereign wealth fund; it has benefited from it. We did not do that in this country, and we have blown through most of the North Sea oil and gas. We do not have those long-term benefits.
As we start this new energy revolution, there is an opportunity here to make a system that compensates our communities and gets benefits flowing to our communities—indeed, to our whole society—from this new form of energy and transition. We can use that to bring people in and take them with us on this journey in order to make sure that this is about not one Government or one party but all of us working together for our communities, our future and the future of our children. I accept that there is a lot more to do but lots of other countries are doing this stuff, including Denmark, Germany and France, which has been mentioned. I encourage the Government to look at some of the schemes that other countries have, to look at what works and what does not, and to look at this again.
Turning briefly to the other amendments, I fully recognise the purpose of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. She said that this is time limited, and I also note that there are over 20,000 pylons. I am interested to know whether the Government could do an assessment on what the cost of that would be; I suspect that it would be quite big and could well be prohibitive. I do not know the answer to that, but it is a question that needs asking and it is good that it is being asked.
I am not certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is in his place, but we do not support fracking. It is not appropriate and will not solve our energy problems; it will cause pollution to our groundwater systems as well as earthquakes. It was his own party that decided that fracking was not the answer and, as far as I am aware, the Conservatives have not changed their policy on that part of the energy transition. That is certainly one amendment—unless he is working for Reform, which I doubt—that I cannot see the point in adding to the Bill.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 83, which seeks to introduce a bill discount scheme for eligible households living near major energy infrastructure. This amendment seeks to ensure that those most directly impacted by the presence of new energy developments, especially large-scale infrastructure, receive a tangible, meaningful benefit—namely, a £1,000 annual discount on their electricity bill for 10 years. In contrast to Amendment 86, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which appears to direct funding to local authorities rather than local consumers, we want to see individuals benefiting directly, not local government.
This proposal stems from a clear and pragmatic principle: if the Government are to meet their national energy and net-zero targets through new infrastructure, they must take the public with them. That includes recognising that hosting such infrastructure in their area has consequences for local communities, whether because of the visual impact or disruption from construction. It is disappointing that the current Government have chosen to step back from the community benefit scheme proposed by our previous Conservative Government. In doing so, they have shown not only a lack of ambition but a fundamental misunderstanding of the impact that these developments can have on communities.
Indeed, in a 2023 paper published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, it was recommended that
“an electricity bill discount for properties located closest to transmission network infrastructure … could offer up to £10,000 per property (£1,000 per year, ~£80 per month, over 10 years)”.
The rationale was simple: communities should be compensated for their proximity to infrastructure that serves the national interest. In achieving this compensation, there is likely to be greater community consent, limiting the length of time for the planning decision to be taken and the cost associated with it. Yet despite this recommendation, the Government have failed to follow through with a credible or generous offer. Amendment 83 seeks to correct that failure.
Amendment 84, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, would provide for the creation of community benefit schemes linked to onshore wind turbines. The amendment again recognises that, while additional energy infrastructure is essential, it is not always welcome, and that community consent is far more likely to be secured when there is tangible benefit for those living nearby. My noble friend’s amendment acknowledges that local communities must be partners in our energy transition, not passive recipients of top-down decisions. It would be helpful to understand the Government’s position on why onshore wind projects—and other energy infrastructure projects, for that matter—are not currently in scope of formalised benefit schemes and whether that could or should be changed.
Similarly, Amendment 94, also from my noble friend Lord Lilley, proposes that individuals should be entitled to financial benefits from shale gas companies. While shale gas remains a contentious issue, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, the underlying concern remains valid: communities affected by energy extraction and production should not be left behind. I also point out that fracking was pretty much invented in, and is commonly used throughout, the North Sea; it is simply the shale gas issue that we are addressing here.
I also support the sentiment of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. These important amendments seek to extend benefit schemes to energy generation infrastructure and network transmission infrastructure and ensure that such schemes are not merely optional but required. They mirror the spirit of the amendment in my name by embedding fairness into our energy transition and making community benefit a standard, not an exception.
What links all speakers and amendments in this group is a shared concern for the people and places that bear the burden of our national energy ambitions. From onshore wind to transmission lines, from shale gas to solar farms, these projects do not exist in a vacuum; they are local and in real communities. These amendments attempt, in different ways, to ensure that the impact is matched by investment and that no community feels exploited in the name of national progress.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It is uncosted, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned, and concerns a retrospective scheme. The noble Baroness used the word “fairness”, and I ask: fair to whom? This provision, if implemented, would fall on bill payers and the infrastructure providers that had not anticipated these costs when they developed the infrastructure. I very much remain to be persuaded on the necessity for this amendment.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and urge her to provide clarity and assurance on the Government’s approach to community benefits. The concerns raised by this group of amendments go to the heart of fairness, consent and the long-term credibility of our energy strategy.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group: the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Coffey. Their amendments relate primarily to the bill discount scheme for communities near new and certain significantly upgraded transmission infrastructure, and other community benefit schemes; these are Amendments 82C to 82E, 83, 83A to 83C, 84, 84A to 84C, 85, 86 and 94.
Before I turn to the specific amendments, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that I will not cover business rates retention in my response. That is a bit above my pay grade, and I am afraid that she will have to wait, as we all will, for the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement to see whether she intends to make any changes to that. That is the responsibility of the Treasury. As the noble Baroness is very well aware, there is a redistribution mechanism in the business rates retention, which enables those areas that are less able to raise business rates to benefit as much as some of those that are more able to raise business rates. I am afraid that any adjustments to that are not in my remit, so I will not cover that.
I turn first to Amendments 82C, 82E and 83A to 83C, which aim to extend the scope of the financial benefit scheme for people living near new and significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure to those living near energy generation infrastructure. While I believe that the spirit of these amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is certainly well intended—and the Government are committed to ensuring that communities that host clean energy infrastructure benefit from it, including clean energy generation infrastructure—I must resist these amendments for reasons that I will set out for her.
Clause 26 specifically allows for the creation of a bill discount scheme for those living near new or significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure, with a minded-to position of offering eligible customers a bill discount of £250 per year over 10 years. This ensures that communities living near this infrastructure are recognised for the service they provide the country in hosting the infrastructure and helping to achieve our clean power goals. The clause has been specifically designed to address transmission which, due to its long, linear nature, impacts communities without necessarily providing further benefits, such as local jobs or investment, that other infrastructure probably will bring. If this clause is amended as suggested, it would require further complex and detailed amendments to ensure that it operates effectively for each type of generation infrastructure, delaying the time that it would take for the scheme to be implemented.
However, I can inform noble Lords that the Government have already presented proposals to expand the delivery of community benefits to other forms of clean energy infrastructure. On 21 May, we published a working paper on community benefits and shared ownership of low-carbon energy infrastructure, the responses to which are currently under review. Our proposals would require developers of low-carbon energy generation and energy storage infrastructure to contribute to community benefit funds to support families, businesses and local community groups living near these projects. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, the scheme could help regenerate our coastal and rural communities—for example, via new community facilities, apprenticeships and education schemes—boosting local economies and growth as part of the plan for change.
The paper also sets out how communities could own a stake in renewable energy infrastructure through shared ownership, resulting in profits being reinvested in the community. Through these proposals, we aim to provide communities with consistency and certainty that they will benefit from hosting new generation infrastructure. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts these reasons why these amendments would not be appropriate, is reassured that we are looking into ways to ensure that communities hosting new clean energy-generation infrastructure are properly recognised for the service they are providing to the country, and will agree to withdraw Amendment 82C.
Turning now to Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Offord, which seeks to set the discount amount for the bill discount scheme at £1,000 a year for 10 years for households living within 500 metres of eligible infrastructure, I really sympathise with the noble Lords’ intention to ensure that households closest to the new transmission infrastructure benefit, but I am going to have to resist the amendment, for reasons which I will set out. The Government’s minded-to position is to provide electricity bill discounts of up to £2,500 over a maximum of 10 years for households living within 500 metres of new and significantly upgraded electricity transmission network infrastructure. This proposal provides a balance between ensuring that communities are recognised for the role they play in hosting the infrastructure and limiting the additional cost to electricity bill payers in Great Britain from the scheme.
We are still conducting final analysis on the overall cost of the scheme. On 8 August, we published a consultation on our current proposals for scheme design, and that consultation is open until 26 September. Final analysis will be published in our impact assessment, alongside secondary legislation. The Government consider that the overall level of benefit ought to be set out at that stage, which will still allow for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny once secondary legislation is laid. I hope noble Lords understand our position on this matter. I look forward to working closely with them at the appropriate time on this important detail of the scheme.
I turn to Amendment 84, which seeks to extend the scope of the financial benefit scheme for people living near new and significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure to those living near onshore wind turbines. I welcome the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment. The Government are committed to ensuring that communities which host clean energy infrastructure benefit from it. Clause 26 allows for the creation of a bill discount scheme for those living near new or significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure, with a minded-to position of offering eligible customers a bill discount of £250 a year over 10 years. This ensures that communities living near this infrastructure are recognised for the service they provide to the country. While it may seem logical to extend this scheme to other infrastructure, such as onshore wind, the clause has been designed specifically to address transmission, which, as I said, due to its long linear nature, impacts communities without providing further benefits, such as local jobs or investment, that other infrastructure can bring. If this clause is amended to include onshore wind, it would require further complex and detailed amendments to make sure that it operates effectively, delaying the time it would take for the scheme to be implemented.
However, I am pleased to inform noble Lords that the Government have already presented proposals to expand the delivery of community benefits to other forms of energy infrastructure, including onshore wind. I spoke already about the paper that was produced on 21 May on the community benefits, and we are reviewing the responses to that. The proposals would require developers of low-carbon energy generation and energy storage infrastructure to contribute to community benefit funds—again, to support families, businesses and local community groups who live near these projects. The scheme could definitely help to regenerate those coastal communities. The paper also set out how communities can own a stake in those. Through these proposals, we aim to provide communities with consistency and certainty. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured that we are already looking into ways to ensure that communities living near new onshore wind generation are recognised for their service to the country.
Amendments 82D, 84A and 84B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion to establish the financial benefit schemes as detailed in Clause 26. They would also ensure that eligible infrastructure projects constructed prior to Royal Assent to this Bill are included within the scope of the scheme. I acknowledge the intention of the amendments: to ensure that the scheme is not confined to those who live near eligible infrastructure built after the Bill is enacted. I must resist this amendment, for the reasons I will set out.
The aim of Clause 26 is to ensure that households that will live close to new electricity transmission infrastructure are appropriately recognised for their service. The Government understand that many of these projects are planned over the next few years. It is our intention that the scheme will run for a set period of time, and the Government require the flexibility to review the effectiveness of the scheme and determine whether it ought to continue for a longer period or come to an end after a certain date. Amendment 82D would remove that flexibility and result in greater time and monetary costs to bring the scheme to a close. Additionally, Amendments 84A and 84B would expand the financial benefit scheme by including works which have already been completed.
Around twice as much new transmission network infrastructure will be required by 2030 as has been constructed over the past decade. We believe it is only right that this unprecedented increase in the pace of construction is appreciated and that communities are recognised for the service to the country. Extending the scheme to historical infrastructure would be moving away from this purpose. We must also consider the substantial additional cost in extending the scheme in this manner. The increased complexity in identifying many more eligible households, as well as the increase in the number of discounts being paid out, would vastly inflate the cost of the scheme, as well as delay current rollout plans, due to the increased administrative challenges. However, although it would not be appropriate to modify the scheme in the manner that these amendments propose, I am happy to inform noble Lords that the Government are currently finalising details on eligibility for infrastructure where construction has recently commenced, as we recognise that there are projects vital to clean power 2030 that will have begun before the commencement of the scheme outlined in Clause 26.
Amendment 84C seeks to prevent the costs of community benefit schemes being borne by energy bill payers. I understand and appreciate the intention of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to protect consumers from rising energy bills. However, I will again set out the reasons why I have to resist this amendment. One of the Government’s five missions is to make Great Britain a clean energy superpower. This will boost our energy independence and reduce electricity bills. Our electricity network is key to achieving this. As we increase low-carbon and renewable energy generation, we will need to increase the scale of the transmission network at pace to keep up with demand. It will not be possible to deliver secure electricity supply vital to growth and prosperity without a transmission network that can transport it. This financial benefit scheme aims to increase community acceptability of electricity infrastructure and, in doing so, has the potential to reduce opposition and associated planning delays.
The Government’s current intention for the scheme, as outlined in Clause 26, is for the cost to be borne by an obligation on electricity suppliers. However, although they are not mandated to do so, it is expected that suppliers will recoup these costs by passing them on to their customers. For example, the warm home discount scheme is funded via an obligation on energy suppliers that is recouped via energy bills. Using alternatives, such as funding the scheme through Exchequer funding, would not be appropriate, as the bill discount scheme forms part of a broader package which has been developed to improve acceptability of transmission infrastructure, which in turn could help reduce constraint costs, if successful in supporting the accelerated delivery of critical transmission infrastructure. Because of this, the Government believe that it is most appropriate that the scheme should be funded through bills.
Preliminary estimates for the cost of both the bill discount scheme and the community funds guidance are around 80p to £1.50 per year per average household electricity bill, although this estimate is subject to change in our future impact assessment, set to be published alongside secondary legislation. Should this community benefit package, alongside our wider package of reforms, succeed in supporting the accelerated delivery of critical transmission network infrastructure, we could avoid up to £4 billion in constraint payments in 2030, compared with the scenario where delays persist. Those costs will be met by the consumers. This is as outlined in analysis from the National Energy System Operator.
I turn to Amendment 85, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We always enjoy hearing the Yorkshire dimension on our Bills in the House. The amendment seeks to expand the financial benefits scheme from households living near new and significantly upgraded transmission network infrastructure to those living near existing transmission network infrastructure. I acknowledge the good intent behind the amendment in recognising communities that have hosted infrastructure for years. However, for reasons that I will set out, I must resist this amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. She has mentioned the working paper in relation to several amendments, including mine. I welcome the words that she has given and the direction of travel. However, we have the usual phrase, that “in due course” something will come forward. The Minister may not have the answer to hand, but if there is a possibility of bringing forward those proposals in time for Report in relation to this group of amendments, it would be welcomed across the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I accept the noble Earl’s point. I am not fond of “in due course”, as he well knows—he has heard me say that many times. I will endeavour to find out what the timescales are likely to be. It usually depends on the level of responses that have been received and the complexity of dealing with them, but I will respond in due course.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer on the variety of schemes and community benefits, bill discounts and similar. I am disappointed that she does not think that it is necessary to talk about generation. Not all projects are like Sizewell. Not all these potential new projects generate local jobs, although I am sure that the community will be very grateful for the ones that will be generated by Sizewell. Nevertheless, conscious of the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“(1A) For renewable energy produced from biomass, the forestry authority may only supply or use forestry materials that are deemed to be waste.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents public forestry resources being used for the establishment of large scale biomass operations.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare a couple of interests that are relevant to this Bill. I chair the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership and Aldustria Limited, a company which is into grid battery storage. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for adding their names to Amendment 87.
When I first read through this Bill before Second Reading, I went through all the big things in Part 3 and all the stuff that we have been debating. Hiding in plain sight was Clause 28 on forestry authorities—primarily one thinks of the Forestry Commission here in England—and how their land should be used. It is entitled in such a way, with renewable energy, that you think, “Oh, that sounds good: more renewable energy and forestry. What could possibly go wrong?” Then you look down this clause and think, “Hang on a minute: what goes together most with renewable energy and forestry?” Of course, the answer that springs out is biomass; what else can you do with trees for renewable energy than to produce biomass? I am not totally against biomass for renewable energy, but it is an area about which we have to be very careful.
If we read through the rest of Clause 28 to see the definitions of renewable energy, interestingly we find that it does not actually say what they are but what they are not. It goes through nuclear energy, so we are not likely to have any small modular reactors on Forestry Commission sites in the near future, and it goes through all the fossil fuels and peat, all of which is good. However, it does not mention biomass within those definitions. As we know, biomass has its issues. It is interesting that we are debating this clause at a point when the Financial Conduct Authority has looked at the behaviour of Drax over something of a completely different scale and in a different place. It shows that one of the difficult areas with biomass is how you manage it, have accountability and make sure that, if it is used, it is managed in the right way. So there are a number of issues around biomass, all of which we know. The forestry authorities have a number of ancient woodlands, which certainly should not be touched, and there are issues around clear-cutting and soil quality, particularly if we were to take away all the cuttings—the branches and fallen trees—in that natural forestry.
I am aware that the Minister will say to me—it is a positive part of this clause—that activities carried out under this clause would have to have an environmental benefit. It goes on to mention those environmental benefits to nature and other areas, and I welcome that. However, my concern—hence why I have pursued this amendment—is that it could be said that all those things would be helped if we moved more quickly towards net zero. That is true, and so you could construct an argument that having renewable energy through biomass would reduce climate change, which is positive for all those other natural environment considerations.
I am really trying to find out from the Minister—she gave part of this answer in writing after Second Reading but I want to investigate it further—what exactly was in the Government’s mind when they wrote this. Are they going to cover Forestry Commission land with solar panels or wind turbines? I am trying to understand what this allows and what those organisations’ management plans for renewable energy are likely to be. I can accept, as I put in the amendment, that waste product is acceptable. Having said that, even residual and dead timber can itself be a good springboard for biodiversity. I am really trying to find out the intent behind this, because it is one area that could go very wrong if we are not careful. I beg to move.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. There is widespread concern about the sustainable sourcing of all Drax wood pellets, and it is incredibly important that we ensure there are safeguards in place around the potential for the wrongful use of forestry land. As the noble Lord said, we learned just last week that Drax is now under investigation by the financial watchdog. In the past, it has been fined £25 million for supplying inaccurate data. So while the Government’s decision to reduce the subsidies for Drax is welcome, it will remain the UK’s largest emitting power station, whatever we do. We have to be watchful.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report in May, covering DESNZ’s draft regulations to extend the regime for Drax, highlighted concerns about the ability of Ofgem and DESNZ to hold Drax to account on the sustainability question and the enforcement of environmental compliance. It noted that “key documents” relating to
“Drax’s supply chain processes and reporting practices have not been published”.
A lot of this comes from whistleblowers within the company. The Public Accounts Committee has also criticised the weaknesses in the current assurances and enforcement processes.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who, alas, cannot be with us today. I declare my interest as chair the Labour Climate and Environment Forum. The noble Lord’s amendment would insert into the Bill a new duty for the Forestry Commission to take all reasonable steps to contribute to the Government’s statutory climate and nature targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021 in exercising its functions related to planning, development and infrastructure.
The Forestry Commission is a really important player in the delivery of these statutory targets and, for that reason, was listed as one of the public authorities in the original Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. His Private Member’s Bill sought to apply these duties to a whole range of public authorities. During the debate on that Bill, the Government said that they were sympathetic to its aims. This would be a real opportunity for the Government to put that sympathy into legislation.
The Forestry Commission is really important to the achievement of the Government’s targets for three reasons. First, it is the single largest landowner and manager of land in the country, with 750,000 hectares under its control. Secondly, it impacts, to a much bigger extent, on other woodland and associated land in its permitting and regulatory role for other landowners. That covers in excess of 3 million hectares of land. So we are talking about an organisation that, if it does the right thing, can have a huge impact and, if it does the wrong thing, can have a huge impact. Thirdly, this amendment would simply be a natural evolution of the development of the Forestry Commission’s role.
The Forestry Commission was invented in 1919, originally with a sole focus on producing timber and encouraging the replanting of Britain’s depleted timber-producing land. This depletion had become incredibly apparent during the First World War. In 1968—we do not move very quickly when it comes to dealing with forestry—the Countryside Act extended its role to include the provision of public amenities, such as footpaths and open spaces. In 1985, the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act extended the Forestry Commission’s role to include conservation. This amendment is simply another step on that road. It would complete the extension and modernising of the Forestry Commission’s duties to include the delivery of the climate and nature targets that have been invented over the last 15 years.
I am sure the Minister will say that the Forestry Commission has already got conservation duties and is already asked to deliver for climate change. Indeed, the biomass issue that has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raises some considerable questions about the way in which that extension is happening. It is messy and piecemeal. The amendment would provide an unambiguous and up-to-date duty, without which the Government will very likely not deliver their statutory nature and climate targets. We cannot simply depend on some very piecemeal roles for the Forestry Commission to deliver the right thing on that extent of land.
Noble Lords will understand from this introduction that I do not support Amendments 87A and 87B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The spirit of the land use framework, which is under preparation by government at the moment, is that our scarce land supply has to work in a multifunctional way, delivering multiple benefits. Timber production is important because we are a massive net importer of timber, but so are climate change, biodiversity, flood risk management and access for health and well-being. They are also things that the Forestry Commission needs to deliver in the way it manages land and encourages other landowners to deal with their land. The Forestry Commission is absolutely fundamental in that as the biggest landowner in the country.
To revert to the primary purpose of the Forestry Commission being timber production risks going back to the bad old days of regular ranks of subsidised Sitka spruce—I caricature—marching across the countryside on inappropriate sites with poor outcomes for biodiversity and much subsidised by taxpayers. We simply cannot go back there. We need a modern Forestry Commission that delivers those multiple outcomes that the land use framework requires.
I also express agreement with some of Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am not sure if the percentage ceilings that he gives for land to be used for energy infrastructure are the right ones in percentage terms, but there certainly needs to be an appropriate balance between the requirements of timber production, biodiversity, access, recreation and energy infrastructure. His proposed new paragraphs (c) and (d), which would protect against the adverse effects on sites protected for nature conservation and irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland, are absolutely spot on.
I also look forward to the Minister’s response to the very real and important inquiry from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, into what is intended in the Government’s mind for the Forestry Commission and its role in biomass. I am concerned already at some of the species that the Forestry Commission is permitting at the moment—novel species, very fast growing, with as yet untested uses. I would be concerned if we lost sight of the fact that the vast majority of Forestry Commission land, particularly in England, is in fact moving towards being a mixed woodland mix that can do all these other duties like biodiversity, access and public health, rather than simply being species that are aimed at commercial return.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all the noble Lords who have spoken in this group, and as has already been said, I attach my name to Amendment 87 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and to Amendment 93.
I will seek to add to, rather than repeat, what has already been said, but I just follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in addressing Amendment 88 and agree that I am also not sure about the percentages. I would particularly highlight the ancient woodland, how terribly important and terribly rare that is, and so, as per paragraph (d) in that amendment, there is no way we should be doing anything to damage ancient woodland for energy—it is such a precious resource. Noble Lords have heard me go on before about looking at the trees, but let us also see how incredibly precious the biodiversity in soil in ancient woodland is.
On Amendment 87, I think biomass is now a very dirty word, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rhetorically asked, “What could possibly go wrong?”. Of course, that has already been answered with the single word, “Drax”. The energy think tank Ember said Drax is “the UK’s largest emitter” and that the power
“is more expensive than … gas, it’s more polluting than coal, and more dependent on imports than oil”.
There should be no future biomass at Drax; that is my position and the Green Party’s position. It really is a tragedy that we did not get to that point when we recently had the opportunity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, picked this point up. I signed this amendment, but I am almost tempted towards saying simply that there should be no biomass from forests, because as the noble Baroness asked, what does “waste material” really mean? We are thinking about biodiversity and about organic material that is a resource. If you leave it on the forest floor, it contributes to the generation of soil and provides habitat for a huge variety of organisms. Is that really waste at all? Is there any such thing in a forest? That really is the question. We need to be thinking about having a war on tidiness and the idea that for any sort of planting, we want these nice, neat rows with clean bare soil in between—we need to think about what kind of damage that does.
Particularly in addressing Amendment 93, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a study that was out last year funded by the Forestry Commission. It was entitled Rapid review of evidence on biodiversity in Great Britain’s commercial forests. It found that there is in fact a huge shortage of data and information about what is happening in the biodiversity, specifically in commercial high forests. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the issue of the land use strategy. How can we be making the plans within this Bill, or indeed for the land use strategy, if we do not have the data about the biodiversity, which this study, funded by the Forestry Commission, identified? I also point to another Forestry Commission study from late 2023, which warned of the risk of catastrophic ecosystem collapse in our forests. This was signed—the work of 42 experts—and pointed out all the risks that our forests face from wind, fire, pests and diseases, and it said there are already forests in continental Europe and North America where we have seen this kind of biological collapse. We need to be thinking about making sure that the Forestry Commission is given the statutory duty, which Amendment 93 would give it, to ensure that it looks after biodiversity as well as, of course, the crucial issue of the climate emergency.
It is worth repeating again that we are incredibly forest and woodland-deprived in the UK by international comparisons. We have to look after what is there for human health, for well-being, for the climate and for nature.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I speak particularly to the amendments that I have tabled in this group. It is fair to say that the Forestry Commission is quite an unusual organisation—it is a non-ministerial department for a start. I was the Minister and then the Secretary of State with the relationship with the Forestry Commission and my experience was that, frankly, I used to get somewhat frustrated, thinking that it should get on and plant some trees. It almost seemed very reluctant to just get on and plant trees. The reason it matters—the clue is in the name, but perhaps the organisation literally cannot see the wood for the trees—is that trying to give the extra targets is important for the Forestry Commission to make sure it is on track in doing what it is supposed to do.
One of those aims is to help achieve the 16% woodland cover target by 2050, which we are at risk of missing. The Forestry Commission should have at the forefront of its mind that its role is about trees, woodland and forests. I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, was concerned about single species, or perhaps only certain species being granted in commercial estates. It is vital that we have mixed forests. One of my concerns was that it seemed like, for any tree that was not a broadleaf, it was almost like it was automatically bad and we should not be touching it. Actually, we need that mix for a combination of factors. There is no question that a broadleaf tree will bring absolutely better biodiversity overall, but so do the pines and, critically, the pines will grow a lot more quickly and contribute far more quickly to issues involving climate and emissions. That is why having a combination tree estate under the UK forestry guidance really matters.
Earl Russell (LD)
In this group on the Forestry Commission’s actions and duties, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 88 and in support of Amendment 93, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I support pretty much all of the amendments in this group. This has been an interesting conversation on not only the role and development of the Forestry Commission but its relationship with hosting energy, including what safeguards and protections need to happen as we go down that road and what our forests will look like in the future under climate change.
My amendment is designed to put in place some safeguards on the new powers granted to the appropriate forestry authorities for energy generation, transmission and storage on public forestry land. At the heart of all this is a balance between what we do to hit our climate and nature change duties and what we must do not to further damage our ecology and biodiversity. It is fine to make use of our forests for these things, but it must not have detrimental impacts. That is what I have tried to balance in my amendment.
The commission gains unprecedented powers to host and sell energy from renewable installations on land under its management. Yet, when I looked at Clause 28, there were no clear legal protections for most precious habitats. My worry is that, without such safeguards, we will see renewable energy infrastructure sited in ways that harm our ancient woodlands, our carbon rich peatlands and other priority habitats that the Government have a duty to protect, particularly under our 30 by 30 biodiversity targets.
I am looking for a reasonable balance between timber production and nature conservation. That reasonable balance is in the Bill, but what does it mean? It is not purely defined in the Bill, which was also a worry for me. In response to that, my amendment tries to take a pragmatic way forward. I note the issue raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Bennett, about the percentages. My amendment says that no more than 2% of all Forestry Commission land and no more than 5% of any individual site could be given to energy storage and development. I will go away and look at that. At the moment, there is no cap on that at all. Noble Lords may not agree with my percentages but putting a percentage in the amendment is a whole lot better than having no percentages in there at all; however, I will go away and look at whether there is another way in which that might be done.
This issue is particularly acute in our national parks and where our national parks and Forestry Commission land co-exist; in the New Forest, that is 47%, while, in Northumberland, it is 15%. These are treasured landscapes. Energy development must be proportionate, consistent with statutory park purposes, subject to democratic oversight, not impacting on leisure facilities and making sure that our national parks authorities have some say in and control over these things. These are important matters.
My amendment does not seek to reject the role of using Forestry Commission land to help with our energy; it just seeks to put some safeguards on that. I will go away and consider my amendment. This debate has been useful for me, and I will reflect on this, but there need to be more safeguards in the Bill—of that I am still certain. I would be very happy to work with the Minister between now and Report to see whether there are ways in which we could do that together; that would be welcome.
This has already been discussed in detail but, turning briefly to Amendment 93, I have supported the Private Member’s Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, at every stage of its passage through the House. It is absolutely essential that we update our climate change legislation. In the last debate on his Bill, I said that it was the equivalent to the Government being the general and knowing what the military strategy was but failing to tell any of their own troops. The Government need to work with all these public bodies. These things are so pressing and so complicated. The Government are holding on to all this stuff and not passing the orders down and empowering others, including the public bodies. The Forestry Commission owns 5% of all public land. It needs a duty to enhance and meet our climate change and biodiversity targets; it is silly that it does not have that.
I am sorry. I am a little buoyed up having come through the Crown Estate Bill and the Great British Energy Bill, where we managed to work with Ministers and get such provisions added to the Bills. It is on my agenda to do that in this Bill; that makes sense. I would like to work with the Minister, but it is a minimum for me that a similar amendment to the ones in those Bills is added to this Bill. If the Government want to make use of forestry land for energy generation, that is fine, but with that comes some responsibilities; those responsibilities include that this duty should added.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much approve of what the Government are doing in this clause. I think they should go a bit further. I want to illustrate this in the context of the challenges faced by southern broadleaved woodlands, which existed for many centuries as places of industry. People made things there; a lot of products came out of it. The whole biodiversity of that ecosystem comes out of a continuous pattern of use. It is interesting to see, for instance with NEP, how little biodiversity is left in the woodland when the woodland ceases to be of value. All the biodiversity there, which is considerable, has moved outside. Our woodland biodiversity is important.
The Government should be organising themselves, and the Forestry Commission, so that we can see a restoration of a commercial purpose to the southern broadleaved woodlands, particularly in England. We cannot at the moment rely on forestry. All the species that we used to grow in profusion have no big current use. Our neighbouring forest in Eastbourne was planted to beech 100 years ago. When they are felling it now, 100 year-old trees are going to firewood. There is no market now for really high-quality beech.
In the small wood that I own, oak is the main crop. We have acute oak decline coming in now. You are asked to wait 100 years for oak. If it is all going to rot away before then, there is no outlet. We really need a system that can take general wood output—branches, brash, thinnings, uneconomic trees—and turn it into something useful. The outlet available at the moment is energy.
The Forestry Commission is hugely important in this as it has a breadth of organisation and understanding, whereas the ownership of woodland tends to be extremely fragmented in the south. It can bring a lot in motivating, organising, inspiring and controlling when it comes to looking after biodiversity principles.
I am very pleased to see the direction in which the Government are moving here. My understanding is that this clause is written in a way that allows the Forestry Commission to work with partners in achieving its objectives; it does not have to do everything itself. However, I urge the Government to make one change to this: not just to look at renewable power but to look at renewable feedstocks for industry.
If we are to replace oil as the feedstock for our chemical industry, we need to go after every available source of concentrated carbon, and woods produce quite a lot of that. In looking at the powers that Forestry Commission has under the Bill—there are already young British companies using wood products to produce jet fuel and similar things—we need to add that extra aspect: not just renewable energy, but renewable feedstocks for industry.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to the vital role of our nation’s forests in delivering both environmental and societal benefits. As I begin, I refer the Committee to my registered interests, in particular as a forest owner and as a developer of new forestry and woodlands.
Turning first to Amendment 87, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I recognise its thoughtful intent. It seeks to ensure that public forestry resources are not disproportionately used to supply large-scale biomass operations. We are sympathetic to the amendment’s aims and to many of the comments made in this short debate. The responsible management of public woodland must prioritise environmental protection and long-term sustainability, but the picture is complex. Biomass plays a role in our renewable energy mix, and there may be cases, such as thinning or disease control, where repurposing woodland material is practical and sustainable.
This is ultimately a question of balance. I ask the Minister to outline how existing safeguards ensure that public forestry will not be placed under undue pressure from commercial biomass demand. I also note, as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out, that the overwhelming use of felled broadleaves is currently for home heating. Without the wood-burning market, mature forestry economics are undermined in these situations. It would be a shame to lose that incentive for managing our native broadleaf plantations and natural woodland.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I do not have the hands-on experience of managing forestry that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, does. My mother’s family home was in the middle of Savernake Forest, so it is very close to my heart, and the three elderly uncles who lived there when I was growing up worked in the forest in exactly the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. They did active work for the Forestry Commission: the kind of work that the noble Lord was describing.
Clause 28 sets out to amend the Forestry Act 1967 to grant the forestry authorities powers to pursue electricity generation from renewable sources within the public forest estate. Amendment 87, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, seeks to restrict forestry authorities to supplying or using only waste materials in the context of renewable electricity generation from biomass. I completely understand that the intention behind the amendment is to prevent large-scale biomass operations on forest estate and inappropriate harvesting practices in the name of renewable energy, but I suggest that the concern is already addressed in statute by the balancing duty laid out in the Forestry Act 1967.
Clause 28 of the Bill applies the balancing duty specifically to renewable electricity, which means that forestry authorities are required to balance their renewable electricity functions with their forestry responsibilities and the conservation of natural beauty and flora and fauna of special interest. If the noble Lord is concerned that, without his amendment, the Forestry Commission would be able to engage in large-scale deforestation for the purpose of biomass, the Government’s categorical view is that that would not be consistent with the commission’s statutory duties.
Furthermore, I believe that the amendment would have unintended consequences that could constrain routine woodland management practices, including existing operations that contribute to the health of existing woodlands and the sustainable supply of biomass. Forestry authorities are committed to delivering the sustainable management of our forests and meeting the requirements set out in the UK forestry standards. These standards are upheld through processes such as thinning, where selected young trees are removed to enhance the quality and health of the broader woodland area—I think the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, referred to this. Through that process, all the material produced could be used for biomass. The proposed amendment could have the unintended effect of producing a narrow interpretation of “waste” that could exclude material most suitable for energy generation, such as material produced through the thinning process. This would limit the uses of forest materials and ultimately would be wasteful in itself.
Finally, it is important to note that sustainably sourced biomass can play an important role in our renewable energy systems, in transitioning away from fossil fuels and in meeting our net zero targets. Existing frameworks and duties provide a high bar for the Forestry Commission’s role as manager of the nation’s forests. These existing statutory duties underpin the commission’s current practices, including the sustainable supply of biomass, already operating at a smaller scale, as part of routine and acceptable day-to-day woodland management practices. The Forestry Commission has no plans to engage in the development of large-scale biomass technologies in the forests that it manages. It is for these reasons that I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I will consider Amendments 97A, 87B and 88A together. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendments, which aim to protect the forest estate from adverse impacts as a result of renewable electricity activities. I reiterate that our public forests are a precious national asset providing vital environmental, social and economic benefits, and this legislation will not change that fact.
The noble Baroness mentioned using wood in construction. Just before Recess, I visited an office building just across the Thames from here that was constructed using timber. It is a fantastic building. It looks out onto a small woodland as well, which makes it even better. So that is an important factor.
The forestry authorities’ key statutory duties remain to promote the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, the management of forests and the production and supply of timber and other forest products. The additional revenue stream produced from the sale of electricity from renewable energy developments will enhance their ability to deliver their existing objectives.
Amendments 87A and 87B would require the forestry authorities to replace any woodland lost to renewable electricity development by double, with this being planted as near as possible to the original site. I reassure the noble Baroness that the size of the public forest estate will not reduce as a result of renewable energy developments. The estimated footprint of renewable electricity projects will be relatively small and there will be no net loss of woodland area. Renewable energy installations are successfully integrated into woodlands in many areas of Scotland. Scottish officials explained to mine that, generally speaking, where trees might be felled for, say, access purposes during the construction phase, they can be replanted once the access is no longer required.
It is the Government’s view that the amendment is unnecessary as there is already existing statutory provision to ensure that impact is mitigated in both the Forestry Act and the planning and development process. Therefore, permanent deforestation at concerning scale for the purpose of renewable electricity development would not be consistent with the Forestry Commission’s existing statutory duties.
Furthermore, I believe the amendments could have the unintended effect of limiting the ability to utilise new and potentially more suitable land to create new woodland habitats when undertaking compensatory tree planting. Some locations are less suitable for woodland creation, and replanting woodland as close as possible to the installation may not align with ecological and other environmental and timber-supply priorities.
The amendment may also limit the ability to pursue restoration measures beyond compensatory tree planting that could deliver greater environmental value. The Forestry Commission will ensure that compensatory planting takes place where woodland is permanently lost to renewable energy projects, but the planning process can often identify more effective ways of enhancing ecology and biodiversity. We would not want these alternative approaches to be constrained as a result of this legislation.
Amendment 88A specifically requests that Clause 28(6) is removed completely. The intended effect of this is to prevent regulations being made for purposes beyond those explicitly set out in the Bill. Many examples of the provisions set out in subsection (6) can be found in any large Bill. They are technical provisions that do not affect the fundamental purpose for which regulations can be made. In this case, that fundamental purpose is determined by subsection (5). I reassure the noble Baroness that, if regulations were to be made in reliance on the power in subsection (6) to make, for example, incidental or supplementary provisions, the scope of those regulations could not be broadened in the way that her amendment appears to be concerned about.
Further, the reference in subsection (6) to the ability to make different provisions for different purposes does not mean that any of those purposes can go beyond the general purpose set out in subsection (5). They cannot.
I note for completeness that the Government are currently reviewing subsection (5) in response to recommendations made in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill. I therefore do not believe that the amendment is necessary for the intended effect. Given the existing provisions and the reasons I have set out, I hope the noble Baroness is reassured and I hope she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 88, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would place a limit on the amount of the public forest estate that forestry authorities may use for renewable electricity projects. I recognise that our public forests are a national asset and that this amendment has been made in the spirit of protecting them. However, the existing statutory duties and regulatory frameworks will prevent excessive development of the forest estate. The estimated footprint of these renewable electricity projects will be relatively small. There will be no net loss to woodland area or the size of the public forest estate as a result of the renewable electricity projects. Furthermore, any renewable electricity developments will be subject to the relevant planning process and considered against the forestry authorities’ existing statutory balancing duty set out in the Forestry Act 1967.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
The Minister gave a very impressive list of different pieces of statute, guidance and legislation from right across the spectrum that guides the Forestry Commission in its work. I just want to plant the idea in her head that perhaps the time has come for some legislation that consolidates all of those requirements. It is now nearly 60 years since we last had a forestry Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will pass my noble friend’s comments on to the Defra Minister.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, if this was not the House of Lords, I think I would ask for a round of applause for the Minister. That was very concentrated information over about 15 minutes without even a breath, so my congratulations to her.
Clearly, there is another debate that needs to happen. I am absolutely fascinated by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that the Forestry Commission is not too strongly into planting trees. That could just explain the fact that we are rather behind on our tree planting targets in this country. I really welcomed the in-depth, practical view of how the Forestry Commission worked from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.
As far as my amendment is concerned, I can see from what the Minister said in answer to one of the other amendments that the role model here may be what is happening in Scotland. I will look at that further and try to understand further what the Government are trying to achieve in terms of the Forestry Commission and renewable energy. I may or may not come back to this on Report, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Middle East
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Statement is as follows:
“On the ground, it is unimaginably bleak. Horrifying images and accounts will be seared into the minds of colleagues across this House. They are almost impossible to put into words but we can and must be precise with our language because, on 22 August, the UN-backed IPC mechanism confirmed what we are witnessing: famine—famine in Gaza City and famine in its surrounding neighbourhoods, now spreading across the wider territory; famine which, unchecked, will spiral into widespread starvation.
This was foreseen: it is the terrible conclusion of the obstacles we have warned about for over six months. Since 1 July, over 300 people have died from malnutrition, including 119 children. More than 132,000 children under the age of five are at risk of dying from hunger by June 2026. This is not a natural disaster; it is a man-made famine in the 21st century. I am outraged by the Israeli Government’s refusal to allow in sufficient aid. We need a massive humanitarian response to prevent more deaths, with crucial NGOs, humanitarians and health workers allowed to operate and stockpiles of aid on Gaza’s borders released. In the past three months, more than 2,000 Gazans have been killed trying to feed their families, and Hamas itself is exploiting the chaos and deliberately starving Israeli hostages for abhorrent political purposes.
I know that these words of condemnation, echoed across legislatures all over the world, are not enough, but be in no doubt that we have acted where we can. We have restored funding to the UNRWA; we suspended arms exports that could be used in Gaza; we signed a landmark agreement with the Palestinian Authority; we stood up for the independence of international courts; and we have delivered three sanctions packages on violent settlers and far-right Israeli Ministers for incitement. We have suspended trade negotiations with the Israeli Government, and we are at the forefront of the international community’s work to plan for a stable, post-conflict peace. We have provided over £250 million in development assistance over the past two years.
Today we are going further. I can announce an additional £15 million of aid and medical care for Gaza and the region. We continue to work alongside regional partners, including Egypt and Jordan, to enable the UN and NGOs to ensure that aid reaches those most in need. Brave medics in Gaza tell us that essential medicines are running out and they cannot operate safely; that is why we are funding UK-Med, whose field hospitals have treated more than 600,000 Gazans, and that is why we are funding the World Health Organization in Egypt to treat thousands of evacuated Gazans.
Meanwhile, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said earlier, we are working with the World Health Organization to get critically ill and injured children into the UK, where they will receive specialist NHS treatment. The first patients are expected to arrive in the UK in the coming weeks. Extracting people from a war zone is complex and dangerous, and it relies entirely on Israeli permissions. I am pressing for that to happen as quickly as possible. We are also supporting brilliant students granted FCDO Chevening and other scholarships to escape Gaza so that they can take up their places for the coming academic year.
I recognise that this touches only the edges of this catastrophe. We all know that there is only one way out: an immediate ceasefire, the unconditional release by Hamas of all hostages, and a transformation in the delivery of aid. We know it, our US and European allies know it, and our Gulf partners know it. I am working night and day with them to deliver a ceasefire and a wider political process to deliver long-term peace. To make a ceasefire last, we need a monitoring mechanism, the disarmament of Hamas and a new governance framework for Gaza. That is the focus of our intense diplomacy in the region.
In contrast, further Israeli military operations in Gaza City will only prolong and deepen the crisis. Together with our partners, we demand an immediate halt to this operation. Each week brings new horrors. Last week’s double strike on Nasser Hospital—one of Gaza’s last remaining major health facilities—killed 20 people, including five journalists. I remind Israel once again that international law requires the protection of healthcare workers, journalists and civilians. These actions will not end the war and they will not bring the hostages home, let alone make them safer, as hostage families have recognised. They will sow despair and anger across the region for generations.
In the West Bank, the Israeli Government are tightening their stranglehold on the Palestinian Authority and continue to approve illegal settlement construction, just recently in the E1 area east of Jerusalem. That would erect a physical barrier to a contiguous Palestinian state, and it must not happen.
In July, I described before the UN General Assembly our intention to recognise the state of Palestine later this month unless the Israeli Government take substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commit to a long-term sustainable peace. This commitment responds to the current crisis but stems also from our historic responsibility to the region’s security, reaching back over a century to the Balfour Declaration. As I said last month in New York, I am deeply proud that it was a British Foreign Secretary who helped establish a homeland for the Jewish people, but the same declaration promised that
‘nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights’
of the Palestinian people. Those rights are more under threat than at any point in the past century.
To those who say that recognition rewards Hamas or threatens Israeli security, it does neither. Recognition is rooted in the principle of a two-state solution, which Hamas rejects. We have been clear that any Palestinian state should be demilitarised. Indeed, President Abbas has confirmed that in writing to President Macron. We see no contradiction between the two-state solution and our deep commitment to Israeli security because security comes from stable borders, not indefinite occupation.
Before I finish, I would also like to update the House on Iran. On 28 August, the UK, along with France and Germany, triggered the snapback mechanism under UN Security Council Resolution 2231. This means that, if no new agreement is reached within 30 days, the sanctions that were lifted under the Iran nuclear deal—the JCPOA—will come back into force. These wide-ranging sanctions include a full arms embargo and restrictions on its nuclear, missile and drone programme. This was not a decision that we took lightly. For years, we have worked with international partners to stop Iran developing a nuclear weapon. The 2015 deal was meant to do just that, but Iran has repeatedly undermined the agreement. Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium is now 45 times over the limit set by the JCPOA. Despite this clear escalation, we have made every effort over years of negotiations to bring Iran back to compliance; those efforts have continued in recent months. I have urged Foreign Minister Araghchi to de-escalate and choose diplomacy.
In July, we offered Iran more time if it agreed to return to negotiations with the US and restore full access to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Last month, I warned Iran that time was short and we would have little choice but to trigger snapback. I regret to inform the House that Iran has not complied with its legal obligations, nor chosen the path of diplomacy, so we had no choice but to act. I have long been clear that I will not allow snapback to expire without a durable and comprehensive deal. It would be unacceptable to allow the issue to fall off the UN Security Council agenda, despite the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme. But Snapback is not the end of diplomacy, as Secretary Rubio has also recently underlined. Iran can still meet our conditions. It can restore full IAEA access, address our concerns about its stockpile and enrichment, and return to negotiations. Alongside our partners, I will continue to urge Iran to choose this path.
In the worst of times, this Government will continue to take all the steps we can to alleviate suffering, to help bring regional conflict to an end, and to create the conditions for long-term peace and security. We will not rest until there is a ceasefire in Gaza, the hostages are returned and a flood of aid reaches those in desperate need. Despite the obstacles before us, we will work with partners to preserve the two-state solution. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much indeed for repeating that extremely important Statement. I want to start by expressing my sympathy for the people of Afghanistan, much benighted over the years, who have now been affected by last night’s earthquake; I am sure we are all thinking of them.
I agree with the Minister that the ongoing conflict in Gaza is awful. It has claimed too many lives already, and I know that noble Lords across the House share our desire to see a peaceful resolution to the conflict and the resumption of work towards a sustainable peace based on a two-state solution. Hamas is still refusing to release the hostages, who have been in captivity in Gaza now for coming up to 700 days. This is an appalling situation and the Government must redouble their calls for the release of the hostages, which I know they did again today. Will the Minister please update the House on the Government’s work to influence that situation and help to secure both the release of the 48 hostages who remain in captivity and the urgent delivery of more aid into Gaza? Hamas is a terrorist organisation and we must all work together with our international partners to prevent it having any role in the future governance of Palestine. As the Government embark on the path to recognition, will the Minister tell us what engagement Ministers have had with international partners on a plan to end Hamas’s role?
Turning to the humanitarian situation in Gaza, again I think all noble Lords will agree that the situation is dire. We all want to see a sustainable resolution of the conflict as soon as practically possible. We also need to see more humanitarian aid delivered to innocent civilians in Gaza. Can the Minister confirm what practical steps the Government have taken to help unblock the situation so that more aid can get into Gaza?
On Palestinian recognition, it is disappointing that Ministers conveniently chose to announce this major change to UK foreign policy shortly after the House broke for the Summer Recess, meaning that we did not have the opportunity to ask immediate questions of Ministers at the time. This afternoon at Oral Questions, the noble Baroness refused to answer my question on the Montevideo convention, so let me give her another opportunity. This sets out the international law criteria for state recognition, which include a defined territory, a permanent population, a functioning Government and the capacity to enter into international relations. I ask her again, specifically, which of these Montevideo criteria are fulfilled by the state of Palestine that the Government are about to recognise? Will this recognition apply just to the West Bank, under the control of the Palestinian Authority, or will it also apply to Gaza, nominally, of course, still under the control of Hamas? The Government often tell us that they are bound by international law, so it would be very useful to know what work the Government have done to establish whether Palestine meets these criteria under international law.
There is an unfathomable asymmetry in the demands being made by the Government. Will the Minister please give the House total clarity on this point? Will the Government proceed with the recognition of Palestine while hostages are still being held by Hamas? Bizarrely, the Government’s current recognition plan seems to be being pursued purely as some sort of punishment of Israel. The PM has made lots of demands of Israel but none of Hamas, which has predictably welcomed Labour’s plans and the actions of which, of course, were the cause of the current conflict. Recognition must not happen while hostages remain in captivity. The Government’s current plans will neither secure the release of the hostages nor increase the amount of aid getting into Gaza. It seems to be pure gesture politics designed to appease Labour Back-Benchers in the other place.
Earlier today, in a response at Oral Questions, the Minister quoted a figure of 2,000 Gazans being killed while queuing for food aid at GHF distribution points. Will she please clarify the source of that number? I hope that she has a more reliable source of information than relying purely on Hamas.
Finally, I would like to raise the conduct of the Iranian regime. Tehran must never obtain a nuclear weapon. Can the Minister provide an update on the Government’s current assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Since this is my first occasion to speak in the Chamber since my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Newby, retired as leader of our group, I put on record my appreciation to him and express how much all of us on these Benches admired how, in tumultuous and ultimately successful times, he led us for the most recent nine years.
While this Statement is justifiably focused on the terrible humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the inhumane treatment of the Israeli hostages, I put on record my dismay that the world’s worst humanitarian crisis—worse than Ukraine and Gaza combined—carries on in Sudan. One hundred Sudanese civilians have died today of hunger. I hope the Government will bring forward a Statement, as penholder in the Security Council for Sudan, with an update soon.
Now there is famine in Gaza too. Avoidable, manmade famine should have been an impossibility in 2025. Manmade means deliberate. It means that women and children are dying of hunger primarily as a result of the political and military decisions of men, increasingly detached from the humanitarian needs of civilians. In Gaza, the provision of wholly inadequate supplies of food from the GHF has become a killing zone, and the IDF operations in Gaza now mean that there is no safe area. Indeed, the most dangerous areas are those that have been defined as safe. The casualty levels pay testament to this. The images of the emaciated hostages treated so brutally by Hamas terrorists were responded to by the families of the Hostages and Missing Families Forum so powerfully and movingly, as they also speak of their opposition to the continuation of the violence and the tactics of the Netanyahu Government.
The Minister knows, because I have stated it on many occasions, that these Benches have called for the recognition of Palestine as a state for 45 years—17 years before Hamas was formed, so it cannot possibly be close to being seen as a reward for its actions. We welcome the position of the Government but did not share the conditionality, which was out of the hands of the Palestinians. That said, recognition could come in less than three weeks, but the Government must now indicate that the conditions they have set are not being met.
Indeed, the recent statements by Netanyahu mean that it is impossible they will be met. He and the extreme Ministers in his Government are moving to expand military campaigns in civilian areas, illegally expand territory and widen the area for settlements in the West Bank. If the UK recognises Palestine, as we hope it will, it must surely be honoured as an act that is vital, urgent and needed to prevent the 1967 borders from being reduced and removed altogether. Bulldozing and occupying civilian areas in that border area is a war crime. Collective punishment is a war crime. Weaponising food and medicines is a war crime.
That is why we believe that the UK should sanction these extreme Ministers and Netanyahu, that there should be no arms sales to the Israeli Government at all and that the Government should now conduct and publish an urgent human rights assessment, as allowed for in the UK-Israel trade and partnership agreement. The grim reality is that, unless there are specific, deliberate and measurable interventions, eloquent statements and diplomacy will not be an effective means to end the suffering and it will continue. The civilians who are starving should not have to wait.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for reminding us of the situation in Afghanistan. He is right about the plight of people there, and I expect we will make further comments on this in the next few days. As he asked me to do, I am very happy to redouble and never stop calling for the immediate release of those hostages, who should be returned today and who were so cruelly and barbarically removed from their families, as well as for the return, tragically, of the bodies of some of those who were taken. I met the hostage families and made them a promise that I would continue to do that. I am very happy to do so until the day that they are all home, where they belong.
Hamas’s role should end. Hamas is a terrorist organisation. It should have no role in the future administration of Palestine. When we are asked our view on this and about why we are working with the Palestinian Authority, our view very strongly is that it is essential that there is a group of leaders able to administer and lead responsibly in a Palestinian state. If you do not believe that, you do not truly believe in the viability of a two-state solution, and this Government do believe in that.
When it comes to aid, we have spent just over £200 million in the last period on aid. We will continue to do that. We made more announcements over the weekend of some specific commitments on maternity care. I remind noble Lords there are still 120 babies being born each day in Gaza. I cannot imagine the difficulty of giving birth in such circumstances, particularly without medical assistance, including anaesthetics. That is the situation we are in, and we will continue to provide aid for as long as that is necessary. The difficulty, as noble Lords understand, I think, is that there remain obstacles to getting aid to where it is so desperately needed. We continue to call for and encourage the movement of that aid.
On the timing of the announcement on recognition, yes, that did happen once we had risen for Summer Recess, but it was an announcement not of recognition itself but of an intention to recognise in a certain situation at the end of September. So it was known that there would be opportunity for us to debate that. I regret that we have had to get to this position at all. I have stood here many times and said that recognition should be part of the peace process. I had hoped that recognition could take place in far more positive circumstances, as part of a negotiation, perhaps. That is not where we are; recognition is not taking place against that backdrop. We will make an announcement on the basis of international law if the time comes, as seems increasingly likely. But Hamas does not want a two-state solution. It is not going to want to listen to our conditions; it is not interested in peace; it is a terrorist organisation. Our recognition of that is something that I know the noble Lord shares, so it seems a little odd to ask us why we are not having some sort of dialogue with Hamas.
On the source of data, I accept we do not have sufficient data to be able to make the kinds of assessments that we would want to in other circumstances. It is not good enough that we are relying on the information that we are; it should be better. But the ability to have more accurate information, to have third-party corroboration and to have journalists able to report is prevented by the decision of the Government of Israel. It leads us to rely on the information that I know the noble Lord finds so unsatisfactory. This could be remedied and I only wish that it could be.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said about the noble Lord, Lord Newby. It was good to hear him make those remarks, and obviously we wish him well in his new role, with his new look, I see, this evening. I am glad too that he talked about Sudan because, as he rightly says, that is by far the biggest humanitarian crisis on the planet at the moment and shows little sign of improvement. I was on the border there myself earlier this year, and the situation there and the accounts that we are hearing are desperate. We have taken the decision to protect our aid to Sudan and his suggestion that we should make some sort of statement as to our assessment of the current situation is very helpful. I will take that back.
We have long said that we believe that we ought to recognise the state of Palestine. The noble Lord asked why it is happening now and about conditionality. As I say, we feel that if we do not do this now, the whole concept of a two-state solution becomes jeopardised, given the situation on the ground.
I agree as well that the futility of these statements is becoming increasingly sickening and I only wish that there was more that we could do that would have an effect on the ground. I deeply regret that our words are not heeded or listened to sufficiently by the Government of Israel, but that does not mean that we do not use our voice when we can to say what we think is right, and that is what this Government intend to continue to do.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome the proposed actions of His Majesty’s Government. I know that many other noble Lords will wish to intervene in this; I will keep my questions very brief.
There are two areas that the Minister has not touched on. The first is with respect to the denial of visas to the Palestinian delegation, who now do not have the possibility of attending the UN session when the state of Palestine is recognised. Have HMG thought of any alternatives? Canada is a country that is about to recognise Palestinian statehood and perhaps one alternative would be for the countries that propose to do so to convene in Canada with the Palestinian delegates to assure them of support.
My second point is about the Government’s assessment of when the International Court of Justice is likely to rule on the case on genocide initiated by South Africa and heard last year. It seems to me it is sitting on its hands a little bit and I wondered whether the Government could suggest that some kind of expedited procedure might be necessary when we have so much at stake in terms of the number of deaths on both sides of that equation.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
On the issue of attendance at the UN General Assembly, it is obviously an issue for the US to decide who enters the country, but it is not right to deny Mr Abbas the ability to take part in the event in New York. We will make that clear, but ultimately it is up to the US to make that decision.
I note what the noble Baroness says about Canada; it is an interesting suggestion which I had not previously heard. I know the Canadians have the G7 as well, so I do not know what consideration they may have given to that.
As to the timing of the ICJ, I am not aware that we are able to speed that up in any way, but I hear what the noble Baroness says about her desire to see progress.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I am appalled by the policies of Mr Netanyahu and his coalition partners. I used to know Mr Netanyahu when I worked in the Foreign Office and I am in no way surprised that he is acting in the way that he is. That said, if the Government recognise Palestine as a sovereign state—territories which have none of the usual characteristics of a sovereign state—surely Hamas and associated terrorist organisations will claim the credit for such recognition. Are the Government comfortable with that prospect?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Hamas should not claim the credit, but what it claims and what is true will be very different. It may well make statements to that effect, but they are not true. We are being as clear as we possibly can be that this is about protecting the viability of a two-state solution; that is our sole motivation here. Hamas is an appalling organisation; it has no role in the future administration of any state, and it should release the hostages immediately. Until that happens, it is very difficult to see how we get any sustained peace.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about Sudan, because over the last two years, Israel and Gaza have been mentioned in Parliament 10 times more than Sudan, where famine has killed more than 500,000 children. Israel, unbelievably, has even been discussed more than twice as much as Russia and Ukraine and almost twice as much as the NHS, immigration and asylum, issues for which our Parliament and the Government are actually responsible. This is a terrible situation, but what does the Minister think explains this? Does she agree with me that people should be very careful about singling out Israel at a time when hatred against Jewish people is running at record levels?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not know why Sudan does not get the attention that it should. It is a problem. Perhaps it has to do with media access and presence in that region, or perhaps there are other reasons. I do not know, but I regret it and wish we could spend more time considering Sudan. We held a conference earlier this year with the desire to see progress there. It is incredibly difficult, but we are doing everything we can and I thank the noble Lord for making that point.
People are rightly concerned about what they see. It feels very close to home. There are many people in this country who have family connections to Israel and to Gaza specifically, and I do not in any way ascribe any kind of other motive to those raising these concerns. I note the concern in the noble Lord’s question about antisemitism here in the UK. It is possible, and it is our responsibility, to show that we can have concerns and that we can criticise and be appalled by some of the actions of the Government of Israel, but vehemently protect, in the strongest possible terms, the necessity of Israel—an ally of ours—to succeed, to be safe and to be a prosperous country long into the future. That is what we want to see.
I regret that, too often in this debate, you are forced to pick a side. You either believe in the viability of Israel or in the Palestinian cause. I do not feel like that. If you say you support a two-state solution, you have to mean it. That is, two states living safely, securely and prosperously, side by side.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, there is a reason Sudan is not mentioned as much and the horrors taking place there are not given the attention they deserve. It is because Sudan is in Africa—that is why—and Africa is not seen as having the same strategic importance as the Middle East.
However, Africa—southern Africa in particular—can teach us one very important thing. At the height of the struggle in southern Africa, when white people and black people seemed to be at loggerheads in a way that would never be resolved, there was active promotion by successive British Governments of dialogue between all the communities in southern Africa. What more action can His Majesty’s Government take to promote dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims in that region, and between Palestinians and Israelis? It must be possible to be both a friend of Israel and a friend of Palestine.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think it is. I was in South Africa in 1994, just before the elections. I remember that time of huge optimism but also of great fear in certain parts of the population. I recognise completely what my noble friend says. Sometimes, we look back and forget just how desperate things got in South Africa at various points and the things that were done.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to feel that sense of optimism now, either about Sudan or the situation in Gaza. I fear that there is a Government who are deliberately acting in a way that they know is leading to enormous suffering and death in Gaza. This can be prevented very quickly. If dialogue is needed, dialogue is what we should have. It would be very good to move forward in a way that takes us to a place where there is a process and a structure to negotiations, and where the UK—or any country that is able to—is able to bring parties together. Perhaps that means our friends in the region; it does not have to be some of the usual partners who lead this, but dialogue is the only way, ultimately, that this will be resolved. The problem today is one of desperate need and starvation in that population.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to follow the remark just made by my noble friend about the lessons from southern Africa; I would not presume to be any more expert than he is on that matter. Of course there was a place for promoting reconciliation and dialogue, but there was also a place for sanctions against a pariah regime, and that brings me to my question for my noble friend the Minister.
I want to focus on what is excluded from this Statement. The Minister helpfully told us that this is “a man-made famine” and that she is
“outraged by the Israeli Government’s refusal to allow in sufficient aid”.
In the light of the Government’s outrage at man-made famine, why are they not including any new sanctions against the Israeli Government or their members, who have promulgated the terrible acts that we have seen over recent weeks? Given that there are no new sanctions in today’s Statement, can we be reassured that further sanctions remain under active consideration as a response to the humanitarian outrage and man-made famine that this Statement identifies?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Baroness should know, we do not comment on future sanction designations.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I totally endorse what has been said about Sudan. I was there a year ago and am in almost weekly contact with people there at the moment. But I am slightly worried about the terms in which we debate some of these matters, such as Gaza and Ukraine. The crisis in Ukraine did not begin on 24 February 2023; the crisis in Gaza and the Middle East did not begin on 7 October 2023. Our attempts to simplify the conflict, perhaps for conceptual reasons, do not always help us. It is immensely complex, it goes back a long way and 7 October cannot be the justification for everything that follows. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree in that, obviously, the situations that the right reverend Prelate refers to are deeply rooted in history. Many of us understand and study this and appreciate what he is saying, but I cannot respond to anything that mentions 7 October without saying that that most hideous of attacks changed the nature of that conflict. It was always going to lead to a response from Israel. What is happening now, though, is beyond what anybody anticipated would happen as a consequence of that heinous attack, but nothing should diminish the appalling events of that day. The accounts and footage from that day that many of us have seen will haunt us forever. Perhaps if there were similar accounts and footage from Sudan that were as visible to us all now, we would at least be having a different set of conversations. But I agree with the right reverend Prelate about complexity and the need to understand the historical origins of these conflicts.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I think we all see the appalling humanitarian crisis. I welcome the Government’s intervention in terms of the medical support they are providing and propose to provide via this Statement. However, I wish to go back to the issue of recognition and an earlier point made about why there are no conditions or prerequisites on the Palestinian Authority—and not simply regarding a level of balance on the release of hostages being a precondition, which has been highlighted.
We have seen, for example, that the Canadian Government—with which our Government have often been in lockstep—have made a number of preconditions on the Palestinian Authority around democratic reforms before they will consider recognition. Why have the UK Government not made that a precondition of recognition?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
For the Palestinian Authority, it is not a condition of recognition, as the noble Lord knows, but we are working with the Palestinian Authority to bring about the reforms that we think are necessary to enable it to administer a state in the future. We do not claim that it is ready to do that now. However, as I have made clear, the decision around talking about recognising Palestine at the UN General Assembly is around preserving the viability of the two-state solution. People can disagree about whether that was the right or wrong thing to do. We feel that this is not the circumstance in which we wanted to recognise Palestine; we wanted it to be part of a much more positive process and to have included the negotiations that noble Lords have said that they want to see leading towards a lasting settlement. That is not where we are, as we all know. We have taken the decision now, because we felt that unless we did, the prospects of the future state would be further jeopardised —and look at what is happening with E1 too. We have not done this in the circumstances that we would have wished, but I agree with the noble Lord on the need to see further reform of the Palestinian Authority.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, the head of the World Health Organization has said that July was the worst month for cases of acute malnutrition in children in Gaza, affecting nearly 12,000 children under the age of five, all as a result of a manmade famine. In the light of this and the further bombardments of Gaza City, is it not time the UK took firmer action through the maximum licensing of sanctions, including on Netanyahu; ending all exports of arms, including surveillance support; and withdrawing conditions on the recognition of the Palestinian state?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are only, I think, three weeks away from the UN General Assembly, when the decision on recognition will be communicated. As I have said before, I cannot comment on the designation of future sanctions, but I observe how extraordinary it is to impose sanctions on individual members of the cabinet of a country with which we have such long, close historic ties.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend has said, since late May 2025, Israeli forces have reportedly killed some 2,000 Palestinians and injured more than 15,000 at or near aid distribution centres in Gaza, where women, men and children are compelled to seek minimal provisions for their families as a result of Israel’s policy of failing to allow aid in properly and creating, as we have heard, a famine. Despite the export of arms suspension, can my noble friend the Minister say why the Government are still permitting the transfer of F35 components to Israel through the international pool, knowing that these aircraft may be used in operations causing significant civilian casualties?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The issue with F35s is that their components are provided on a pooled basis. My understanding is that, if we stopped their provision, there are other situations in which there would be an outcome that we would not want to see.
I really agree with my noble friend on the issue of the provision of aid and the way that the Israeli Government have chosen to go about it. When this idea was first suggested, we expressed our concerns. We said that we did not believe that aid could be distributed safely or at sufficient scale to meet the need—and it has not. This was foreseeable; it was predicted; it was avoidable. It is fixable. We could get the aid in very quickly now, but we need the Government of Israel to agree to that. I think there is more aid getting in than there had been at various points, but still nowhere near enough. Once you have famine starting, it is not simply a case of “Get some more aid in and all will be well”. The effects take some time, and given the medical attention that is now needed, I fear that we are about to see the cascade effect that happens when you enter famine. As others have said, you also see the increased prevalence of diseases, which are no respecters of borders. This is a dire situation, where we need the food and medical supplies to enter Gaza as quickly as possible.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 1st September 2025
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-III(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (1 Sep 2025)
“Prohibition of solar power development on higher-quality agricultural landNo permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation where the development would involve—(a) the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a, and(b) building or installation at ground level.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher-quality agricultural land.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 89 in my name. This amendment would insert a new clause after Clause 28 which would prohibit the development of solar power generation on high-quality agricultural land, in particular, as set out in paragraph (a),
“agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a”.
As many know, agricultural land is classified into five grades based on various physical and chemical characteristics that affect its long-term agricultural use, grade 1 being the highest and grade 5 the lowest. Grade 3 covers good to moderate-quality land and is divided into two sub-grades, with 3a defined as land capable of consistently producing moderate to high yields of a wide range of crops. I excluded sub-grade 3b, which is more limited in its agricultural use, often suited only to grassland and extensive grazing. Paragraph (b) in Amendment 89 then prevents solar power generation development, which would involve building or installation at ground level.
As I and others argued at Second Reading, the Government need to be joined up when considering infrastructure. Despite the high-level meetings over the summer in Alaska, the current situation in Ukraine remains significantly worrying, and the threat will remain even when the war in Ukraine has been resolved. Our defence policy has pivoted to deterrence against possible war: that we should be war ready. Although defence is the first priority of the Government, surely our second, as an island nation, should be food security.
Solar farms will take up large areas of land that should be used for food production. The Minister has suggested that these concerns are not proportionate, as it is estimated to impact only 1% of agricultural land. According to the Government’s own statistics released in March this year, covering the UK up to 1 June 2024, utilised agricultural land accounts for some 16.8 million hectares in 2024. One per cent of that is the equivalent of 105,000 football pitches, around four-and-a-half times as big as the Isle of Wight. That is not something to be just brushed aside.
We have already had clear examples of impact estimates being widely out, from those leaving the private school sector to the impact of job taxes on enterprise and business. The Government’s own national security strategy tells us that we must actively prepare for war. Currently, we import more than 40% of our food. This Bill would see badly needed productive land lost to solar farms. Our agricultural land is needed for food production. It is vital that we become more self-sufficient and resilient. Producing more food in the UK is an essential part of that. Regarding resilience, solar farms are easily identifiable, hard to guard and therefore could be so easily disabled by drone strikes. This amendment seems fundamental to safeguard future need regarding food production.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 92 in my name. The amendment is simple and straightforward: it recognises that solar farms have a role to play in our energy security, but that that must be balanced with an effective use of our best farmland for food security. I observe that the lack of Labour Party Back-Benchers here says more than we need to about their views on farm and food security.
This amendment would not prevent or fetter the development of solar farms on the poorest quality land or restrain smaller proposals on the best land which command the support of the local planning authority. However, where large-scale solar proposals come forward that include the best and most versatile land, my amendment would mean that the nationally significant infrastructure project—NSIP—process would not and could be engaged. To be clear, this would not be an absolute ban on large-scale solar farms on the best land; it is just that, if those proposals were to come forward, they would need to be determined locally by the planning authority.
It is said that modern society is no more than three meals away from breakdown. In the hierarchy of needs, food in the belly is the number one priority. When the chips are down, you cannot eat a solar panel. Last year, the national wheat yield was down by 20% on account of wet weather. This year, the yield impairment is similar but because of dry weather. Just as there are no guarantees about the weather, we cannot be careless with our food supply.
I have recently heard encouraging noises from Defra Ministers who belatedly realise that the risks of food security are greater than they have ever been and that the best land should be reserved for food production, where inputs can be used most productively. The poorest and least productive land can be harnessed for other uses—environmental, amenity or economic. I welcome this sinner that hath repenteth and I venture that there is now common ground between people like me, who appreciate and value food security, and the Government. That should make acceptance of my amendment easy to achieve, so that the right balance is struck between heating and eating.
I will not go into quite so much detail as my noble friend, but let us talk about what I mean by the best and most versatile land. The Library tells me that, under the 1966 agricultural land classification process, grade 1, 2 and 3a land comprises 42% of the cultivated area of Great Britain; by difference, therefore, the substantial majority, 58% of the agricultural land, is in the poorer grades 3b, 4 and 5. Now, this would still be available for large-scale solar energy under my amendment, and there are millions of poor hectares to go at. That is land the size of 12 Norfolks or two and half times the size of Wales—noble Lords will note that I do not use the football pitch analogy.
Last year at the Dispatch Box, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, explained that, in the case of a recently approved Sunnica proposal in Suffolk, the proposal did not include some of the best and most versatile land. I will not criticise her for an honest mistake, but I regret to tell the Committee that there was plenty of the best land, including grade 2 land, in that proposal—land that is now lost to food production for a generation. On so many levels, the Government’s rhetoric is at odds with the reality. They have lost control of the numbers, and in so doing are imperilling our food security, which is national security.
In Lincolnshire, the county that more than any other puts bread on our tables, already 2% of that county is under threat from solar. Worse, thanks to my noble friend Lord Frost we learn that the majority of the Heckingham proposal is predominantly the best grade 1 land under the 1966 rules.
In an Answer to a Written Question last November, the Government reported that 1,400 hectares of land in Norfolk were currently under NSIP applications. But the reality was that it was 7,500 hectares, and now the number is greater still. We know from Great British Energy—I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his place—that there just is not the grid capacity to accept all the solar that is being promoted.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, surely the point about the Bill is that it is enabling us to put the structures in place to actually get the grid capacity up and running.
Lord Fuller (Con)
True. The noble Lord makes a good point, and so I sense even further a degree of consensus on both sides of the Committee on this matter. If we take the fact that the grid capacity is not there to accept all the solar that has been promoted, because it is diurnal and seasonal and comes in very big flashes which can overwhelm the grid, and that capacity to absorb is limited, only a fool would disagree with limiting the proposals to the poorest land first.
I have heard it said that we need not worry about this and that only the amount of land currently used for golf courses is being used for solar—something like 0.5% of all land—but that is simply not true. It is the 19th hole tale that has grown with the telling. The Government’s land use framework contemplates that 9% of all land will be used for environmental and energy schemes. Let me say straight away that agri-solar is starry-eyed, greenwashed fantasy. The solar panels are taller, so they are even more visually intrusive, with even more chemicals used to bash the weeds so that they do not shade the panels or wrap their tendrils around the steel stanchions.
The principle of controlling solar development aside, this amendment is important because it seeks to remove the loopholes and abuses that we have seen flow from the misuse of the NSIP regime for solar applications, including artificially stringing together many disparate smaller schemes, some miles apart, to get over a hurdle threshold. Where I live, a local proposal comprises a dozen different blocks of land spread out over a canvas more than 15 miles wide and eight miles tall as a device to get over that NSIP threshold. That is an abuse.
I can see that it is in the farmer’s private interests to sign up for solar. On normal arable economics, a farmer would do well to earn £200 an acre from the fruits of his labours, having investing millions in plant and equipment and subjecting himself to the risks of weather and the market. By contrast, solar developers are offering him the chance to sit on the beach with an index-linked £900 or more. Landowners of really quite small holdings which have been aggregated together have given tenant farmers notice to quit so that they can enjoy those inflation-linked payments of over 40 years at many times the rent. But our tenant farmers are among the most entrepreneurial growers, not having had the benefit of inheriting land, and we cannot afford to lose their dynamism.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 94B regarding permission for energy substations on higher quality agricultural land, I will also speak to Amendment 94A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, which according to the Herald is pronounced “drum-lang”. The amendments reflect the concerns that I and my noble friends have about what is happening on higher quality agricultural land, which, as we have heard eloquently described, is critical to food security.
My noble friend’s amendment reflects quite a lot of the concerns expressed in the House of Commons. I am thinking of my right honourable friend Wendy Morton, my honourable friends Sarah Bool and Mike Wood, and a number of other people who have spoken in debates in the House of Commons who are concerned for a couple of reasons about why battery energy storage systems seem to be not exploding —well, some of them are—but certainly expanding.
There is an important point to understand. We have seen, progressively, the previous Administration and this Government trying to get a grip on managing energy production and to get a proper strategy going. Meanwhile, in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, the proposal is that we need about 27 gigawatts by 2030, 29 gigawatts by 2035, and a broader estimate—although the Government have not set a formal target—of 50 gigawatts by 2050. But where are we right now?
Figures from a paper from RenewableUK published in December 2024 suggested that there were 5 gigawatts of total operational capacity and 127 gigawatts in the pipeline. You do not need an A-level in maths to add up and find that that comes to 132 gigawatts. Of those, I think it is fair to say that 40 gigawatts have already been consented, 30 gigawatts are in the planning process and a further 48 gigawatts are being developed to go into the planning system.
My concern and that of my honourable friends and right honourable friends in the other place is that, in our process, we have already approved pretty much all that has been wanted by our energy operator. So why is it that, in effect, we seem to be encouraging even more to come through?
I am conscious that not every application will necessarily produce the outcome that is desired—we have seen that with other things—but, frankly, for those who have got the planning consent, we should make sure that they deliver what they say they are going to do. We should do that instead of, yet again, building up, and potentially blocking, land being used for food production to perhaps become an area for battery energy storage in the future, when we will have already achieved our outcome.
We discussed a lot about safety earlier; the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, spoke to that. He spoke comprehensively, but I point out to him there have been some instances where, for example, chemical interactions meant that hydrofluoric acid was produced. I did my PhD in chemistry a long time ago, but HF is one of the chemicals that I used. I can honestly say that, if you get it on your skin, although you will not realise it for a couple of days, your bones are basically crumbling right inside your skeleton. If you get it in your eyes, it is game over, frankly. On a very serious note, it is fair to say that there are significant risks. While the HSE has been cited as having a framework in place and similar, the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, referred to the Defra consultation about bringing these regimes into the EPR. It was published only last week. This is no criticism of the Minister, but what is noteworthy is that it said—I am quoting word for word—that
“it is not the role of the planning system to regulate fire risk and there is limited provision through the planning scheme to ensure that measures are maintained”.
I am sorry, but one of the key features of the planning system is to consider fire and fire risk and the like, so it will be worth the Minister looking at that element again; I am sure his officials will be keen to do so as well. We need to make sure that these things are safe. I shall give way.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am reminded to reprise what the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said earlier about the need to have pre-scrutiny and the fact that a national organisation, the HSE, was the competent body. As my noble friend has been speaking, I have been reminded that it is for local organisations, the local fire authority and the local planning authority to make those determinations. National bodies such as the HSE do not have the capacity or the local knowledge to comment appropriately.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I think that is right. The HSE, on its own website, refers to the fact that it cannot comment on every application and, in effect, needs to be proactively contacted only if there is considered to be a major risk.
I am also conscious that the River Test is considered by my honourable friend Caroline Nokes to be under threat. For people who are interested in these things, I commend the speech of my right honourable friend Sir Alec Shelbrooke, who talked about dendrites. It was a very knowledgeable, well-researched speech about fire risk, including thermal runaway and the like.
Coming back to the fundamental proposal of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, he specifically asked me to talk about safety. There is a concern about overdevelopment and the loss of food for agricultural production. We will keep coming back to this on this side of the House, recognising the importance of food security alongside the other elements of national security.
On the amendment that I have tabled, perhaps I should declare an interest as this is about a subject that I have referred to a few times before: energy substations. Again, I am worried. There is an element here of thinking about where we do energy generation or other aspects of interconnection. Frankly, if the Government think the only way they can get these things done is by ripping apart environmental protection law and reducing food production land, they should not connect at those areas that already have these environmental designations or are key producers of food in this country.
My amendment refers specifically to 1, 2 or 3. I am conscious that the best and most versatile land is traditionally grades 1, 2 and 3a. However, Defra, through Natural England, does not publish where grades 3a and 3b are, because apparently that is too difficult to do, as it requires individual local site surveys on determining whether a particular field is grade 3a or 3b, so for comprehensiveness I have put in grades 1, 2 and 3.
However, as my noble friend Lord Fuller has pointed out, there is an element here about the fact that, frankly, a lot of this stuff was—in effect, with a light touch—reconsidered only in 2010. Fundamental parts of our land have not been assessed in terms of their contribution towards food production or food security for probably the best part of 40 to 50 years. As a consequence, recognising the targets set by the Government and the challenges that we face, I am conscious of the land use framework. Admittedly, I did a draft of that nearly three years ago, and I am sure everyone is frustrated that we still have not seen it yet. One of the challenges is this competing element of what we do with the land that we have.
Let us be straightforward about this: once agricultural land is gone, it is gone for good. I am not blaming farmers or landowners, who, candidly, the policies of the last 12 months have given even more reason to get a secured income on the basis of the value or use of their land. One of the foibles, in a way, of doing things such as leasing out land for solar is that it does not adjust in terms of the agricultural elements of inheritance tax. However, when farmers can get a guaranteed income for a proportion of their land, while other things are so uncertain, I do not blame them for wanting to make that choice.
My honourable friends—apologies, I am still earning about this place; I should have said my noble friends—have eloquently put some of the issues around solar. There definitely has to be a place for solar across our country, but one final point that I want to make on battery energy systems is that we really need to target where they are going to be. There is no point in having batteries in parts of the country that are nowhere near the grid or near where most of the energy is going to be used. That is why I have proposed the amendments I have today.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I simply want to agree with Amendment 89 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I prefer it to the amendments from my noble friends Lord Fuller, Lord Forsyth and Lady Coffey, although they all have merit. We have heard from my noble friend Lady Coffey that we may already have enough solar farms under consent already, although I am not sure what the Minister thinks of that.
As the House of Lords, we can take a longer-term view and, unfashionable though it may be, I believe we should protect the highest-quality agricultural land for farming and food and prohibit solar farms on that land. It is of course less costly for the developers, who want flat sites, but that is not a good reason to sacrifice the best land needed for food security.
Government is about balance. Our population is growing. We live in a dangerous world that could one day jeopardise imports of food, and the most productive land should be devoted to growing crops.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 89 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, Amendment 92 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, Amendment 94A in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Amendment 94B in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. These amendments focus on a matter of strategic and national importance: the protection of prime agricultural land in the face of increasing pressure from non-agricultural development, particularly the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure. The arguments have been well made already in this short debate, so I can be brief.
In bringing these amendments, my noble friends rightly highlight the wider context in which we debate this issue. The agricultural sector has been under immense pressure from market volatility, environmental challenges and, regrettably, punitive tax measures such as the family farms tax raid. Against that backdrop, it is more important than ever that we protect our best and most versatile land, not just for farmers but for the long-term food security of our nation. The Government must support an approach that balances the need to scale up renewable energy with the critical need to maintain our ability to feed ourselves.
These amendments make a strong case for preventing the unnecessary loss of high-quality agricultural land. As I and other noble Lords have previously highlighted Committee, some of the largest solar developments are being approved without proper regard for the grade or quality of the land being sacrificed. Every one of the large-scale solar farms approved under NSIP that I have looked at has been materially located on best and most versatile land. That is not just a matter for the farming community; it is a matter of national food security. We cannot create a future in which we can switch on our lights and heat our homes but are unable to feed ourselves. We must not let the pursuit of energy security come at the expense of food security.
As others have highlighted, a disproportionate percentage of our best and most versatile land is going to solar. This is madness when 58% of our farmed land is not in the BMV category and there is also a significant amount of unclassified and unfarmed land that could be used for renewable development. With the Government’s ambition to triple solar capacity by 2030, the pressure on land is only going to intensify. Unless active steps are taken now to guide that development sensibly and strategically, we will continue to see the erosion of our agricultural capacity and, with it, increased dependence on imported food.
These amendments are both timely and necessary. They would ensure that solar and other non-agricultural developments are directed towards less productive land or even non-productive land, leaving our best farmland for the essential job of feeding our population. I urge the Minister to take these amendments seriously and offer clear assurances that under no circumstances will the Secretary of State approve developments that compromise the UK’s food security.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 89, 92, 94A and 94B relate to Clause 28 and the protection of agricultural land. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Coffey, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, for tabling these amendments. Is that the right pronunciation of Drumlean? I am glad he is not here, because I know he would shout at me if I got it wrong.
Amendment 89, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, seeks to prohibit the construction of ground-mounted solar farms on land of grades 1, 2 and 3A. The Government view food security as national security and champion British farming and environmental protection. All solar projects undergo a rigorous planning process, considering environmental impacts, local community views and any impact on food production. The Government believe that solar generation does not threaten food security. As of the end of September 2024, ground-mounted solar PV panels covered an estimated 21,200 hectares, which is only around 0.1%—not 1%—of the total land area of the UK. Even in the most ambitious scenarios, only up to 0.4% of UK land will be devoted to solar in 2030.
The Government are in total agreement with the noble Baroness in that we want to get the balance right between protecting fertile agricultural land and facilitating renewable energy. The Government agree that protecting food security should always be a priority. That is why land use and food production are already material considerations in planning. Planning guidance makes it clear that, wherever possible, developers should utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. Where the development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, lower-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land. However, we do not believe the accelerated rollout of solar power under present planning arrangements poses a threat to food security.
The government consultation on the land use framework sought feedback on what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. The land use framework, to be published later this year, will set out the evidence, data and tools needed to help safeguard our most productive agricultural land. It will also lay out how government intends to align the different incentives on land; ensure that joined-up decisions are made at national and local levels; and make accessible and high-quality data available.
As such, we believe that this amendment is not necessary to protect agricultural land. Moreover, a total ban on the use of higher-quality land may have several deleterious consequences. Quite often, a site suitable for solar development will contain soil of varying quality. At the moment, the amount of high-quality land proposed to be developed is examined by planning officers. This is a consideration in planning decisions. Were this amendment to be incorporated into the Bill, large projects could be rejected for the sake of a small area of higher-quality soil that constitutes a small fraction of the overall site.
This amendment would reduce the number of economically viable sites for solar generation, which would increase costs for developers. They may seek to recoup these by placing higher bids in the contracts for difference scheme. That cost is ultimately borne by bill payers. In short, banning all solar development on higher-quality land may endanger the Government’s mission to achieve clean power by 2030, increasing the exposure of British consumers to volatile imported fossil fuels.
I shall touch on the noble Baroness’s point about solar on domestic and non-domestic buildings. Deploying rooftop solar remains a key priority for the Government and we will publish the future homes standard this autumn. The new standard will ensure that solar panels are installed on the vast majority of new-build homes once it comes into force, saving households hundreds of pounds a year on their energy bills. That will support our ambition that the 1.5 million homes we will build over the course of this Parliament will be high-quality, well designed and sustainable.
Additionally, the recently published Solar Roadmap contained several actions for both government and industry to support the deployment of solar PV in the commercial sector. These included unpicking the complex landlord/tenant considerations in the sector by developing and distributing a toolkit for owners and occupiers. The Government set out that rooftop solar on new non-domestic buildings will, where appropriate, play an important role in the future buildings standard, due to be introduced later this year.
The Government have also announced £180 million of funding for Great British Energy to help around 200 schools and 200 NHS sites to install rooftop solar. We expect the first of these installations to be complete by the end of the summer—summer being a flexible concept, so whenever that comes. The Government are assessing the potential to drive the construction of solar canopies on outdoor car parks over a certain size through a call for evidence, which closed on 18 June. We will publish the government response to that consultation. I trust that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with that response and I kindly ask her not to press her amendment.
Amendment 92, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to remove solar projects on high-quality land from the nationally significant infrastructure project regime. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement on this subject. I know that he has spent many years serving in local government and has considerable expertise. However, I hope that he recognises the contradiction in his argument. At the same time as he argues about the very difficult conditions that farmers face in growing food, these are brought about by climate change, but he is using them as arguments not to tackle it by moving to clean energy—so there is a bit of a contradiction in the argument there.
It is vitally important that every project is submitted to the planning process that best suits its impact, scale, and complexity.
Lord Fuller (Con)
The point is that the difficulty that farmers are under may be aggravated by poor weather, either too wet or too cold, but the real problem is that this Government are engaged in a war on the countryside by undermining the finances of every family farm and damaging food production, even with the stuff on bioethanol, taking 1 million tonnes of wheat out of the market. That is the reason why farms are doing so badly—it is not to do with climate change.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord was referring specifically to climate impacts on food growing, which I felt was a bit ironic as we are trying to tackle the climate change that is bringing them about with exactly these measures to use clean energy.
The Government recognise the benefit of returning control over decisions to local planning authorities. As of 31 December 2025, we will double the NSIP threshold for solar projects from 50 megawatts to 100 megawatts. However, the Government believe that large solar farms, even when they propose to use higher-quality agricultural land, are best dealt with under the NSIP process.
The NSIP regime is rigorous. Although the decision is not taken locally, local engagement is still at the heart of the process. Under the current legislative framework, developers taking projects through the NSIP regime are required to undertake community consultation as part of the preparation for the application. This gives communities ample opportunity to feed in their views and shape the project. Currently, the level and quality of community consultation, among other factors, is taken into account by decision-makers. I am glad the noble Lord made a protest about the one that he was subject to; I hope communities will do that if they feel that those consultation processes are not being carried out in good faith.
Moreover, considerations under the NSIP regime include any impact on land use and food production. Planning guidance is clear that poorer-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land, avoiding the use of best and most versatile agricultural land where possible. This is in line with the policy governing decision-making by local planning authorities. Even if there were a marginal gain in public confidence from returning the decision to local authorities, we would not expect the outcomes to change.
This marginal gain must be weighed against the likely costs of this proposal. First, a proper examination of the potential impacts of a large-scale solar farm is a major and lengthy undertaking. Giving this responsibility to local planning departments may place an untenable burden on resources which are already under pressure.
Secondly, it is right that projects of such scale, size or complexity as to be nationally significant should be considered through the NSIP process. These proposals are of strategic importance to the country as a whole, and as such central government is the most appropriate decision-maker. Changing policy to allow decisions about these projects to be taken by local authorities may increase investor uncertainty at a pivotal moment for the Government’s 2030 clean power mission. This may jeopardise our work to reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels, increase energy security and protect consumers from global price shocks, just at the very time when Members have raised the issue of security.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am prompted to intervene only because the head of the noble Lord, Lord Khan, nearly seems to be falling off with nodding. The point is that the NSIP regime is combining schemes which, frankly, should normally go through the local planning authority. These are disparate, small, stand-alone schemes which fall under NSIP only because the system is being abused to string them all together quite artificially. There are no capacity constraints in local government planning to do with these smaller schemes; we know where they are and we know the issues. To suggest that stringing together a dozen different small schemes is nationally significant demonstrates the falsehood and the paucity behind the argument that NSIP should be engaged in this manner.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
These are geographical schemes. As I said, we are increasing the size of schemes that will go to NSIP.
Lastly, I am concerned that accepting this amendment would imply that there are some issues on which the NSIP regime is either not competent or not qualified to adjudicate. This is simply not the case. Setting this precedent may reduce public confidence in the NSIP planning system as it applies to other types of infrastructure. It may undermine trust in decisions which have already been taken. For all the reasons I have outlined—although it sounds as though I have not convinced the noble Lord—I hope he will not press his amendment and will continue to work with us on this issue.
Amendment 94A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to prohibit battery developments on best and most versatile agricultural land. The Clean Power 2030 Action Plan set out an expansion of renewable technologies required to achieve the 2030 ambition, including the acceleration of grid-scale battery development from around 5 gigawatts at present to at least 23 to 27 gigawatts by 2030. Grid-scale batteries, which are rapidly falling in cost and increasing in scale, allow the power system to store cheap excess renewable energy and use this, rather than expensive polluting gas, at times of need.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Can the Minister not deal with the problem of patches of best-quality land on a site with a classic de minimis rule of, say, 5%? That would still allow us to protect the best land without needless delay and Defra—or the new framework that the Minister mentioned—could easily provide the data for that purpose.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that if the noble Baroness wished to put that forward in the land use framework it would be considered. I always worry about de minimis rules because there will always be the exception to the rule that goes slightly over it, and then you end up with a big problem sorting that out. However, if she wishes to feed that into Defra’s part of the land use framework consultation, I am sure it will take account of it.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
I thank the Minister for her extensive response and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, especially those who have given support. Many interesting points have been raised, and some very worrying statistics. I simply repeat that, especially given the international situation, we really need to think about national food security and resilience. We import 40% of our food and, if we got into a war situation, we would need to grow more than we are at the moment. It seems counterintuitive to be allowing good agricultural land to be used to generate electricity when this can be done elsewhere.
I will not repeat all the points previously made, except to say that we also need the good will of the British people. We need to ensure that local people can have their views heard. I was heartened when the Minister said that there would be community consultation, but too often these consultations are binned and not acted on—people listen and then some other outcome happens. I hope that community consultation in which local people expressed that they really did not want solar farms would be respected and the schemes would be turned down.
I was slightly disappointed that the Minister did not address the points about foreign investors leasing this land long term. I imagine that we do not know who they are and we are not checking on who is buying what. I am very disappointed to hear that the Minister is not prepared to recognise the depth of feeling on this issue. I withdraw the amendment now, but hope that we can have further consultations and some movement can be made to address what all of us have tried to say about making sure that prime agricultural land does not have solar farms on it. I reserve the right to bring this back at the next stage of the Bill.
Earl Russell
“Local Area Energy Plans(1) All local authorities and combined authorities must create a Local Area Energy Plan in order to inform their decisions about local electricity infrastructure requirements.(2) For the purposes of this section, a “Local Area Energy Plan” means an outline of how the relevant authority proposes to transition its area’s energy system to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require all local and combined authorities to develop Local Area Energy Plans which set out how they will meet their Net Zero goals.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I open this group of amendments, which are all on local energy plans; my amendment proposes to insert a crucial new clause after Clause 28 of the Bill. It would mandate that all local authorities and combined authorities must create a local area energy plan.
Considering the late hour, I will give a slightly condensed version of my original speech. I also express my strong support for the other amendment in this group, Amendment 177, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish vital guidance for local authorities on local area energy plans within 12 months of the Act being passed. To my mind, that is almost like the flipside of the same coin to what I am asking. The amendment that I have tabled and this amendment would work well together, complement each other and make each stronger than they would be without the other. From my point of view, it would be good if it was possible to progress both of the amendments in this group.
I do not really want to go into too much detail. Everybody knows what local area energy plans are. They are vital to devolving these tasks down to local authorities, including local people. They work really well; they are powerful. It is really good that we speak to and include local people and that they have a say, and it is good that we take account of local peoples’ needs and what is happening in local areas. It is good that we do this level of granular work on the ground and talk to local people. These plans are happening in some places: obviously in Wales, and there are some other places where councils are voluntarily doing these things, whether that is in London or other metropolitan authorities.
What does not exist in legislation is a mandated requirement for these things to be done or a mandated support to help local authorities to do these things. Were that to happen, it would help this Government to meet their environment and climate change targets. Frankly, I do not know how we got to where we are without having it in this Bill. I wonder whether that is purely just an oversight.
From my point of view, I stand ready to work with the Minister alongside the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. We would like to include this in the Bill. We feel that this would fit within the Bill, help to deliver targets, help us to get to where we need to be and help to empower our local authorities. I will leave it at that considering the late hour that we are sitting, but I genuinely think that this would help all round. I beg to move.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 177 in my name and declare my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis and as a director of Peers for the Planet. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his support for the amendment.
I start by saying that I completely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, just said. I view these amendments as very complementary in terms of local area energy planning. This has to be a staged approach. We first need that guidance set out for local authorities, so that we have a consistent approach to planning but, ultimately, we need a funded programme with funding available to local authorities to enable them to undertake these plans and get to the place where we need to be with the noble Earl’s amendment. Therefore, they are very complementary in that sense.
To add to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, I put this amendment forward to the then Energy Bill a couple of years ago. It is worth reflecting on what we have seen so far in terms of the energy transition, which is a very top-down driven approach. However, we have seen some really good progress since the Energy Act. We have had the formation of the National Energy System Operator, the NESO. We have started to see that thinking about flow-down to regions and local areas, with the formation of the regional energy strategic planner role, the RESP.
However, there is a missing piece of the puzzle in terms of the flow-down to local areas: the bottom tier, which is what the local area energy plan fulfils. In terms of spearheading the transition, it is really important that we get this joined-up view of the governance system and that we have some guidance for local area energy plans. As the Minister knows, this is not a conceptual approach—it is a well-tested road. In fact, since the end of last year, these have now been rolled out and completed for all 22 Welsh councils. There is a funded programme, a technical adviser to ensure coherence in the Energy Systems Catapult and there is that guidance to ensure a systems approach. Now that they have that basis, there is then flow-up to their own national plan as well, which offers great benefits.
This amendment would put a duty on the Secretary of State to publish guidance for local authorities on local area energy planning and to clarify some of the criteria that should be included with any guidance. This is based on the Energy Systems Catapult guidance and includes how local area energy plans can contribute to meeting our net-zero environmental and adaptation targets.
I will briefly illustrate one of the reasons we need this. The pilots undertaken in the UK, in Newcastle, Bridgend and Bury in Manchester, divided each area into zones suitable for different types of heating technologies. The balance of technologies across the three areas shows how different areas can be. In Newcastle, the plan found that roughly half the homes could be heated by a heat network, in Bury it was less than 30% and in Bridgend it was 15%. In Bridgend, a far higher proportion of homes would need to be heated with high-temperature heat pumps to save on the extra expense of retrofitting insulation in its poorer-quality housing stock.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer my strongest possible support for Amendment 90 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to which I have attached my name, and some slightly qualified support for Amendment 177, which we have just heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale.
Coincidentally, and entirely without prompting from me, I started the day—rather a long time ago now—speaking to a senior civil servant. They said to me that they thought the great malaise of the UK was people’s lack of a sense of agency—a lack of ability to step up, take control and change what is around them and the direction of the country. This amendment, starting with the local and saying, “Here in your community you can democratically work through your council, local authority and combined authority to decide how to deliver your energy” is the perfect way to start to address those issues.
We are the most centralised polity in western Europe: power and resources are overwhelmingly concentrated here in Westminster. We have almost universal agreement that we have to have an energy transition. This is a major infrastructure element in all our lives, as we have been discussing this evening. We also must have a just transition, so that no community is left behind. Every community needs the opportunity to make plans for its energy future, and that is exactly what Amendment 90 seeks to achieve.
I note that a great deal of work and resources have been put into this over a long period of time. The Centre for Climate Engagement at the University of Cambridge, funded by Innovate UK under the Net Zero Living programme, is building on the work of the Skidmore review—we are talking about cross-party approaches across all Benches—which emphasised the importance of local government, leadership and place-based actions in dealing with the climate emergency.
This goes back a very long way. Green councillor Andrew Cooper, who was working through the European Committee of the Regions, got the UN COP process to acknowledge locally determined contributions. Everyone has heard of nationally determined contributions, but that was about locally determined contributions. Of course, the energy system is only part of this, but it is a very crucial part that impacts people’s lives and communities and on what they look like.
Your Lordships’ House has, in a very long wrestle with two successive Governments, finally got an acknowledgement of the importance of community energy. What I think we would see going forward is local authorities and combined authorities being very keen to encourage and support community energy. That of course is where we can see public support and financial returns growing. This is not about some giant multinational company coming and landing on your community, but about your community saying, “Right, how do we want to generate our energy?” That has to be the foundation.
I am broadly in favour of Amendment 177, but my question is around the weight and shape of the word “guidance”. We are talking about local energy plans, and anything provided from the centre should be support and not—as we see, for example, in planning and with housing allocations—direction. If it is indeed guidance, Amendment 177 is pointing us in the right direction. Together, these two amendments are crucial and I can see no reason for the Government not to accept them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, to which I have added my name. I am also very sympathetic to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised a very interesting question about the centralisation of this country. In one sense, this Bill is about further centralisation when it comes to major infrastructure projects, which are so crucial to our growth. In essence, in the housing agenda, as well as with a lot of energy infrastructure projects, local government has not been very helpful and has been obstructive. If we believe that growth is a strategic aim of government, as I believe it to be, stronger central direction is vital. The question, however, is whether it can be complemented by local initiatives, which do indeed give local people ownership. That is where I agree with noble Baroness, Lady Bennett: community energy schemes are a fantastic way to leverage support from local people for the kinds of changes that we want to make to our energy infrastructure.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, obviously speaks with great authority as an energy expert, but he has also played a hugely important leading role in the Midlands Engine. He chaired the Midlands Energy Security Taskforce, which of course strongly supports local area energy plans.
When I was a Minister at DESNZ, I became very much aware of the potential of local community-based energy projects. I remember one visit to my own city of Birmingham, under the auspices of Footsteps: Faiths for a Low Carbon Future, when I met a number of local groups that were dedicated to community green energy projects but were seeking support from agencies at the centre to deliver something tangible. Interestingly, the MECC Trust, based in Balsall Heath, is hosting the launch by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, in a couple of weeks’ time, of Birmingham’s first net-zero retrofit demonstrator community hub. The potential of hundreds of projects such as this, up and down the country, is very clear.
The amendment that the Government brought to the then Great British Energy Bill, which added projects involving or benefiting local communities to the crucial objective section, was very important. Great British Energy has made it clear that it will work with local energy groups, councils and mayors to fund and support community-led energy projects.
Noble Lords will be aware of recent decisions by some local authorities to roll back commitments in relation to net zero. Ironically, this is taking place as the scientific evidence of the impact of climate change becomes ever clearer. I do not think we can let this go by default. In essence, the noble Baroness asked: what does guidance mean? I think you really have to put the two together. I take the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to be a statutory requirement on local authorities to encourage and develop local energy plans. I think that is really important now, in the light of some decisions being made by local authorities. Then, it seems to me, the guidance that we are suggesting fits into that structure.
I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the need to make sure that local authorities do not pass up the opportunity to support local community energy groups.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the development and implementation of local area energy plans. The proposals raise important questions about the role of local authorities in our transition to a decarbonised, secure and efficient energy system. We have heard some thoughtful contributions about the tensions between local and central government, but also of the enormous potential when the right balance can be struck between the two.
Let me begin with Amendment 90, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which would require all local authorities to prepare and publish local area energy plans. These plans would outline current and future energy needs and the decarbonisation pathways to meet them. The underlying intent here is one we can all recognise. The energy transition cannot be delivered only centrally; local authorities must have a clear understanding of their energy demands and the means to meet them sustainably. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a number of good points, reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on which we might all agree in principle.
However, while we acknowledge the ambition behind this amendment, we would caution against placing an additional statutory duty on all local authorities, particularly at a time when many face stretched resources and competing priorities. A blanket requirement risks creating a burden of compliance that may prove challenging for councils already struggling with core service delivery. We must ensure that our expectations of local government are realistic, proportionate and backed with adequate support.
Amendment 177, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to define the consultation and approval process for local area energy plans and mandates the provision of guidance to assist local authorities in their preparation. We recognise the positive intention here to provide clarity, consistency and technical support to authorities seeking to engage with this important agenda. This amendment also aims to widen the uptake of such planning and to define better the role of local authorities in delivering the future energy system. Those are commendable aims. While we must avoid onerous procedural hurdles or risk diverting local effort away from practical delivery into process-heavy reporting, we hope the Minister will consider this amendment carefully.
In conclusion, these amendments rightly draw attention to the importance of empowering local authorities in the energy transition. I welcome the debate and the ideas put forward, but urge a cautious, pragmatic approach. I look forward to the Minister’s response and any reassurances he can give on the Government’s direction in this space.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, I start with Amendments 90 and 177, which relate to local area energy plans. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Ravensdale and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for tabling these amendments.
Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require all local authorities and combined authorities to produce a local area energy plan. The Government are committed to working in partnership with local government, in recognition of the essential role that local places play in accelerating to net zero and supercharging our mission to deliver clean power by 2030. We recognise that, in support of this role, some local authorities have already produced local area energy plans and have used them to plan for the investment they need to support the energy transition and deliver net zero in their areas. We welcome the work that many local authorities have undertaken to develop and deliver their local energy plans. Local authorities may well be considering how planning their future energy needs may form part of their local growth plans or help contribute to Ofgem and NESO’s work on regional energy strategic plans.
However, this is not the right time to place further burdens on local authorities, while the approach to energy planning is still under development. We are considering how these plans might align with a range of regional and national plans, including the regional energy strategic plans, the warm homes plan, heat network zoning and Great British Energy’s local work. With that in mind, we continue to consider the potential benefit of local net-zero plans, working with partners across central and local government such as the local net-zero hubs, Great British Energy, NESO, Ofgem and Innovate UK.
We are also learning from the work of several local authorities in England which have already undertaken to develop their own plans, in recognition of the important lessons that can be learned from local authorities. In the meantime, local authorities that wish to assess whether energy planning fits with their wider strategic plans can access a range of support to help them develop local plans, including the tools and advice available on the Net Zero Go digital platform, supported by the department and the advice and support available to them from their local net-zero hubs.
Earl Russell (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s response to my amendment and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. However, I am hearing from the Minister that this is not the right time to do this stuff. I understand that the Government are actively drawing up different strings and bits of policy and bringing them together. However, if now is not the right time, when might be the right time?
The Minister says that the Government are drawing together policy but also that there are loads of policy guidance available for local authorities that want to do this. The two statements are almost contradictory. Now is not the right time for the Government to give guidance, but guidance is available to any local authorities that want it. My worry is that this leads to guidance that is much more open to interpretation, which the Government do not have proper control of and which could be followed in multiple different ways without the Government having control over it. I strongly ask the Minister to think again on these matters. These are really important issues. I recognise that the Government are forming policy, but forming policy and working with local authorities are not contradictory things. These are everyday matters of government.
I thank the Minister for his response but call on the Government to think again.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I appreciate the noble Earl’s contribution, but I politely disagree in that there is a lot of advice and support from local net-zero hubs funded by DESNZ. I understand and sympathise with what he is saying. We have all said today that we want to get moving as fast as we can, in a speedy manner, and to grow. This is all part of the agenda. We want to make sure that we get things right, be concise and have the right level of engagement and consultation, to ensure that when we have the clear plan moving forward it is well understood and implemented and does not have unintended implications or consequences.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
I want to complement what the noble Earl just said. A couple of years back, when I raised this as part of the Energy Act 2023, I remember being given a similar response: this was still being considered by the Government as part of how it would fit into the bigger picture. But I think the Government need to recognise the real importance of that governance-level flow-down from national to regional to local, the importance of local understanding in this picture and the real priority that needs to be placed on developing this guidance and strategy for local areas to take it forward. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I take note of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, complementing the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I recognise that there is a lot of work to do. I appreciate that the noble Lord has raised this before, but now we actually have a Planning and Infrastructure Bill which will very much fix the foundations of the whole growth to net zero and clean energy 2030.
My final and important point on this is that now is not the right time because we do not want to put further burdens on local authorities while we are still developing and finalising our energy planning. That is still under development, but I reassure the noble Lord that we are on it. We want to make sure that this happens as fast as possible, and this Bill will help us to change a lot of the infrastructure, thinking and systems in place in order for our country to grow.
Baroness Coffey
“Electricity infrastructure: consentConsent may only be granted for any electricity infrastructure, including generation, transmission through interconnectors, and any associated infrastructure including substations, within a 50 square mile area where the cumulative capacity is less than 10% of the country’s total electricity capacity.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, we are in the final stretch, and I will not be at all insulted if people choose to vacate at this stage of proceedings, recognising that we are past the usual hour. But the future of energy infrastructure matters. It matters where it is in the country; it matters for national security. That is why I have tabled Amendment 94C.
It is no secret to those people who have been in this Chamber or the Moses Room when I have talked about energy that I have recognised that part of Suffolk has a huge number of NSIPs relating to energy. I will talk about various issues in the three different groups; I have done this somewhat deliberately to try to make sure that Ministers and officials from each of the different departments really consider what they are signing up to and what is happening with the progress of electricity infrastructure across this country.
I am not in any denial that we need to consider carefully the transition to a different sort of grid. This needs to be considered carefully in recognising what is happening on concentration. In about 10 years’ time, it may have gone down a little, but about 30% of the country’s electricity will be generated in quite a small part of the country or it will act as the host point for interconnection from the continent. That will be concentrated in an area not of 50 square miles, as I referred to in my amendment, but considerably smaller. That is happening through the continuing generation of Sizewell B, the future generation of Sizewell C and interconnectors coming in at various points along the Suffolk coast—interconnectors to the continent and to the offshore wind farms that are already operational and currently being expanded.
One of my concerns—I appreciate that this is another issue of which I never managed to persuade my former colleagues, but I am hoping that the Government will listen—is that it is a huge matter of national security that we are concentrating so much of the energy in this country in a very small part geographically. I will not call that overemphasis a sitting duck, because I am very conscious of all the security that goes into nuclear power stations and the like, but it is an overconcentration. We think about the impact that a breakdown of resilience can have, and it could end up depriving the rest of the country of desperately needed energy.
It is for that reason I genuinely believe that, strategically, the Government should be thinking about spreading our principal electricity generation around the country. I will come to other reasons why I think the cumulation does not help, but it is that sort of threat which we should be considering right now. I am aware of the concerns in continental Europe about the deployment of certain grades of weapons by foreign actors. I am aware of the risk that has to be monitored and assessed, and we should be doing that in this country as well. That is why I genuinely believe the Government should reconsider their accumulation of projects and be far more strategic in where all these different energy sources are being placed in the country.
To that end, I believe that we should be looking to reflect the fact that we have opportunities in different parts of the country where, by the way, the Government already have land—they do not need to acquire more land. Too often, it is the Ministry of Defence refusing to take on some of these projects, because it wants to do various practices and different things like that. At the same time, plenty of agriculture is being sacrificed, but I am conscious we have already had that debate, so I do not want to dwell on it.
It is for those reasons I hoped that, by tabling this simple amendment, DESNZ would consider, with other parts of government, whether it is really treading down the right path in concentrating energy production and whether it should be more strategic in its thinking. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee, in particular the issue of concentration of power supply and potential implications. This amendment would limit the consent for electricity infrastructure within a 50-square mile area where the cumulative capacity is more than 10% of the country’s total. This raises several important questions for the Government. What assessment has been made of the cumulative impacts on a local area already hosting significant infrastructure? Additionally, how will fairness between different regions be measured and maintained? What mechanisms are in place to prevent overconcentration in certain areas at the expense of others, given, as my noble friend mentioned, the potential strategic risks to the country? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 94C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would create a new local area test, designed to limit the consenting of electricity infrastructure by reference to a percentage of the national total. In other words, it is addressed at the overconcentration of infrastructure in particular places.
The Government agree with the noble Baroness that the siting of electricity infrastructure should be considered carefully. While the Government are taking a strategic view, they are doing so via the strategic spatial energy plan and the centralised strategic network plan, due for publication by the end of 2026 and 2027 respectively.
It is unclear how exactly the amendment is intended to work in practice, given the complications of concepts such as cumulative capacity. It is not in the national interest for individual applications to be assessed or prevented by reference to a subjective threshold. They must be judged on the need case for the infrastructure weighed against local impacts, and that is precisely what the current system achieves. For projects designated as nationally significant, known as NSIPs, there is already a national policy statement, approved by Parliament, which sets out in detail the need case for this infrastructure and all the considerations that must be applied when consenting it.
This amendment would add further complexity to the consenting system, which could lead to a slowing down of the decision-making process for low-carbon and electricity infrastructure projects, which are crucial for this country—although, in practice, the threshold of 10% of the entire country’s electricity capacity is so high that it is highly unlikely that any project would in fact reach such a threshold.
The Government agree that infrastructure planning should have a special element. The strategic special energy plan will support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure across England, Scotland and Wales, land and sea, between 2030 and 2050. It will do this by assessing and identifying the optimal locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure required for generation and storage to meet our future energy demand with the clean, affordable and secure supply that we need.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, with respect to the Minister—I appreciate the answer he has given me— there is one point that perhaps it would be worthwhile DESNZ genuinely looking at. There is no doubt that there is a small part of Suffolk that will be responsible for more than 10% of the capacity in the future. But I appreciate that is not the remit of the Minister speaking tonight.
Of course I am disappointed. I am concerned. But, recognising the late hour, which is why I have truncated my comments, I will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“GEMA: funding constraints based on planning consentIf an electricity project has not received planning consent, the GEMA must not grant or consider any grant—(a) of Early Construction Funding, or(b) relating to Accelerated Strategic Transmission Investment.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I specifically wanted to speak to the funding of issues such as energy projects. This issue, probably more than anything else—perhaps the fact that the national grid is part-owned by American private equity owners may wind people up a little bit more—is the one that, fundamentally, makes communities around the country, and I have seen it much more locally, consider the planning system, when it comes to energy projects, a complete and utter joke.
It is already decided, regardless of what happens in the planning system, that these projects will go ahead. It does not matter if they do not quite fit the planning law, because a few tweaks could potentially be made. It does not matter what the community thinks. It does not matter what Parliament thinks, because Ofgem has already made the decisions and determinations that these projects can go ahead and money can start being spent on them before planning has even started.
I give your Lordships the example of Norwich to Tilbury. Ofgem came up with its early construction funding in April 2025. Its planning submission was submitted only on Friday. Sea Link, a project that I will continue to fight for as long as I can, had its ECF announcement made. Normally, Ofgem’s policy is that only 20% of the funding can be granted, in effect, through early construction funding. Ofgem has given 48% to the national grid—NGET—to proceed with Sea Link. Planning had to be delayed because there was an error in the planning process, so that got going only last month as well. This is what the people in communities in various parts of the country see. What is the point?
That is my huge frustration: in effect, there is a predetermination that planning applications are going to be made. I am still slightly surprised that people have not been successful in certain aspects of getting this JR-ed at some point. So here we are. We have projects going when they have barely started, or in some cases have not even started, the planning process.
I have proposed this new clause to restore some credibility to planning, to restore some credibility to the idea that it is not just a commercial deal or a done deal. Ofgem should be restrained from granting this sort of funding process until at least the planning document has been submitted and ideally been given consent. For what it is worth, a lot of this kind of scepticism would go away if there was a genuine belief that the planning system meant anything at all.
I am conscious that, to try to get to 2030 on this accelerated timetable, we need to get on with these projects. I have already referred to previous ones where planning processes are still under way when we have already reached the consented capacity for a series of energy projects, and yet they keep coming.
No wonder people are desperate and tabling JRs, or pre-action protocols and the like. They are so frustrated with a machinery that says, “Yeah, we’ll sort of do the basics, but it is done”. This is the reason that I felt particularly strongly and wanted to table Amendment 94D: just to be a voice for people who want to believe that our country respects law and respects that there is not a predetermination. God alone knows how many consultations I went through as a Secretary of State when I was told, “Be very careful, you can’t come to a predetermination in all of this”. Yet Ofgem, of course, gives the game away.
I will not say any more. To be candid, I do not expect a huge response from the Minister. I am not trying to be rude in advance; perhaps I am predetermining what I am expecting to hear. Nevertheless, I am saying this for people right across the country: let us do the right thing; let us make sure that we are not allowing money to be printed for developers who have not even started the actual planning process. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to talk to Amendment 94D, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. This amendment concerns constraints on grants delivered by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. I simply ask the Minister whether he can clarify how the Government intend to ensure that such grants are awarded in a way that is both transparent and consistent across different technologies. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 94D tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to prohibit the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority—GEMA—from granting or considering early construction funding or accelerated strategic transmission investment unless planning consent has already been secured.
While I understand that network companies should not be given excessive funding for projects where procurement or construction costs are not yet incurred, I must urge noble Lords to consider the unintended consequences that this amendment would have for our energy infrastructure and our collective ambition to deliver a net zero-ready grid.
Let us be clear: the mechanisms in question, early construction funding and ASTI, are not blank cheques. They are carefully staged investments, including stages designed precisely to support the preparatory work that enables planning consent to be sought in the first place. This includes environmental assessments, route design, stakeholder engagement and technical feasibility studies. These are not luxuries; they are prerequisites for any responsible and successful planning application.
To deny access to funding before planning consent is granted creates a paradox. Planning consent cannot be obtained without preparatory work, and preparatory work cannot be funded without planning consent. This amendment risks trapping vital transmission projects in a bureaucratic cul-de-sac.
We are not debating theoretical infrastructure; we are talking about the backbone of our future clean energy system—projects that will connect offshore wind, solar and other renewables to homes and businesses across the country. These are the arteries of our economy. Delaying them risks not only our clean energy mission and net-zero commitment but the security and affordability of our energy and wider economic growth as grid capacity is needed to power new investments.
Moreover, GEMA already operates under a rigorous framework of accountability and oversight. Funding decisions are not made lightly; they are subject to scrutiny, cost-benefit analysis and alignment with strategic national priorities. To impose a statutory constraint at this stage would not enhance that process but hinder it. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Energy infrastructure projects: publication of environmental principles duty assessmentWhere an energy infrastructure project requires assessment by either—(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority,the individual or body making that assessment must publish its assessment of the environmental principles duty in full, including advice provided and considered.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, again, I have split this amendment off from the other consideration of energy infrastructure projects. To cut to the chase, we need to make sure, bearing on some of the debate that we have had earlier about how we are going to achieve joint objectives, not only that we have a fit-for-purpose grid but about how we move the transition along. I have consistently tried to make the case that that cannot be done at the expense of the natural environment.
Arising from the Environment Act 2021 is a duty on Ministers specifically to consider policy in terms of environmental principles, but I think I am right in saying there is also a requirement to consider the genuine impact of projects when a Minister is giving consent to them. One element will be thinking about biodiversity as well as considering the natural capital accounts of the country—on which we do annual balance sheets which are put forward by the Treasury—and a key consideration should be what is happening as a consequence of the environment to any particular project. One of the things that I am afraid is somewhat shrouded in mystery here is that normally there is just the response, “Yes, we have considered this”, and nothing is shared with the country. My amendment is intended to ensure transparency.
I am conscious that the sub judice rule might apply, and there is already a legal case against the Deputy Prime Minister over her Section 20 statement regarding the Bill—I am assuming that, by extension, that applies to the Minister as well. However, it is important that not only Ministers but the wider country understand quite what is happening in this balance. The reason I say that is that primary legislation is already in place where the primary indicator is about the recovery of aspects of nature, particularly thinking of species. As a consequence, transparency is vital, and the OEP has been regularly pushing for a lot more transparency on exactly this sort of information so we have a sense of whether we are going to be anywhere close to hitting the targets that this Parliament has already agreed to in both primary and secondary legislation. On that basis, given the time of the evening, I simply beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing Amendment 94F to the attention of your Lordships. It would ensure that the duty relating to environmental principles was published in full. I ask the Minister: how are the Government going to monitor compliance in relation to environmental principles? As importantly, how will Parliament be kept informed of progress in this area? I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling her amendment and allowing us to ask those questions, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I was beginning to feel a bit of déjà vu before the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke in place of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.
Amendment 94F, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that where an energy infrastructure project requires an assessment in relation to the environmental principles policy statement by the Secretary of State or the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, this assessment and any advice provided and considered as part of that assessment is published.
As highlighted throughout today’s debate and in earlier discussions on the Bill, it is essential that we press ahead and deliver the critical infrastructure that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 and to achieve a clean power system by 2030. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling this amendment and for the opportunity to set out both how the environmental principles policy statement and the environmental principles more broadly are given due regard by this Government.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, we will return to a lot of this in Part 3 of the Bill, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.