(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberLet me start by acknowledging just how tough it has been for so many farmers this year, having been faced with the very extreme weather conditions. We have had very hot weather, following on from last year, when many suffered from floods. It is undeniable that we are seeing our climate changing. The Government are responding by tackling flooding, investing a record £8 billion in flood defences to protect homes and farms, helping to tackle problems in rural communities such as mine in the fens through our £91 million internal drainage board fund, and investing in nature-friendly farming, which boosts climate resilience, enhances farming profitability and secures food production.
Three of the UK’s five worst harvests have been in the last five years, and this year is looking particularly concerning, with yields likely to be down and margins for farmers on the brink. Just last month, the Bank of England said that extreme weather is now one of the key factors in driving food price inflation. Could the Minister elaborate on what other steps the Government are taking to mitigate food price inflation for consumers?
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, consumer food prices depend on a wide range of factors, including agrifood import prices, agricultural prices in general, domestic labour and manufacturing costs, exchange rates, productivity and the extreme weather we have been seeing, which inevitably impacts growth and livestock feed supplies. I reassure the House that the UK has a very resilient food supply chain, and as our food security report shows, it is well equipped to meet these challenges.
I recently visited the Dinsdale family farm to talk to the group of hard-working dairy farmers who provide milk to the Wensleydale Creamery to make their famous Yorkshire cheese. I know the Minister will join me in commending their contribution to British food security and the Dinsdale family for their innovative installation of an anaerobic digestion unit, which turns slurry into energy. Could he look at what more can be done to encourage small-scale on-farm AD units, which not only significantly cut methane emissions but significantly cut costs and increase income for our hard-working family farmers?
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I join him in commending the Dinsdale family for the work they do. I have spoken to a number of farmers who would very much like to do that. Of course, there is significant cost involved, and we are working with farmers to try to get the circular economy that we all want to see.
The depletion of soil health, the risk of disease and climate change threaten our food security for the longer term, and yet we need biotechnologies and sciences to ensure that we have a future in farming. Would the Minister be willing to meet the BioYorkshire project, which brings together Fera Science, the University of York, Askham Bryan College and others, to ensure we have the research and the translation and scaling of that to protect the future of farming?
I assure my hon. Friend that I have had numerous conversations with leading academics in her great city, and I would be happy to have further conversations along those lines.
In June, the Scottish Government made a very welcome commitment not to pursue a deliberate policy of reducing livestock numbers. Despite that, livestock numbers in Scotland continue to fall and have fallen by 15% over 10 years, so that across the United Kingdom we now risk losing the critical mass we need to maintain the network of abattoirs, hauliers, vets and merchants. If food security genuinely is national security, is now the moment to consider including within the remit of the Climate Change Committee the maintenance of food security?
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We absolutely recognise that food security is national security. He is right about the decline in herd sizes, but of course, there are other aspects here: we have seen higher productivity and changed genetics. It is a complicated picture, but I am happy to have further discussions with him on that.
The previous Conservative Government quite disgracefully let water bosses awards themselves more than £112 million in bonuses that they did not deserve. This Government are putting a stop to that. We have banned the payment of unfair bonuses and brought in new jail sentences for pollution offences. The Tory era of profiting from pollution is over.
This weekend, for more than 30 hours, waste water from toilets, sinks and drains flooded the River Lea, affecting local communities and spreading to east London, including the wetlands in Stratford and Bow. Thames Water continues to dump sewage and waste water in our rivers at an alarming rate, all while company bosses pay themselves millions in bonuses. May I thank the Secretary of State for the work that this Government are doing to crack down on that appalling practice, and ask what he is doing to ensure that the British public are not paying for that failure after receiving rising water bills? What is he doing to secure the serious investment that is needed for the health of our rivers?
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her constituents in east London, on this matter as on many others. With her support, this Government have secured a record £104 billion to upgrade crumbling pipes and build sewage treatment works across the country, so that we can cut sewage pollution. We have also ringfenced customers’ money, so that it can never again be diverted away from investment to pay for bonuses and dividends while sewage pollution got worse. That, of course, includes in the Lea valley.
This summer it was reported that the CEO of Yorkshire Water had received an extra payment from a parent company, in spite of recent admissions that it would not be appropriate to receive a bonus due to the company’s poor performance. Yorkshire Water has committed to improving transparency, but that is of little comfort to my constituents who are facing higher bills. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is wrong that those water bosses receive financial reward, when my constituents are facing higher bills and a shocking performance?
As my hon. Friend rightly says, that payment has outraged customers, and I have asked Ofwat to assess its legality as a matter of urgency. I will not tolerate any company attempting to circumvent this Government’s ban on unfair bonuses through exorbitant salary increases, secret bonuses, payments through parent companies, or any other deception. If Ofwat finds that the rules have been broken, companies will face sanctions, including fines imposed at a level that will deter future abuses.
State-owned Scottish Water is responsible for the water supply across Scotland. Last week, thousands of residents in the Scottish Borders were left without water for days, and terrible communication by Scottish Water made matters worse. We were facing a public health crisis, as well as an animal welfare crisis. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish Government should undertake a full investigation into what happened and ensure that Scottish Water executives are held to account for their failure to act?
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising that important issue, and I agree with the points he makes. The SNP Government in Scotland should be taking a much tougher line against such situations, as it is not acceptable. Levels of pollution in England are bad enough, but under the SNP in Scotland they are even worse, and the SNP Government should be fully ashamed—[Interruption.]
The public will have been pleased to hear recently about the bonus ban for water company bosses, but they would have been equally surprised to hear that a water company boss in England was awarded a massive pay increase to £1.4 million, with the public being told that that was not a bonus but a two-year long incentive plan. What further steps can the Secretary of State put in place to ensure that water companies are playing fair, when those are the tactics that they use to circumvent the rules?
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which has been raised in the House before. That scheme was put in place and relates to years when the Conservative party was in government. That scheme would not be allowed today.
Customers were hit with outrageous bill increases last year as a direct result of the previous Government’s failure to ensure that water and sewage pipes were properly maintained over the long term. They deliberately imposed a light-touch approach to regulation that let the system crumble, while investment funding was diverted to line water bosses’ pockets, leaving customers to pay the price. Our powerful new regulator will get a grip on the sector and ensure the regular maintenance of pipes, so that hard-working British families are never again left to pay the price of under-investment and weak regulation.
In Derby, the proposed water bill increases of about 50% will hit people really hard over the next five years. It is a bitter pill to swallow, because at the same time as hiking bills, shareholder dividends are being increased and water companies continue to pollute our waterways. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that our Government will tackle such hypocrisy head on and, crucially, protect our residents from the water bill increases?
My hon. Friend is right to advocate so strongly for his constituents in Derby at a time when they are experiencing the cost of living crisis, as others are. I thank him for his support in blocking the unfair, multimillion-pound bonuses that were previously paid to water bosses. By ensuring that customers’ money is spent on upgrading the water system, rather than allowing it to be diverted to bonuses and dividends, he is helping to ensure that the bill hikes that resulted from Tory failure will never happen again.
Unbelievably, the Secretary of State has just doubled down, in the House, on the falsehood that he advanced on 21 July on “Channel 4 News” that pollution levels are worse in Scotland than they are in England. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not want to mislead the House. Will he take the opportunity to correct the record—
Order. “Falsehood” is not a word we would use. I am sure more constructive wording could be used.
Thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker.
The Secretary of State has inadvertently advanced the same argument that he did on 21 July on “Channel 4 News”. Will he clarify that pollution levels under publicly owned Scottish Water are substantially better than those under privately owned English water companies? Will he recognise that Scottish bill payers pay lower bills and that Scottish Water’s borrowing is sustainable and consistent with the value and quality of Scotland’s water?
The hon. Gentleman is showing why the problem persists—if the SNP does not recognise the problem, there is no way that it can fix it. I have published the data and I stand by it: pollution under the SNP in Scotland is even worse than it was under the Tories in England. He should be thoroughly ashamed of what he is doing to the beautiful countryside of the country that he represents.
The future of Thames Water is in sharp focus again, affecting millions of people and potentially the wider UK taxpayer. Bizarrely, the third party—along the Benches to my left—led legal action that could have sunk the company. Reform UK is also happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to a cost of billions and pushing consumer water bills through the roof. This Labour Government, in the passing of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, repeatedly blocked our Conservative amendment that would have enabled limits to be placed on the amount of money that can be borrowed by water companies.
As we reach a precipice with Thames Water, and given the Cunliffe review’s clear call for improved financial responsibility, will the Government rethink their approach and adopt sensible measures to put water companies on a more stable and secure financial footing to protect water, the environment and the British taxpayer?
The reason that Thames is in the state that it is in is the weak, so-called “light-touch” regulation that the Conservatives imposed on the water companies when they should have been getting a grip. The point beyond that that the hon. Gentleman makes is a sensible one, however, and our reforms to water regulation and indeed to the regulator are intended to ensure that such problems cannot happen again. In the case of Thames, we are of course keeping a very close eye on what is going on with that company. At the moment, it remains viable, but we are ready for all eventualities, should they occur.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs works with others to protect moorland by restoring peatland, managing grazing and reducing practices that in some cases can be harmful, such as burning. Those steps make peatland wetter to help reduce the impact of wildfires. We are reviewing the existing protection and will announce the next steps shortly.
A devastating wildfire has been raging on the North York moors, between Scarborough and Whitby, covering about 10 square miles—it is a huge fire. I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in commending the incredible bravery of our firefighters, as well as the tireless service of farmers, water tanker drivers, gamekeepers, landowners and all the other volunteers. Will the Minister provide reassurance that he will look carefully at proposals to limit controlled burning and to change the prohibition of burning on peat over 40 cm deep to peat over 30 cm deep, in the light of this year’s record number of uncontrolled fires, including the one on Langdale moor?
I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful contribution. I join her in expressing sympathy for all those who have been affected and I thank all those involved in fighting those fires. This is a cross-governmental issue. Wildfire and fire and rescue services are the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but my hon. Friend will be aware that we have been consulting on ending locational burning to improve moorland resilience to wildfire. We know that restoring peatlands with diverse plant species prevents the over-dominance of heather and molinia, which dry out peat and increase the risk of fire. Frankly, recent wildfires show just how degraded our peatlands have become.
I join the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) in paying tribute to the firefighters, farmers, gamekeepers and everybody who has taken part in fighting the moorland fires in North Yorkshire, just over the border from my constituency. Does the Minister agree about the huge importance of managing moorland? Managed burning of moorland not only improves the ecological status of the moorland, but reduces the threat of wildfire.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and that is why the consultation has been taking place. These are complicated issues, and sometimes controversial, but we all want to get those moorlands into a state where we are not subject to these dreadful fires.
The thanks of Conservative Members go out to all the emergency services, our mighty farmers and gamekeepers who have been consistently fighting the horrendous blaze on the North York moors. The Secretary of State is currently pushing a dangerous proposal to ban a vital conservation and land management measure through eliminating the use of controlled burning of heather on moorlands, which manages fuel load and helps to prevent out-of-control fires. Does the Minister now recognise that if the Government’s burning ban and deep peat changes go ahead, they will be responsible for more uncontrollable and far more damaging wildfires that negatively impact wildlife, our precious peatland and rural businesses?
No, I do not agree with the shadow Minister. I have chosen my words carefully: this is a complicated set of issues, we are consulting and we will be coming back with our proposals shortly.
My hon. Friend showed me the scale of pollution on the Dorset coast and I share his determination to put a stop to it. This Government are fixing the broken sewage pipes that are responsible for this pollution, funded by £104 billion of private investment that we have helped to secure. Over the next five years, that will fund Wessex Water, in his area, to cut storm overflow spills by 43%—a major milestone towards cleaning up for good beautiful places in his constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting with him, such as Bournemouth beach and Hengistbury.
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer and for his two visits to Bournemouth. People still talk happily about his visit to the Hengistbury Head Outdoors centre. I met recently with constituents in Bournemouth East who are calling for nationalisation as a way to improve accountability and investment in the water industry. How does the Secretary of State see a path towards nationalisation sitting within his wider efforts to protect our waters?
Nationalisation is not the answer, because it would require handing over more than £100 billion to water company owners that could only be raised through higher taxation or cuts to vital public services. It would also take years of legal wrangling that would see the brakes slammed on investment, causing pollution to get worse and, ultimately, lead to higher bills for customers. This Government are taking the fastest possible route towards cleaner water and fairer bills.
We in North Dorset would love to be talking about ministerial visits from the DEFRA team, but, despite an invitation to the Farming Minister, none have crossed the border to visit.
North Dorset farmers and landowners wish to play their active and fullest part to ensure that, through nitrate neutrality and other farming mechanisms, they are improving water quality to help the rivers that flow to the coast of Bournemouth, Christchurch, Poole and so on. Will the Secretary of State ensure that bodies such as the Environment Agency and others that advise our farmers provide consistent advice in a timely fashion in order to maximise their enthusiasm?
I have enjoyed visiting Milton Abbas on many very happy occasions. I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. We are working with farmers and landowners to ensure that they are getting the support they need to take the kind of action that he talks about. The new regional tier proposed by Sir Jon Cunliffe will give a place where farming and land managers can raise their voices and ensure that the outcomes they can contribute to are delivered.
We have introduced a new era of accountability. We are resetting, reforming and revolutionising the water sector, putting public health and the environment first and delivering the change rightly demanded by the British people. With the most ambitious targets on sewage water pollution in history, we will halve sewage water pollution by 2030.
Over the summer, we saw the announcement of a £50 million investment into Southport’s waste water treatment works to reduce the number of sewage overflows to just three per bathing season, allowing Southport to once again become the jewel in the crown of the north-west coast. Does the Minister agree that that level of investment is very much needed after more than a decade of Tory neglect of our waterways, and that it shows the difference a town can see when it has a Labour MP, a Labour council, a Labour metro mayor and a Labour Government here in Westminster?
Unsurprisingly, I could not agree more. I thank my hon. Friend for his work to champion his community here in Parliament. The previous Government oversaw record levels of sewage pollution in our rivers, lakes and seas, but this Government have secured £104 billion of private investment to upgrade crumbling pipes and halve sewage pollution by 2030, so that communities can once again take pride in their rivers, lakes and seas.
As I have reminded Ministers on a number of occasions, tackling pollution in our rivers and seas requires us to address agricultural pollution as well as sewage pollution. I am disappointed not to hear the Minister mention that, but I like to come with solutions. I recently visited the Wyescapes landscape recovery project in my constituency, which is an innovative farmer-led project of 49 farmers protecting soil, reducing pollution, restoring nature and producing great-quality food. Will the Minister, or perhaps her colleague the Farming Minister, come to visit this innovative project to see how we can tackle river pollution and protect nature and food production?
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. Agricultural pollution is incredibly serious, and this Government recognise that. We have updated the DEFRA statutory guidance for the farming rules for water, and I recently hosted a roundtable with farmers, environmental organisations and the water industry to bring the voices of stakeholders to the fore. We have committed to including a new regional element in the new regulator to ensure greater involvement in water planning. By moving to a catchment-based model for water systems planning, we can tackle all sources of pollution entering the waterways, including agricultural pollution.
I have a very keen interest in the River Wye; I went to see it last year, and it is absolutely beautiful. The hon. Lady will be well aware of the research project with £1 million of funding that we announced to look into all sources of pollution and what we can do to clean up this beautiful place in our country.
I welcome the fact that the rolling reporting of dry-day spills has become mandatory under our Government, but it has unfortunately laid bare the track record of South West Water, which is among the worst offenders on dry-day spills. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that companies such as South West Water feel the full force of the law with regard to dry-day spills?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be angry about the state in which our rivers, lakes and seas have been left, and I recognise the trouble that a failing water company causes for his constituency. That is why we have committed to resetting, reforming and revolutionising the water sector and why we are establishing a new, single and powerful regulator that can fully hold all companies to account and ensure that they are delivering for the British people and cleaning up our waterways for good.
Run-off from chicken manure is a particular problem in the bathing waters and rivers in Shropshire. I have visited both Harper Adams University and LOHAS Fertiliser in my constituency, which have great new technologies to deal with chicken manure, stabilise it and moving that great fertiliser to other parts of the country where it causes fewer problems. However, they cannot scale up, so what steps is the Minister taking to enable the new technologies that could deal with some of these problems to be scaled up and used across the country?
The hon. Lady raises a really interesting point—it is perhaps worrying how interested I am getting in what we can do with manure and human waste to provide organic fertiliser in our country. She has given a brilliant example of what can be done, and I will make sure that the Minister who is responsible for the circular economy, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), gets to hear about it and learn more.
Funding for the environmental land management schemes paid to farmers will increase by 150%, from £800 million in 2023-24 to £2 billion by 2028-29. Sadly, though, we inherited a set of schemes that did not necessarily distribute funds fairly. We are working with farmers to reshape the SFI, and further information about our reforms will be provided shortly.
Like the National Farmers Union, I welcome the protections for the agriculture budget in the recent spending review, including crucial funding for sustainable farming. On visits to farmers in my constituency, the difference this is making is clear: it is investing in our countryside and supporting nature-based farming. However, far too many farmers on small and medium-sized farms tell me that the scheme is far too difficult for them to access at the moment. Those are exactly the farmers who are also likely to be locked out of private nature-based financing options, so how can we work with those farmers to reform the scheme and ensure that more of those small and medium-sized farms can benefit from this crucial funding?
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I commend him on his interest and his insight. He is absolutely right, and we are learning from past SFI iterations and from what we are hearing from farmers to improve the SFI for all farmers and to ensure we can give better guidance and that everyone can have a share of the pie. We are also looking into a new local advice and collaboration offer, as well as considering how we can get the best environmental outcomes from the money we are spending.
After the elephant in the room that is the farm-destroying family farm tax, the No. 1 issue that is raised with me by Mid Buckinghamshire farmers—not least at the Bucks county show last week—is the uncertainty over the future of the SFI. I do not think it is going to cut it with farmers to say that further details will be provided in due course. They need certainty and they need it now, so will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and put a firm date on when farms will have that certainty, as well as assuring them that the new SFI will have food production at its heart?
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that we will be making announcements on this very shortly. [Interruption.] We are picking up a disastrous mess inherited from the previous Government—this is absolutely true—who were quite cavalier about the way in which these schemes were run. We are having to clear up that mess, but I absolutely sympathise with farmers, who should not have been put in that position in the first place.
Given the Secretary of State’s love of Dorset, I would love to invite him to Mid Dorset, where Goodens farm is doing some really innovative things on very small family farms, especially with manure. Mr Randall, who runs that farm, joined the sustainable farming incentive last year, which enabled him to start growing a new crop—herbal leys. Because climate change is making farming so tough, he is trying everything he can to keep his business going. The SFI allowed him to take that risk, but it is no longer available to him. As he put it, we need farm security if we want food security, so what steps is the Minister taking to look after farmers on our very smallest farms, who are critical to food production?
There was a lot in that question. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that herbal leys have been very effective, and many people have seen the impact they have had during the dry weather. It is also interesting that these schemes are now available to much smaller enterprises than they ever were under the previous schemes. There is much that can be done, and we are redesigning the schemes to make them work towards achieving exactly the outcomes that the hon. Lady is seeking.
As we have heard, this summer has seen wildfires burning across our countryside. I add my thanks to the emergency services, who were out in force to battle those fires, but so too were farmers, gamekeepers and local volunteers who gave up their time and resources to control the fires and help put them out. I pay tribute to all of them for their selfless bravery and community spirit.
The fires came at the end of a long period of drought. Visiting farms this week and earlier in the summer, I saw for myself how food production has been affected. It is clear that further work is required to support farmers to build on-farm reservoirs and irrigation systems that can sustain their businesses through dry periods, and I have invited the NFU to work with me on that. I want to use this opportunity, though, to thank farmers for the outstanding work that they do to feed our country through thick and thin.
As we move into autumn, flooding is once again on the minds of residents in Rossendale and Darwen. This Government have already made vital commitments to our flood defences, but recently some communities have expressed concern that flood modelling is out of date and is either not fully identifying risk areas or identifying risk areas as high-risk that no longer are. The Environment Agency is aware of that, so will the Secretary of State join me in urging it urgently to prioritise new modelling?
My hon. Friend makes an important and timely point. Through the floods resilience taskforce, we are looking at how we can update the modelling to make sure that all areas that need protection will get the investment to do it, because far too many communities are exposed to the dangers of flooding. That is why we are investing £4.2 billion between 2026 and 2029 to protect our communities and better maintain our flood defences in England.
May I join the Secretary of State and everyone across the Chamber in thanking the fire services, farmers and rural communities for their hard work and bravery in tackling the wildfires that we have seen this summer?
I am heartened to discover the Secretary of State’s new fondness for farmers. We will all be listening carefully to his answer to the next question. With 89% of farmers saying that they have paused or delayed investment because of the Budget, and with food prices rising, record farm closures under his watch, and Labour’s own think-tank admitting that the family farm tax needs changing, will he finally do the right thing, put rural communities above his own ambitions and axe the family farm tax?
First, may I welcome the shadow Secretary of State back to the Chamber? It was disappointing that she did not bother to turn up for the water statement; I can only assume that she does not care much about the pollution that her party is responsible for across the country.
When it comes to farming, we are working with the farming sector on a road map to bring it back to profitability. That is the route to ensure that those businesses remain financially viable and successful into the future. It was her Government who left so many farmers on the brink of bankruptcy, so it takes only small problems to push them over the edge. Some 12,000 farms closed under the previous Government. We are working with the sector to make it profitable for the future.
I hate to break it to the Secretary of State, but I suspect I have spoken to far more farmers than he has in the past 12 months. They do not believe a word he says, because he betrayed what he said to them before the election about the family farm tax. As for this road map, if farms continue to close—more than half of farmers are thinking of giving up in the next five years because of this Government’s plan—it will be a road map to nowhere. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England told the Treasury Committee that the rise in food prices was due in part to measures in the last Budget placing higher costs on food businesses. In light of that and the terrible summer harvest, will the Secretary of State do farmers a favour for once and rule out a new wealth tax on farmland in the next Budget—yes or no?
The causes of food price inflation include rising global energy prices, extreme weather events that have been affecting harvests, as we have already heard, and global supply chain problems, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Those things are affecting food prices right across the country. As part of the road map, we are working with farmers to ensure more supply chain fairness, so that the producer of origin gets a fairer share of the money that is made through the system for the food that they grow. That is the best way in which we can support farms to get their fair share of the revenue that comes in for the food they produce.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we should all be proud of high-quality British producers like Longley farm. That is why, back in July, I announced our food strategy, which will build pride in British food by ensuring we have a food system that backs British food, grows the economy, feeds the nation, nourishes individuals and protects the planet—now and in the future.
I thank the hon. Lady for her important question, and I share her concern about the risks that microplastics may pose to the environment and human health. That is why we are looking at all sources of pollution that enter our rivers, lakes and seas, but there is obviously more work to be done to improve our understanding. The Environment Agency is collaborating with different sectors, including the water industry and National Highways, to increase our evidence base and knowledge of these materials.
May I also express my disappointment about the global plastics treaty? We were unable to reach an international agreement, but I reassure all Members of the House that the Government remain committed to seeking a global solution to the problem of plastic pollution that we all face.
I commend my hon. Friend for his successful championing of this issue on behalf of his constituents. I know how much it means to his community to have such boats removed. It is an important issue, and I am more than happy to follow up with the Canal & River Trust in order to understand if it needs any additional tools to continue and complete this work around the country.
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, and I visited an abattoir last week. Because of the changes to the system over a number of years, we have seen a concentration of these facilities. We all want to see more small abattoirs. The previous Government introduced a fund, but it proved difficult to get uptake. There is a whole range of serious issues. We are very aware of the problem, and we want to work with him and others to solve it.
Well, I was not far away a couple of weeks ago—I was down in Lewes. I congratulate my hon. Friend on being such a powerful campaigner on issues relating to sewage in his constituency. He tells me that he has brought together a group of campaigners. I would be delighted to meet him and them to see some of the problems and talk about how we can start to fix the appalling problems with pollution that the Conservative party has landed us with.
I am always happy to meet farmers. That is why I have visited two farms already this week and sat down with a group of six farmers to talk about their concerns. I am more than happy to make sure that the people the hon. Gentleman has visiting get an appropriate meeting to discuss their concerns.
Anyone involved in the vile trade of people smuggling will be met with the full force of the law. This year, 67% more offences for facilitating illegal entry into the UK were prosecuted. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will allow for more prosecutions, including by criminalising the creation of online material that facilitates a breach of UK immigration law.
I welcome the Government’s steps to deter people smuggling and end the exploitation of vulnerable people. I also want to highlight the work that Wolverhampton City of Sanctuary does in my constituency to help refugees rebuild their lives. As the Home Secretary confirmed only this week, one of the Government’s major reforms is developing controlled and managed routes for genuine refugees. Does the Solicitor General agree that having safe and legal routes for asylum seekers is a crucial step in undermining the business model of the people smuggling gangs?
Developing controlled and managed routes for genuine refugees is important. This is one of a host of robust, concrete and practical measures that the Government are taking to crack down on the vile activities of people smuggling gangs. I contrast our approach with that of the Conservative party, which left us with this borders crisis, and with that of Reform, which is happy to stoke anger but has absolutely no answers.
To stop the small boats, it is crucial that the Labour Government provide global leadership to smash the criminal gangs. Can the Solicitor General set out the work that we are doing with other countries to secure our borders and end this appalling trade in human life?
My hon. Friend rightly highlights this Government’s global leadership on these issues, which is part of our plan to fix the borders crisis left to us by the last Government. We have agreed a landmark deal with France, and we have increased co-operation with Germany and other countries. We have removed 35,000 people with no right to be here, and increased the removal of failed asylum seekers by 30%. We are giving Border Security Command counter-terrorist-style powers through our borders Bill, which is a Bill that both Reform and the Conservative party voted against.
My constituents in Halesowen continue to be concerned about the number of people crossing to the UK on small boats. They are calling for swift and tough action against the people smugglers responsible for these dangerous crossings, which are putting the lives of women and children at risk. Can the Solicitor General outline how she is supporting this action?
I have heard from Crown Prosecution Service prosecutors about the deplorable actions that the smugglers take in not only facilitating very young children being aboard the boats, but even sedating them to ensure they are compliant during the crossing. My hon. Friend is right that the dangers faced by people, particularly children, when they cross the channel are extremely grave. This Government are absolutely determined to break the business model of the people smugglers, so protecting our borders and stopping lives, including young lives, being put in such danger.
Will the Solicitor General commit to working across Cabinet to publish the number of people smuggling cases that have collapsed before trial over the past five years, and the reasons why they have collapsed?
I think this is important to look at, and I want to highlight that the CPS is taking considerable action to prosecute these offences. We have given the CPS extra funding to increase its capacity to work on Border Security Command cases, and the money will allow the CPS to recruit additional staff in the areas at the frontline of combating organised immigration crime.
I thank the Solicitor General for what she is personally trying to do, and indeed the rest of the Government. If we are to prosecute people smugglers effectively, we need global action. May I focus her attention on the Republic of Ireland? We have a porous border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and the people smuggling gangs are using that without any inhibitions whatsoever. What has been done with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that that does not happen?
I am more than happy to look at that, but the point the hon. Member makes about international co-operation is extremely important. That is why I highlighted our groundbreaking deal with France—it is a deal that the Conservatives were unable to do—which will be absolutely key to stopping people crossing the channel.
I completely disagree with what the Solicitor General has said about the previous Government’s record in this area, and it is a bit rich in view of her Government’s record over the past 12 months. Reports reveal that Ministers will soon replace immigration judges with professionally trained adjudicators. We are told that is to tackle the 51,000 case appeal backlog, which will of course involve cases of people smugglers. Can she please confirm how long it will take to put that in place and whether it will require primary legislation?
The Conservatives left us with a borders crisis, and we are fixing it. The shadow Solicitor General said that we are setting up a new independent body to clear appeals more quickly, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have doubled the number of asylum decisions already: we are sorting out their mess.
Figures are going up and up and up, and the Solicitor General knows that. Can she confirm who these adjudicators will be—it would be lovely if she would answer the question—and will existing first-tier tribunal judges of the immigration and asylum chamber be eligible to apply?
As I said, we are setting up a new independent body to clear appeals more quickly. We are clearing up the Conservatives’ mess, and the Home Secretary will bring forward plans in the areas that the hon. Lady mentions.
The grooming and sexual exploitation of young girls in this country is nothing short of sickening, and the Government are doing everything in our power to secure justice for the victims and protect children from further harm. The Crown Prosecution Service has significantly increased prosecutions for child sex offences and recently secured convictions against three offenders for truly hideous crimes going back to 1999.
From my time as Lancashire’s police commissioner, I have seen the fruits when the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts worked together to prioritise the listing of cases involving rape and serious sexual assault, as we know that victims and witnesses are less likely to continue with a prosecution the longer it continues. Can the Solicitor General update us on the work being done to ensure that those agencies work together to support the victims and prioritise those case listings?
As the hon. Gentleman will know, listing is a matter for the independent judiciary. However, I can tell him that certain areas have pilot schemes of weekly listing meetings across criminal justice partners to ensure—as he says—that we lessen victim attrition, which is unfortunately far too high as a result of the record court backlog.
I welcome the fact that the backlog of those cases will be examined again, and that historical cases will be looked at, but one of the challenges is that whistleblowers in local authorities were sacked under non-disclosure agreements. What advice is the Crown Prosecution Service providing to ensure that those NDAs are removed so that we can get to the truth of what happened with those terrible crimes against young girls?
The hon. Gentleman refers to a very important issue, which is why I am pleased to tell him that through our flagship Crime and Policing Bill we are working to implement the key recommendations from the Jay review, one of which is including long-overdue mandatory reporting duties for those working with children. It also includes making grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing and crucial changes to address safeguarding loopholes.
The Conservatives failed to implement a single recommendation from the report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, despite holding more than 20 meetings, events and roundtables on the issue. Alexis Jay herself spoke of the huge disappointment and anger at their response. What work are the Government doing to implement these recommendations and those from the Casey review?
As we heard from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), in the House this week, the Home Office is making important progress in implementing those recommendations. Thousands of cases have been identified for formal review, and priority cases—those involving an allegation of rape—are being reviewed urgently. Increasing funding for the tackling exploitation programme will allow all police forces to access cutting-edge technology to combat these horrific crimes.
Alongside the failure to go after some of the evil perpetrators of these crimes without fear or favour, another devastating failing of the grooming gangs scandal was the criminalisation of some of the young people involved by a system that all too often failed to see them as children and victims first. How is the Solicitor General working with colleagues right across Government to ensure that we can disregard those convictions as quickly as possible, and so that such key failings cannot happen again?
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the CPS is working actively alongside the Government to ensure that the criminal convictions for victims of child sexual exploitation, with the offence in that case being prostitution, are being disregarded, which is extremely important.
Better use of technology is key to reforming all our public services, including the criminal justice system, from the police and the CPS to our courts, prisons and probation services. This Government are absolutely determined to harness all the power and potential of new technology to the benefit of the public, those who work in our public services and, of course, the public purse.
I thank the Solicitor General for that answer. The courts system and all the associated IT have been left in the most catastrophic state by the previous Conservative Government. It is shocking that £2 billion was spent on a civil courts IT system that cannot even handle litigation where there is more than one claimant or defendant, which is basic and normal. The particular issue that worries me today, though, is the Legal Aid Agency and the state of its IT system; as she will know, it was the subject of a cyber-attack in the spring. Could she update us on that situation and on any potential plans to build back better?
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend accurately describes the years of neglect of the justice system under the previous Government. She asks specifically about the Legal Aid Agency. The Government took immediate action to bolster the security of the agency’s systems and an injunction was put in place to prohibit the sharing of any breached data. We have put in place contingency plans to ensure that those most in need of legal support can continue to access the help that they need, and we are working at pace to restore services quickly and safely.
This Government are committed to restoring confidence in the criminal justice system, which means ensuring that victims of crime are properly supported through the justice process. The CPS is taking a range of measures to better support victims, including by offering pre-trial meetings to adult victims of rape and serious sexual assault, recruiting victim liaison officers to act as a consistent point of contact for victims, and delivering the groundbreaking victim transformation programme.
Earlier this year, I visited Southend-on-Sea Rape Crisis centre, where we discussed how extended court delays put pressure on the third sector organisations that provide this vital support. Under the previous Government, the total backlog of all court cases soared, with 73,000 victims left waiting years for their day in court. Now, we finally have a Government who are putting victims first. Our Labour Government have allocated the highest number of sitting days on record. How is the CPS playing its role in getting quicker justice for victims?
My hon. Friend rightly highlights the necessary and important action that this Government are taking to address the crisis in our courts. Alongside that, the CPS is using every tool at its disposal to reduce the backlog, including by trialling new initiatives to expedite domestic abuse trials and weekly listing meetings with partners in the criminal justice system.
I recently visited a Colchester organisation, the Centre for Action on Rape and Abuse, or CARA, which offers vital support to victims of rape and sexual abuse. Will the Solicitor General reaffirm the Government’s commitment to supporting such organisations, which carry out so much of that vital frontline work, and will she reiterate what she is doing to enhance the number of rape trials that actually proceed?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the important role that organisations such as CARA play in supporting victims of rape and serious sexual violence. Supporting victims throughout the criminal justice process is a priority for this Government, and we are taking a range of measures to do just that, including implementing Raneem’s law to embed dedicated domestic abuse teams within 999 control rooms and introducing free independent legal advisers for victims of adult rape.
As the Solicitor General knows, I have been campaigning to support victims of spiking. I thank her for meeting me before the recess, but unfortunately the correspondence from her office subsequent to that meeting seems to entirely miss the point and does not follow at all the conversation we had. Given that it quotes heavily the CPS, will she agree to meet again with me, and with representatives from the CPS, to understand the loophole in the law that I have identified? It would be a tragedy for the victims of spiking if this were not dealt with because of something as frustrating as a misunderstanding by people who were not in the room at the time.
The hon. Member has done important work in this area. We met previously to discuss the potential for reckless spiking, and I entirely understand why he is concerned about that. The correspondence that we sent reflected that we had had discussions with the CPS who felt that the circumstances that he was concerned about were very unlikely to arise. However, I am more than happy to meet him again if he believes that there are issues that need to be further clarified.
Close followers of Parliament will know that I have raised on more than one occasion a case of stalking in my constituency. Despite being reported, arrested and charged continually by the police, he keeps getting released on bail. The police are frustrated, and my resident is being let down. What assurance can I provide her and others in the same position that the CPS takes seriously repeat offenders and that their repeat offending is taken into account when they finally come to court?
The hon. Member raises a very important point, and I acknowledge how damaging stalking can be to people’s lives, particularly when it comes to repeat offenders. We have set out new measures to tackle stalking, including statutory guidance to empower the police to release the identities of online stalkers and a review of the stalking legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
Fraud is the most common type of crime in the UK. It hurts individuals and businesses and undermines everyone who plays by the rules—and it undermines economic confidence too. That is why the Government have underlined their commitment to tackling economic crime by providing the SFO with an £8 million boost as part of the spending review. That will bolster the SFO’s intelligence capabilities so that it can proactively identify and prosecute the biggest and most complex economic crimes.
A businessman in my constituency has been defrauded of £100,000. Local police lack the skills and resources to investigate, and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau says that it cannot identify a line of inquiry, even though my constituent has compiled evidence himself. To his great credit, my constituent is more concerned about how many more victims there will be while such crimes go uninvestigated and unpunished. Will the Solicitor General meet me to discuss how we can ensure that this crime is properly investigated and these wretched fraudsters are brought to justice?
I am very sorry to hear about the position that my hon. Friend’s constituent has been put in. I am sorry to say that it encapsulates perfectly why fraud is so damaging. The Government are doing everything in our power to crack down on fraud and corruption and support victims of these crimes. I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to see what more might be done in this case.
The newly built Launceston primary school in my constituency was demolished and then rebuilt, costing millions of pounds because of serious defects in the building. The contractor at fault went into administration. Unfortunately, this is far from a stand-alone case; it is happening across the country. Individual developers are putting their companies into liquidation and then setting up a new one, evading their obligations to finish vital infrastructure such as roads and sewage works. Such cases often leave Government Departments, homeowners and the British taxpayer out of pocket. What steps is the Serious Fraud Office taking to tackle these all-too-common cases, and will the Solicitor General please consider new legislation to prevent such developers from getting away with such serious fraud?
I am sorry to hear about the position that the hon. Member’s constituents have been put in. It is a terrible example, which I am sure needs to be looked at much more closely. As he knows, the Serious Fraud Office is operationally independent. As a highly specialist agency, it takes on a number of complex economic crime cases each year. The case he raises may be one for it; it may also be one for Action Fraud. I am more than happy to examine it further and to raise it with the appropriate agency.
The Government inherited a record court backlog in the Crown court. On taking office, we took immediate action, including by funding a record high number of sitting days. The CPS is playing its part to help tackle these issues. That includes setting up a surge team, which has completed more than 12,000 pre-charge decisions, contributing significantly to reducing the backlog.
The Solicitor General confirms the horrendous backlog in the Crown court to us all. In one case in my constituency, one victim, Dani, will have to wait more than six years to get justice. Dani is just 21 and has been a victim of grooming and sexual abuse. Does the Solicitor General agree that for Dani and many others, justice delayed is justice denied? What further urgent steps will the Government take to tackle the backlog?
I am extremely sorry to hear about Dani’s case. The previous Government closed over 260 court buildings, and the human cost of the delays as a result of the backlog is really considerable. Victims are waiting years for justice, and attrition in rape cases in particular has more than doubled in the last five years. As I said, on taking office we took immediate action, and not only in relation to sitting days. We have also committed to investing up to £92 million more a year in criminal legal aid, and we are taking action to ensure that there are more specialist counsel available, too.
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Last year, 446 Crown court trials were ineffective because the prosecutor failed to attend. Given that the Government are getting to grips with the backlog they inherited by increasing sitting days and through Brian Leveson’s proposals, is the Solicitor General concerned that the CPS also needs to step up to the plate? What is she doing to ensure that that happens?
The CPS is indeed stepping up to the plate to play its role in reducing the backlog. In line with the Government’s manifesto commitment, the CPS is exploring options for expanding the role of non-legal resources to support the system. It has also set up the surge team that I referred to. I can also confirm that the CPS is working with the judiciary, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and other criminal justice system stakeholders on a range of local initiatives, including a trial blitz, case resolution courts and weekly listing meetings.
I know how much work my hon. Friend has been doing to support justice for Hillsborough families and indeed to push for a Hillsborough law. As she knows, I am unable by convention to disclose whether the Law Officers are advising the Government—nor, of course, the content of any advice—but I know that colleagues are working to bring forward a Hillsborough law as soon as possible.
The families have been campaigning for a Hillsborough law for 36 years, and their demand has always been clear: a law with a duty of candour at its heart. There have been too many broken promises and missed deadlines. Can the Solicitor General tell me when the Government will bring forward the Hillsborough law? Will it honour the promises made to victims of state cover-ups and finally deliver justice for the 97?
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She has been a resolute and steadfast champion for the Hillsborough families, and indeed for the justice she referred to. As she knows, the Government, including the Prime Minister, have been working closely with the families, and I can confirm that the draft Bill will include a statutory duty of candour for public servants, with criminal sanctions for those who do not comply, and measures to decisively tackle the disparity between the state and bereaved families at inquests. As to timing, I know that everyone is working extremely hard to get the legislation right. The Government hope to be in a position to introduce a Bill to Parliament very soon.
The hon. Member will appreciate that as a Law Officer I cannot talk about the specifics of legal advice to Government. However, he will be aware of paragraph 1.6 of the ministerial code that acknowledges the overarching duty on all Ministers to comply with the law. That obligation is inherent in all the advice that the Law Officers give to Government.
By the end of September, more than 640,000 Gazans are projected to face catastrophic food insecurity, while the integrated food security phase classification predicts that a further 43,000 Palestinian children will be at severe risk of death from malnutrition by next year. The Government will have received legal advice regarding the famine in Gaza and Israel’s role in it. Will the Solicitor General commit to publishing any advice that the Government have received on whether breaches of international law have occurred in the conflict in Gaza?
The hon. Member will appreciate that I cannot comment on any legal advice that may or may not have been given or, indeed, whether it has been sought. What I can confirm to him is twofold. First, the Government take their legal obligations extremely seriously. Secondly, the Government are very clear in our position that the horrors taking place in Gaza need to be brought to an end.