Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we begin today’s business, I wish to inform the House that during the summer recess I had the honour of attending the sixth World Conference of Speakers of Parliament, organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in close collaboration with the United Nations. The conference brought together 100 Speakers from around the world to discuss the vital role that Parliaments play in strengthening global governance and bridging the democracy gap in international affairs. A key theme was the urgent need to restore public trust in democracy and its core institutions. Following my time in the Chair on Thursday, I travelled to Ottawa to participate in the 23rd meeting of Speakers of the G7 countries, hosted by the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons. The summit focused on the shared challenges facing democratic systems, including the rise of disinformation and increasing political polarisation. It was a valuable opportunity to exchange perspectives and explore collaborative approaches to safeguarding democratic values.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I am sure that the House will want to offer its sympathies to His Majesty and the royal family on the passing of the Duchess of Kent.
The world is more dangerous and less predictable that ever, and as a result we need a strong British defence industry that is capable of innovating ahead of our adversaries. Our defence industrial strategy, launched later today, will meet that challenge. It will create jobs, grow skills, and drive innovation. It will make defence an engine for growth in every region and nation of the UK, and it will put Britain at the leading edge of innovation within NATO.
Dr Gardner
The growing advanced ceramics industry in north Staffordshire is a key creator of the unique advanced ceramic materials that are required for His Majesty’s fighting capability, including unique armour materials for defence, ultra high-speed munitions, and the detection and security of our communications. There is a time-based opportunity to create a sovereign capability for the development and supply of ceramic matrix composites that our UK defence forces need, and so enhance the resilience of our defence supply chain. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the creation of that sovereign capability, and visit my constituency to see for himself the range of companies and skills on offer?
John Healey
I know that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend. She recognises the truth at the heart of the need for a strong British defence industry that is resilient and capable of supporting the businesses, jobs and innovation that we need to develop here in Britain. Gone will be the days when we let contracts in the defence field without worrying where the jobs, businesses, and long-term investment will go.
Katrina Murray
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Stewart-Buchanan Gauges, a proud employee-owned business in my constituency that supplies high-quality gauges and valves to clients in more than 50 countries. It even provides gauges for the SpaceX shuttle, and it exemplifies the world-class small and medium-sized enterprises that drive our economy and support the defence sector. Will the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that firms such as Stewart-Buchanan Gauges are included in defence innovation initiatives and remain integral to UK supply chains?
John Healey
I take my hat off to the firm in my hon. Friend’s constituency—it is exactly those sorts of businesses that are the backbone of a strong British defence industry. Small or medium-sized companies, often with the potential to grow, have not in the past seen support from Government. That is why we have set up an SME support centre that is dedicated to making it easier to access Government contracts, and why we will ringfence £400 million of direct defence investment that will go to SMEs. That will grow in each successive year.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
That is the story of my life—I am always the reserve, but I am always happy to step in. [Laughter.]
Boxer, Challenger 3 and now the gun barrel facility are going to be based in my constituency—well, I hope the latter will be in my constituency, but certainly in Shropshire. Will the Secretary of State put on the record his thanks for all the work of the men and women —the new engineers, the 100 new employees—taken on for the Boxer programme since March by Rheinmetall Defence and Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land? Shropshire is a defence hub, and I ask the new ministerial team—some of them are here for me to welcome them today—whether the Government will continue to invest in Shropshire, recognising the link between local universities and colleges, and the defence supply chain.
John Healey
Far from being the reserve, the right hon. Gentleman is first up for the Opposition this afternoon, and I welcome that and the investment in Shropshire. I reassure him that the Government will continue to support that. I pay tribute, as he encouraged me to do, to the workforce in his area. When the defence industrial strategy is published, the House will see how we are looking to define not just the British industry, but investors, entrepreneurs and the workforce as an essential part of strengthening British industry and innovation, and the future for British jobs.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Following the recent news that Norway will purchase Type 26 frigates, the speculation in the media before the weekend was that the Danish navy might also be about to place a significant order for the Type 31. Will the Secretary of State soon be able to give the UK additional good news?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is right that this is the biggest British warship deal ever, and it is Norway’s biggest ever defence contract. When the Prime Minister of Norway announced the detail, he said, “We asked ourselves two questions: who is our best strategic partner, and who builds the best warships?” The answer to both was Britain. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I hope—we will work to ensure this—that that leads to other export contracts that will bring jobs and a future to British industry.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
Travelling the country and speaking to veterans, our postcode lottery for veteran support across the nation is not lost on me. Veterans have to repeat their stories between six and nine times to land on the support that they deserve. That is why the Government have taken the unprecedented step of investing £50 million over three years to set up Valour—three big chunks across the strategic, regional and local level to redesign our support mechanism for veterans. That will increase the headquarters size, it will allow liaison officers into our regional councils and, at the local level, it will take the best hubs to provide wraparound welfare and services for veterans. It will give our veterans the deal that they deserve.
David Chadwick
For more than two centuries, Gurkha veterans have served our country with extraordinary loyalty and bravery. Many of them and their families have strong ties to my constituency in Brecon. Yet to the shock of many, thousands who retired before 1997, despite fighting shoulder to shoulder with their British comrades, often suffering injuries and wounds in the process, remain on inferior pensions, leaving too many in poverty. Does the Minister agree that that injustice cannot be allowed to stand? Will he commit to ensuring that all Gurkha veterans receive fair and equal pensions in recognition of their service?
Al Carns
We have a proud and distinguished history of Gurkha soldiers serving in the British Army and across defence. I served with them in Afghanistan and across many other conflicts. The Bilateral Gurkha Veteran Welfare Committee sat most recently in June of this year, and it continues to ensure that the needs of Gurkha veterans are met and understood fully. It is also worth noting that even among British service personnel from in and around that era, some did not qualify for a pension, so in some cases there is parity across the board. The Gurkha welfare advice centres provide handling support for a wide variety of welfare-related inquiries, alongside the Gurkha Brigade Association. I have also met the Nepalese ambassador and will do so again soon to discuss the issues.
Sarah Bool
From my proud support of the National Transition Event held annually at Silverstone in my constituency, I am aware of the work of Mission Community, a service charity tasked with the delivery of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs’ veterans industry engagement programme, which is designed to advocate for our veterans by working with industry trade bodies. What sectors will the Government focus on in their work so that veterans and their families feel the benefit, as well as that having a positive impact on our economy?
Al Carns
Veterans not only defended the nation while in service, but they go on to deliver the second mission of Government, which is to help us prosper. I have met representatives from Mission Community, which does a fantastic job, several times. It is worth noting that veterans who engage with our career transition pathway on transitioning to become civilians have an 88% success rate in going straight into employment. Op Ascend, which we launched at the National Transition Event, has seen thousands of families and veterans connected up with industry to move that collaboration forward. I will write the hon. Lady with details about specific industries in due course.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
This Government are resetting the relationship between those who serve and those who served. The Government’s response to the Defence Committee’s inquiry into the armed forces covenant was positive. Will the Minister provide an update on the work that is being to strengthen the covenant?
Al Carns
When we came into Government, the covenant covered three different Departments. We have made a pledge to armed forces service personnel, those who have served, their families and, indeed, those who have been bereaved that we will open that covenant—that duty—to 14 different Departments. Over time, that commitment will result in a step change in the Government’s relationship with those who have served, and it is a commitment that we will deliver.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
More than 200 service families lost loved ones during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister set out how the forthcoming legislation will enable closure for those families, who have had their wounds continually reopened for too long?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his question. It is not lost on me that during the troubles there were major explosions in key cities all over the country. From Brighton to Brimingham, individuals from both sides of the House had to take the precaution of checking under their beds and their cars, and ensuring that the lights were on before they went into certain rooms, because the chance of close-quarter assassination by terrorists was ever present. Some service personnel who were deployed to secure the peace paid the ultimate sacrifice and 200 families lost loved ones. That means that mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters had the truth denied to them as soon as the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 came into place. As a service person, I would always want my family to know what happened to me if I were to be killed in a conflict. Repealing and replacing the legacy Act will enable that, but we must ensure that the process does not come with punishment for veterans. We will ensure that protections are in place to allow us to get to the truth, and to ensure that no one can rewrite history or make veterans suffer any more.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Nearly a fifth of a million people have now signed the parliamentary petition to protect Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution, in opposition to Labour’s proposals for two-tier justice. Surely Ministers must understand that facilitating lawfare against our Army veterans, none of whom received letters of comfort after leaving their service, shows that Labour just does not have their back?
Al Carns
I highlight to the right hon. Gentleman that 200 families—200 mothers, fathers, brothers or sisters—of those that served had their inquest inquiries, insight and understanding closed off when the legacy Act came into place. They were serving members of the security forces and their families deserve truth. However, we must ensure that we also provide protection for veterans as we move forward, so that they are not subject to lawfare, as the right hon. Gentleman mentions, and that the process does not become the punishment for veterans as we move forward.
Mr Francois
Labour’s currently stalled remedial order would specifically make it easier for Gerry Adams and his friends to sue the British taxpayer while throwing our Army veterans, many of them recruited from red wall seats, to the wolves. After everything the Government put their Back Benchers through in recent months, are No. 10 and Ministers really intending to press ahead with this madness and do Gerry Adams a favour, at the expense of the soldiers who opposed him? Are they pressing ahead with the remedial order—yes or no?
Al Carns
The right hon. Gentleman is missing the point. He is trying to divide the House, veterans and the armed forces community, and it has got to stop. The reality is that we will produce legislation that will allow families to get to the truth. He should put himself in the shoes of the families who have lost loved ones, and then put himself in the shoes of veterans—I am a Northern Ireland veteran—and accept that if the protections are in place to ensure that the process does not become the punishment, we have a good solution.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
At the Hague summit in June, all 32 NATO nations agreed to step up and increase spending on national security to 5% by 2035. I am proud that this Labour Government played a leading part in the discussions that led to that historic agreement.
Mr Mohindra
Tomorrow we will vote on a Bill that shamefully gives up the sovereignty of our military base in Diego Garcia. Given the commitment to spend more on defence, will the Secretary of State confirm if the money spent on Chagos will be included in our declared NATO spend?
John Healey
The investment in Diego Garcia is a great investment in the defence and intelligence partnership with the United States. Together, we do things from Diego Garcia that cannot be done elsewhere; we do things together that we do not do with other nations. The deal is worth less than 0.2% of the annual defence budget. How is it that the Conservatives have got themselves on the wrong side of this argument about national security, when we stand alongside the US as our closest allies?
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Britain’s commitment to the 5% NATO target clearly sends a strong signal of our resolve, but that pledge must command public confidence that the money will be spent wisely. Can the Secretary of State provide more detail on how he is working with the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and others to ensure that every additional pound of public investment in defence delivers value for money for the taxpayer?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right. This is about not just how much the Government spend, but how well they spend. Mr Speaker, you will remember that under the previous Government, the Public Accounts Committee branded our defence procurement system as “broken”. We are reforming procurement, and that will be part of the statement this afternoon on the defence industrial strategy by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). At the heart of this, we made a commitment to the British people at the last election that we would raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, and we are doing that three years early. This is a Government who are delivering for defence and for Britain.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Defence Secretary says that the Chagos giveaway will amount to no more than 0.2% of our defence budget. Does that not suggest the cost of the Chagos giveaway will in fact come out of the defence budget?
John Healey
On the contrary, both the Foreign Secretary and I have been consistent that, taken across the range, the cost of the settlement with Mauritius for Diego Garcia is split between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. For defence, our commitment is less than 0.2% of the defence budget. That is a good investment for this country, and it gives us a sovereign right to operate that base with the Americans for the next 99 years.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the leadership displayed by the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary and our commitment to the historic 5% pledge. What steps will NATO take to further strengthen our response to growing Russian aggression?
John Healey
The response of NATO has produced results exactly to the contrary of those President Putin would have wanted when he invaded Ukraine three-and-a-half years ago. NATO is now bigger; it is 32 nations strong. The commitment that all 32 nations made in the June summit to increase national security spending to 5% by 2035 is a strong deterrent message to Putin, Russia and other adversaries, and it will make NATO bigger and stronger in order to deter in the years ahead.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones) and the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on their promotions. I also send my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle); it was always a pleasure to work with her.
On defence spending, can the Secretary of State confirm what percentage of GDP will be used to set the cost envelope for the defence investment plan?
John Healey
When we settle our defence investment plan and produce our annual report and accounts, the data that the hon. Gentleman seeks will be set out clearly and in the customary way to this House.
James Cartlidge
Interestingly, the answer is not 3.5%, it is not 3%, and it is not even 2.6%—those are the figures we declare to NATO; they are not from the Ministry of Defence budget. As the then armed forces Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, confirmed to me last week in a written answer, the amount we will spend on the defence investment plan comes entirely from the MOD’s departmental budget. Therefore, the actual figure for funding our future defence equipment is just 2.2% by 2027, with no funded plans to go any higher. Given the threats we face, is 2.2% enough?
John Healey
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the defence investment plan will be funded from the defence budget. That is exactly what will happen. It will be funded and supported by the record increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war—by the £5 billion extra in this year’s Budget—with an aim to spend 3% of GDP on defence during the next Parliament. These are commitments that the previous Conservative Government had 14 years to make, but never made. This is a Government who are delivering for defence and delivering for Britain.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
Defence as a whole has accepted 33 recommendations from the “Women in the Armed Forces” report. We have two outstanding elements still in train: the results of an armed forces sexual harassment survey, and a veterans strategy with a specific female veterans section. Both will be released in the autumn. On top of this, we have a tri-service complaints system—which I personally brought in—and the violence against women and girls taskforce, to make sure that any woman can serve with safety and pride.
Sarah Dyke
The Atherton report, published in 2021, surveyed 4,000 female service personnel and veterans. It revealed that 62% had been victims of bullying, discrimination, harassment or sexual assault during their service. Does the Minister recognise that at a time when we are expanding our armed forces, we must improve the overall experience of women in the military, protect female personnel, and help servicewomen achieve their full potential?
Al Carns
I could not agree more with the hon. Member. Obviously, in our Minister for the armed forces, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), we have an individual who has lived experience of being a female in the armed forces. It is really important to mention the individual who sits at the bottom of the command chain—where do they go if they are experiencing a problem? Where do they seek help, and who do they complain to? In some cases, they cannot do it within the chain of command. It may not be appropriate or they may not want to, which is why the violence against women and girls taskforce is so important, as well as the tri-service complaints system. It will allow people to come outside the command chain, raise those issues, and make sure they are dealt with appropriately.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
The Prime Minister has made tackling small boats and closing every asylum hotel a priority. Last week, I met ministerial colleagues from across Government to discuss how Defence will contribute to that work. We have deployed a military planning team to assist the Border Security Command and the Home Office, looking at military and non-military sites for temporary but adequate housing so that we can accelerate closing asylum hotels.
Mr Bedford
The safety and security of my constituents is my No. 1 priority. Given the national security risk posed by some of those who cross the English channel illegally, I ask the Minister to look again at using military assets to physically stop those small boats from landing in the first place. Will he do that today?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I share his passion for keeping our country safe. I refer him to the work of Operation Isotrope, a military operation undertaken by the last Conservative Government that put the Navy in charge of securing the English channel. That operation concluded that naval assets were not suitable for that task; it is already a dangerous crossing, and it concluded that military assets only made it more dangerous. That is why the armed forces are now assisting the Home Office and the Border Security Command, looking at how we can provide the accommodation that will enable us to close the asylum hotels, as well as how we can speed up the processing of asylum applications—something the Government that the hon. Gentleman backed shamefully stopped when they were in power. There is a lot of work to do, but we are making progress.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister has commented that he and the Government are considering using military barracks to house asylum seekers. While I thank him for his efforts to help address the small boats crisis by providing logistical planning support, I personally do not feel that operational responsibility for that should fall to our armed forces. The experience of Operation Isotrope under the Boris Johnson Government—widely criticised by the previous Defence Committee for causing confusion and reputational risk and for straining our already pressured military—serves as a clear warning. Can the Minister therefore issue iron-clad assurances to the House that any future MOD involvement within this field will be strictly limited, clearly defined and not strain our already pressured military?
Luke Pollard
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his question. The Ministry of Defence is part of the cross-Government response to small boats. We are stepping up our support to assist our colleagues in the Home Office. The Home Office remains the lead Department, but as every Department can contribute something to this effort, it is right that the Ministry of Defence does so. We continue to protect the nation and deliver the changes as laid out in the strategic defence review. Our No. 1 priority remains to keep this country safe.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
As I will shortly outline to the House, as part of the launch of the defence industrial strategy, this Government will set out an ambitious skills package that will grow, retain and develop the well-paid, high-skilled workforce that the UK requires to boost jobs and make defence an engine for growth in every nation and region of the country.
Sam Carling
Last week, I visited RAF Wyton in Huntingdonshire, which employs many of my constituents. Under the new cyber and specialist operations command, Wyton provides a critical part of our defence intelligence, and the plans to expand the work of the base will provide significant career opportunities for my constituents in northern Huntingdonshire. [Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) was there, too.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not want cross-party relationships broken on account of whose constituency something is in.
Sam Carling
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree that developing the defence industry in Huntingdonshire will unlock local growth and prosperity? Can he outline how we will support skills development to ensure my constituents can access these opportunities?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is a real champion of his constituents who work at RAF Wyton, and all those who could work there through the expanded opportunities, which I have spoken to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) about. I am glad that there is cross-party support for the investment that this Government could make. There is a real opportunity to use defence as an engine for growth, creating more opportunities for our young people in particular. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and the hon. Member for Huntingdon to discuss how we can further develop the opportunity at hand, in a spirit of cross-party consensus.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Charles Stewart Parnell came to this place and used British institutions against the British state. Now, in Scotland, we have First Minister John Swinney, who is a kind of pound-shop Parnell. Although we are hearing much about defence infrastructure across the UK, the SNP Government have a presumption against supporting defence industries in Scotland. What are we going to do about it? Defence sits here, not in Holyrood.
Luke Pollard
This Government’s approach is to create jobs and opportunity through the increasing defence budget in every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. The Norway frigate deal highlights how a UK Government selling our wares and our expertise on the global stage can provide additional jobs, with 4,000 jobs from that deal across the UK, including 2,000 in Scotland. While the SNP Government have been dithering on defence, this Labour Government have been delivering.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Louise Sandher-Jones)
It is a huge honour to be here, and I am very honoured.
We inherited a crisis in recruitment and retention. This Government are renewing the contract with those who serve by giving them the largest pay rise in 20 years, allocating an extra £1.5 billion to fix forces housing and establishing a new Armed Forces Commissioner. It is clear that our actions are having an effect. On recruitment, inflow continues to improve and is up 13% year on year, and applications to join the armed forces and intakes to basic training both remain high. On retention, morale had been falling year on year with more people leaving than joining, but we have started to reverse that decline, with an 11% reduction in outflow year on year.
Tom Gordon
I welcome the Minister to her place. Over the past year I have had the privilege of taking part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and have met people across the United Kingdom and beyond. One of the issues that arises when it comes to retention is that of the families of overseas workers in the armed forces. They have no access to work opportunities, and there are no specific visas or agreements with other countries where our armed forces are based, which means that they must often take pay cuts or not relocate with their partners in the forces. Will the Minister think about what we can do to support armed forces workers overseas?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I have served overseas and observed this issue at first hand. Discussions with the Cabinet Office are ongoing, and I hope to update the hon. Member in due course.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The brave men and women who serve in the armed forces are the very best among us, and I look forward to learning more about our Royal Air Force personnel when the RAF town show comes to Falkirk this week. The cumulative 10.5% pay increase for non-officers since last July and the additional £1.5 billion to be spent on service housing demonstrate the Government’s commitment to upholding the armed forces covenant, but what further actions are Ministers considering to recognise and retain our armed forces personnel?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend has rightly mentioned the largest pay rise in 20 years. I am particularly delighted that we can now say that no member of the armed forces is paid less than the national living wage. Of course we have much more to do; I look forward to getting to work on it, and I hope to have a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss that.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones)—a fellow female veteran—and the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on their new appointments.
Reserve forces are a vital component of the British Army, and I welcomed the Government’s commitment to increasing their number by at least 20%, but the lack of a clear timeline, plan and funding is not good enough. The Public Accounts Committee agreed with that in its report, and revealed that many training sites are in the wrong locations and that their condition has declined. Good training sites in the right locations are vital to increasing our reserves. Will the Government today give a firm timeline for completing the estate optimisation programme and securing funding for the next stages?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for her congratulations and for her question. She makes a valid point and is absolutely right that we need to do more in this regard. I am afraid I cannot provide a specific timeline here, but I will keep her question in mind and hope to update her in due course.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
The number of questions on this issue demonstrates the importance that Members in all parts of the House ascribe to the subject of cadets. As we said in the strategic defence review, we will increase the number of existing cadet forces by 30% by 2030 with £70 million of funding, but we are also considering areas of social demographic requirement where new cadet forces can be placed. That will give kids throughout the country fantastic opportunities to flourish and thrive, both at school and as they move to the end of their education.
Lillian Jones
As one of the first female cadets in Scotland during the mid-1980s—I know I do not look old enough—I am aware of how transformative the cadet experience can be, but now, in 2025, girls make up only a third of our cadet force. What more can my hon. Friend do to ensure that joining the cadets is seen as an exciting opportunity for girls as well as boys, and will he join me on a visit to the brilliant cadet units in my constituency to see these brilliant young people in action?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. The cadet forces are an inclusive organisation, and I have been delighted to be able to visit branches throughout the country, for instance in Cornwall. A couple of weeks ago I visited a summer camp to observe the diversity of the cadets, which, in some cases, is far better than it is in the armed forces. Currently, 36% of community-based and 39% of school-based cadets are female. That is a positive, important and encouraging trend, and I hope that it will continue over time.
Saqib Bhatti
I was in the King Edward’s school RAF combined cadet force, and until recently I was on the board of the West Midland Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Association. I was pleased to learn of the Government’s lofty ambition to increase cadet sizes, but I was worried by the comments of the Public Accounts Committee, which said recently that there was a distinct lack of “detail and funding” to achieve those numbers. Without the funding and without the detail, these plans and numbers are meaningless, are they not?
Al Carns
There are two different issues here. The first one is about expanding the cadet forces by 30% by 2030—there is £70 million behind that, and the plan for how to deliver it is being developed. The second point, on the Public Accounts Committee, is about the Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Associations and is primarily about infrastructure, which we are working on now. That is a legacy issue. We are trying to rejuvenate it and make sure that the accommodation, and indeed the infrastructure, is fit for purpose for the cadets and the reserves as we move forward.
Chris Vince
May I, too, welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), to her place on the Front Bench?
Before recess, I was lucky enough to visit Harlow and district air cadets and see the wonderful work that they do in supporting young people from across Harlow, teaching them leadership skills and building a sense of community. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Harlow and district air cadets on their work, and recognise the importance that all types of cadets—in this case, air cadets—make to communities like mine in Harlow, and particularly working-class communities?
Al Carns
I thank my hon. Friend 110%. The cadets are all about social mobility, giving kids opportunity and getting them up and out, and that is what Labour is all about. From my perspective, the air cadets are amazing. I went to the summer camp, which had everything—flying planes, STEM, sports and flying drones—and it was absolutely outstanding. I congratulate the Harlow air cadets; hopefully, I will get to visit them in due course.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Eastbourne’s mighty sea cadets celebrate their 115th birthday this year, but their future is being put under threat by rising energy bills, which are making running the operation less and less sustainable. It is the same with many other cadets across the country. Will the Minister share how the Government will support the likes of the Eastbourne sea cadets with energy bills so that they can continue having an incredible impact on local young people and our armed forces more generally?
Al Carns
The air cadets are fantastic, the sea cadets are fantastic and the Army cadets are amazing—they are all amazing. I would love to take on this issue. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details, we will have a look at what we can do. I have huge admiration for the sea cadets in his constituency. At some point, if my diary permits, I would love to visit them all.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The Government have accepted all 62 recommendations of the strategic defence review. Implementation of the review’s recommendations is already well under way.
Alex Brewer
With RAF Odiham celebrating its centenary this year, I am proud of the many close military ties that we have in my constituency of North East Hampshire. One of the recommendations of the strategic defence review is to improve accommodation, where we are letting our military personnel down. Given that there is widespread agreement with the Liberal Democrats on this issue, including in the other place, will the Secretary of State support bringing all military housing in line with the decent homes standard in today’s Renters’ Rights Bill vote?
John Healey
In the last year, we have taken huge steps to start to make good on decades of substandard housing for military personnel and their families. We have brought 36,000 military family homes back into public ownership so that we can plan exactly the sort of upgrade that the hon. Lady talks about.
On the rest of the SDR, we have announced the purchase of 12 F-35A aircraft, which will join the dual capable aircraft mission of NATO; we have launched our new £70 million campaign on cadets; and we have stood up the cyber and specialist operations command. Today, we are publishing the defence industrial strategy to make defence an engine for growth. This Government are delivering for defence and delivering for Britain.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The strategic defence review rightly highlighted the need for a whole-of-society approach to defence, including expanding the cadets by 30% by 2030. A key part of that has to include supporting more adult volunteers to give their time to the cadets. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that more adult volunteers are able to support our fantastic cadets?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Cadet forces cannot exist without the adult volunteers who support them, and they are central to our ability to increase the number of cadet forces across this country by 30% by 2030, which will give so many young people opportunities in the future.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
We totally condemn Russia’s air attack on Ukraine over the weekend. It is the worst since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine began, hitting a Government building for the first time. Putin is escalating his attacks, and we must step up and speed up our support for Ukraine. Last week, I announced that over £1 billion of profits from frozen Russian assets has been put into military aid for Ukraine. Tomorrow, I will host and co-chair from London the 30th Ukraine Defence Contact Group, when 50 nations will together confirm increased military aid for Ukraine.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Over the weekend, a drone attack was launched targeting a number of regions, including Kyiv and Odesa, which I had the privilege of visiting earlier this year. It is reported to be the biggest drone strike since Putin’s illegal invasion began. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that more must be done to secure a ceasefire?
John Healey
I agree with my hon. Friend, and she is right that it was the biggest drone attack in the past three and a half years since Putin’s illegal invasion. These air attacks are directed at civilian areas with civilian targets. I saw for myself this week the damage that brings when I stood outside the bombed-out building of the British Council in Kyiv, and I saw the determination of men and women—military and civilians alike—in their defiance to keep fighting in the face of Putin’s illegal invasion.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State confirm how this country and our allies will support Ukraine to defend its airspace from Russian aggression? For example, will we lend it our Typhoons or will we participate in the cross-national F-16 fighter programme, despite the fact that we do not have F-16s?
John Healey
We have worked closely with Ukraine to develop new weapons systems to supply the air defence missiles it requires. While-ever Ukraine is fighting Putin’s invasion, we will stand alongside it and we will provide whatever military aid we can. Beyond that, for when we can reach a negotiated peace, we have been leading work to prepare a multinational force willing to stand with Ukraine in the peace and to secure that peace for the long term so that Russia never again invades that country.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
Through the defence industrial strategy, the Ministry of Defence will strengthen the defence industrial base by supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, fostering collaboration with industry and academia, creating jobs, enhancing exports support and adopting sustainable procurement practices. These measures will boost innovation, resilience and competitiveness while supporting national security and economic growth.
Steve Yemm
I welcome last week’s news that Ukraine’s largest drone manufacturer has invested £200 million in a new factory in the UK, creating 500 jobs. This demonstrates the strength of our partnership with our Ukrainian friends and the confidence that international companies have in Britain’s skilled workforce. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of foreign direct investment in the UK’s defence industrial base?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for celebrating the investment we are seeing. Foreign direct investment is a really important component part of building our ecosystem for defence industries. Britain is the very best place to invest in defence industries, with a talented population, increasing skills, increasing defence spending and a military that is respected the world over. We have a huge opportunity to do even more, and when I announce details of the defence industrial strategy shortly, I hope he will support that work as we seek to go further in using defence as an engine for growth in every part of the country.
Tristan Osborne
Medway has a proud tradition with its former dockyard in Chatham. Last week, I visited the BAE Systems aviation centre in Rochester in my constituency to see its graduates and apprentices. What more can be done to support graduates and apprentices in defence? Will the Minister take the opportunity to visit the BAE Systems site to look at that work in person?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for championing the BAE site in Rochester. We want more defence companies to invest more in skills. In the defence industrial strategy we are publishing today, we will not only make further investments in defence technical education colleges—with £182 million to deliver that—but provide additional support for school-based activities and university partnerships. I would be very happy to come to Rochester to see for myself the amazing work of the apprentices.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Shortly before recess, I visited a small precision engineering firm that is involved in tooling in the defence industry. It shared the challenges it faces in looking at defence contracts and explained that there seems to be no priority for UK businesses, unlike in France where French businesses are prioritised. I am sure the Minister agrees that defence investment boosts growth across our constituencies. Will he meet me and the business to understand how we can boost British businesses in that sector?
Luke Pollard
To a Minister just promoted by the son of a toolmaker in the reshuffle, tooling is a very appropriate question. We are targeting more of the increased defence budget at British companies, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, with the development of the new defence SME hub, which will allow more SMEs to access the defence contracts we are providing as part of our growing renewal of our armed forces. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss her constituency business.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister, who is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland, for his answers. Thales has received significant contract work from the Ministry of Defence, with 200 jobs coming out of that, and Spirit AeroSystems has also achieved some of that, with extra jobs, but many other defence companies could also take advantage. Will the Minister confirm that those other companies will have the same opportunities?
Luke Pollard
I am very happy to say that we are seeking growth in defence businesses in every part of the United Kingdom. When we launch the defence industrial strategy very shortly, I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to see one of the new defence growth zones in Northern Ireland providing opportunities for young people to start new good careers in defence. Also, companies that might not think of themselves as defence companies at the moment will be able not just to sell to UK armed forces, but to take export opportunities selling to our allies around the world.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
The strategic defence review sets out the Government’s vision for the future of defence to make Britain safer, secure at home and strong abroad. This is backed up by the Government’s historic defence investment of 2.6% on defence spending from 2027. As part of the SDR implementation, we are developing a 10-year defence investment plan which will be published this autumn.
Ben Obese-Jecty
On Friday, I visited Paragraf, a local business in my constituency. Founded by Simon Thomas, it is a hugely successful spin-out from Cambridge University, developing and manufacturing next generation electronic devices using graphene. These products provide solutions in a range of industries, from quantum computing to diagnostics. As one can imagine with a world-leading technology, there is a huge array of potential military applications. Indeed, the company has already been contacted by our NATO allies. May I invite the Secretary of State and the new procurement Minister to visit Paragraf, meet CEO Simon Thomas and look at how we can seize the initiative in defence with an innovative and world-leading technology, and a real British and Huntingdon success story?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his continuing championing of not just defence businesses in his constituency, but defence in total. The amount of parliamentary questions I have answered from him certainly shows his strong interest in this area. I want more of our defence budget focused on novel and innovative technologies. That is what we announced in the strategic defence review, with 10% going to those advanced technologies. There is a real opportunity to create more jobs that provide the world-leading innovation that will give us the edge on the battlefield, because the nation that innovates the most will be the nation that wins in any conflict. I would be very happy to discuss that further with him.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The east of England has a proud record of defence innovation. Indeed, on my holiday to Lincoln, I stayed at the White Hart hotel, where the battle tank was first conceived during the first world war. Does the Minister agree that investment in technical colleges of excellence, such as that at Bury St Edmonds, are absolutely key to defence innovation?
Luke Pollard
I have some recommendations for other defence holiday tourism, if my hon. Friend would like some. He is absolutely right to raise the importance of skills. There are huge opportunities across the nation in defence industries, but we need the workforce of the future to deliver them. That is why, in the defence industrial strategy being announced this afternoon, he will see more investment in skills, not just in defence technical colleges of excellence but in schools and university clusters, to maximise the opportunity to enhance our skills offer and make defence an engine for growth everywhere in the country.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Louise Sandher-Jones)
The armed forces welfare support policy, JSP 770, underwent a full review and was published in January 2025. It now includes updated information and guidance to ensure that welfare support structures are appropriate, accurate and informative for service personnel and their families. Welfare support lies within the chain of command, with commanding officers overseeing the delivery of welfare support within their units.
Liz Twist
One of Labour’s key manifesto commitments was to give our armed forces greater representation through the creation of an Armed Forces Commissioner—a promise that we have made good on with the passing of the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 last week. How does the Minister expect that to improve the lives of our service personnel and their families?
Louise Sandher-Jones
As my hon. Friend rightly notes, the Armed Forces Commissioner Act, as I can now refer to it, received Royal Assent last week, which is a fantastic step forward. As she highlights, there is more to do; there are many aspects of service life where even small changes could make a massive difference to the overall experience of service personnel.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle). She served as a Minister in both this and the previous Labour Government with great commitment, and we thank her for her service. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Last week I travelled to Norway to sign the biggest British warship deal ever—a £10 billion contract that will secure 4,000 jobs for the next two decades. Last week I also visited Kyiv, during my fifth visit to Ukraine, where I met Defence Minister Shmyhal, visited a drone factory and chaired a meeting of the coalition of the willing with more than 30 Defence Ministers. The message to Moscow from one and all was of defiance and determination: the Ukrainians will keep fighting Russian aggression, and the coalition will step up support for Ukraine and preparations for a peace in Ukraine. Tomorrow from London I will co-chair the meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, attended by around 50 nations. This week I will also host the meeting of the E5 Defence Ministers here in London.
Graham Stuart
When I meet veterans across Beverley and Holderness, particularly at Withernsea or Beverley veterans breakfast clubs, the No. 1 issue they raise with me is homelessness among veterans—an issue that the Minister for Veterans and People will recognise. They ask what more we can do, and I share that question with the Secretary of State: what more can we do to ensure that those who have put their lives on the line to serve our country do not find themselves homeless in their later days?
John Healey
I share with the right hon. Gentleman, and, I think, every Member of this House, the pleasure and honour of attending such breakfast clubs with veterans in my constituency. He is right about the range of concerns that veterans raise, which includes the pressures of homelessness. Recognising the forces’ service in local authority housing priorities is our first step, and the £50 million going into the Op VALOUR system to increase support for veterans will also play a part.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and thank the workers on the Clyde for their professionalism. It made the collective ministerial effort across Government much easier knowing that we have professional, dedicated and excellent workers on the Clyde who are able to build the Type 26 frigate, and on the opposite side of Scotland, supporting the workers at Rosyth, to build the Type 31 frigate, too. There is a huge future on either side of Scotland for British shipbuilding, and hopefully more export orders as well.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that recruitment to the armed forces must be based solely on merit?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Louise Sandher-Jones)
We must recruit the absolute best to serve in the armed forces. As the hon. Gentleman will know, an intelligent strategy for recruitment will seek to reach every single community across these British isles. Perpetuating a narrative that women and those from ethnic minorities—many of whom have proven time and again on service that they absolutely deserve to be a part of our armed forces—are recruited because of some woke policy does them a huge disservice.
James Cartlidge
I totally agree, but is that not why we should be concerned that the contract for the new armed forces recruitment service
“includes Annual Mandated Performance Indicators focused on enhancing equality and diversity within the workforce”?
Those are to be annually mandated in the contract. My concern is that hardwiring the requirements into the contract risks distorting recruitment if the targets are not hit; we saw that with the RAF. Would it not be better to simply scrap the red tape altogether and focus solely on getting the best people into the armed forces, irrespective of their background?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I think the hon. Member has answered his own question. We are talking about indicators, and indicators are very different from targets. An intelligent recruitment strategy seeks to reach out to all communities across these islands, and we need to monitor how well our narratives are succeeding. If we are to have a truly professional strategy, we have to monitor its success in reaching different communities. That is why we refer to an indicator.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker
Order. That question was like the buses, indeed—some are quicker than others, and that one should have been an express.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
This Government take seriously both physical and mental injuries from service. Op Courage has already seen 34,000 referrals. It is a fantastic programme that runs across the country and provides mental health services for veterans. I encourage any veteran who thinks that they need help to shout and seek help. It is the first step to recovery.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is clear that Vladimir Putin remains hellbent on the conquest of Ukraine, while he drags Trump along with false promises of peace. It is right of the Government to have taken steps such as putting in place the recent price cap cut, to hurt Putin’s oil profits, but the Government must go further. Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air think-tank shows that the UK has sent over £500 million in tax receipts to the Kremlin by continuing to import petroleum products derived from Russian oil from third countries. Will the Government commit to finally closing this loophole, which is currently filling the Kremlin’s coffers?
John Healey
We are always ready to take further steps on imposing economic sanctions, and to close any loopholes in those sanctions. We have a record, under both the last Government and this Government, of being at the forefront of imposing these sorts of economic measures on Putin’s regime.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Al Carns
The expansion of the cadets—30% by 2030— is front and centre of my portfolio. We will ensure that the £70 million is spent on expanding the services, as well as increasing the standard of training, insight and access that cadets have across the country.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Al Carns
If the hon. Member writes to me with the details of that case, I will look into it. There is a plethora of issues and complexities with some of these policies, but I will take this case on and have a look.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
The Type 26 deal with Norway shows what is possible when we have a determined export campaign. We are looking at working with a number of our European allies, and allies further afield, on export deals, not just for our larger platforms, such as warships, but missiles, electronic systems and a whole range of defence equipment, to create more jobs here in Britain. I am happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Al Carns
The right hon. Member raises an interesting point. Please write to me in due course with examples, and we will look into that, from a defence perspective.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Luke Pollard
There is a real opportunity to grow further the 2,000 directly supported defence jobs in the north-east. I am happy to speak to my hon. Friend further about that. May I encourage him to stay for the defence industrial strategy statement? He will hear about the further investment and opportunity that the Government hope to provide to every nation and region in the UK.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
An independent northern European nation of 5.5 million people, Norway, has just signed an order for £10 billion-worth of the world’s best anti-submarine warfare frigates, designed and built in Glasgow in Scotland. Despite that, despite Scotland’s longer coastline, and despite the ingenuity displayed in that product, none of those Type 26s—unless I am wrong—will be stationed in Scotland. Would the Minister like to tell me that I am wrong, and that he is prepared to place Type 26s on station in Scotland in the future?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is a defence expert, so he knows well that the Type 26s replace the anti-submarine warfare Type 23s in Devonport, where they will be based. He also knows that we have quick-reaction fighters at Lossiemouth and our Royal Navy submarine force based at Faslane. We have huge investment across Scotland, and we will do even more, but while the Government in Holyrood, which he backs, has dithered on defence jobs, this Government have delivered extra defence jobs for Scotland, and will continue to do that.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently met my constituent Lance Corporal Sarah Bushbye, who is only the third ever woman to receive the Military Cross. She shared with me the difficulty of dealing with the complex physical and psychological effects of her service, and the transformative effect that the Boulder Crest foundation had on her in her recovery. Will the Minister meet me and Sarah to hear about the work of the foundation?
Al Carns
I completely empathise with that veteran. I am more than happy to sit down and talk through the pros of that treatment, and to see if we can expand it further.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Fort Blockhouse in Gosport was due to have been sold by 2024, but the deadline keeps moving. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation has not been at all proactive; this giant site sits empty, doing nothing for the MOD, taxpayers or the local economy. First Reform and then the Government have suggested that sites like Blockhouse will be used for asylum accommodation. Gosport deserves so much better. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss a much more innovative future for this important—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have a lot of sympathy, but please —we have to be a bit quicker; otherwise, nobody else will get in.
Luke Pollard
I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the opportunities to use the defence estate to contribute to growth in every part of the country, including hers.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
How will the Government ensure that Cammell Laird’s shipbuilding expertise and workforce are fully integrated into the defence industrial strategy, in order to both strengthen sovereign capability and support skilled jobs in the north-west?
Luke Pollard
There is real expertise in, and opportunities for, our shipyards nationwide—both those that support Royal Navy military vessels, and those that spend much of their time working on Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels, which are the backbone of the Royal Navy fleet. There is a real opportunity in not just shipbuilding but ship repair. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those opportunities. Given that the Labour conference will soon take place in Liverpool, perhaps I can pop over and see her.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
For many veterans, hearing loss is one of the hidden scars of service, and in a number of cases, it has been linked to defective 3M hearing equipment. Will the Minister use their arts of persuasion on the Prime Minister to ensure an independent inquiry, so that we can find out the extent of this, and see whether any other equipment is involved and how we can prevent it from happening again?
Al Carns
Anyone with hearing loss from equipment can absolutely apply for compensation through the war pension scheme or the armed forces compensation scheme. Broader work is happening on those specific bits of capability outside this place.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I welcome the five new defence technical excellence colleges just announced, but we need a skills pathway right across the country. I have been working with ADS on a defence curriculum that could be delivered across colleges and universities nationwide. What plans does the Minister have to support defence learning right across the country, and will he meet me and ADS to see if we can roll out a trial?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is simply prolific in the areas in which she is seeking to improve defence, and I would be very happy to meet her to discuss this further. There will be an announcement on skills in the defence industrial strategy that is coming out this afternoon. There is a real opportunity to expand this work, not just in defence technical education colleges, but in institutions nationwide.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Will the Secretary of State guarantee—yes or no—that no British serviceman or veteran will face prosecution for actions taken in Northern Ireland while serving their country?
Al Carns
As has been mentioned, as we go through the process, we will ensure that protections are in place, to look after our veterans. The reality is—I am being really honest—that if people broke the law, they will be held accountable, but I assure the hon. Member that veterans who served will be protected.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Young people in my constituency are crying out for decent, well-paid jobs, especially in the defence sector, so will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss the Typhoon order that is desperately needed, not only for our country, but for jobs across Blackpool and Lancashire?
John Healey
I will indeed, and my hon. Friend will be encouraged, I hope, by the visit I paid to Turkey, and the initial agreement that I have signed with Turkey for a big new order of Typhoons, which will be built in Lancashire.
Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the urgent question, I should remind hon. Members to avoid referring directly to criminal cases that are currently before the courts. There is also an active application for judicial review relating to the proscription of Palestine Action. I have decided to grant a waiver in relation to that case, as it concerns a matter of public order in which there is significant public interest. Members may therefore refer to that case.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask if the Home Secretary will make a statement on the proscription of Palestine Action and public protest.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Anyone who wishes to demonstrate about the humanitarian situation in Gaza or the actions of any Government, including our own, has the absolute freedom to gather with others and voice their views, provided that they do so within the law, but supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation are not the same thing. The vitally important issue of Palestinian rights should not be co-opted by one organisation that has shown that it is willing to use violence in pursuit of its cause. The clear advice and intelligence given to the then Home Secretary earlier this year was that Palestine Action satisfied the relevant tests in the Terrorism Act 2000 and should be proscribed.
Some of those holding placards in support of Palestine Action may not know the extent of its activities. It has conducted an escalating campaign involving intimidation and sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure. Some of its attacks have involved the use of weapons, resulting in alleged violence and serious injuries to individuals. Palestine Action’s members have been charged with violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, actual bodily harm, criminal damage and aggravated burglary—charges that include, in the assessment of the independent Crown Prosecution Service, a terrorism connection.
These are not the actions of a legitimate protest group, and for a Government to ignore expert security assessments, advice and recommendations would be highly irresponsible. Were there to be further serious attacks or injuries, questions would rightly be asked about why action had not been taken.
The Metropolitan police has confirmed that a total of 890 arrests were made at a demonstration in central London on Saturday. Most of those were under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for displaying articles in support of Palestine Action. Thirty-three people were arrested for other offences, including 17 assaults on police officers. As the Metropolitan police has pointed out, that was in stark contrast to the 20,000 people who peacefully marched and attended the Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration.
Demonstrations of this scale require a significant policing response. The new Home Secretary joined the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police on Saturday to observe the force’s operations and express her backing for the officers working tirelessly to enforce our laws and to maintain order. The fact that some officers were subjected to violence and abuse is utterly shameful.
It is completely understandable that people rightly feel very strongly about the situation in Gaza. But supporting or being a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation is a criminal offence and will never be acceptable, regardless of the wider context. We all want the suffering in Gaza to end and the remaining hostages to be returned. We all want to see peace. I say to the House that we must keep our focus squarely on achieving those aims and not on one harmful group that refuses to abide by our laws and threatens our public safety.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not know who is doing the speeches, but I am going to crack down on Ministers and shadow Ministers if they do not keep to three minutes. I have to get Back Benchers in. Does the Minister agree to stick to the time in the future?
Ms Creasy
Nearly 1,500 people have now been arrested because of concerns about proscription. There is clearly a problem with violence and intimidation in our politics, and we have to get this right because public confidence is falling, too. I am not here as a supporter or defender of Palestine Action and its tactics. I condemn without hesitation abuse, intimidation and attacks on the police and any political opponent. The case for acting on the group itself was and is strong. We have seen a pattern of violence at its events, and it has not dissociated itself from that violence. But we also see police and refugees being targeted for violence alongside those who want to protest about immigration matters—banners that say, “Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out!”, neo-Nazi groups circling. We cannot ignore the impact on policing on our streets because of these incidents, but this is just not sustainable for our police or our criminal justice system.
There is a difference between people protesting using violence and people protesting the use of proscription. If we do not get the response right, if we continue to arrest those in that secondary category, the seriousness of the term “terrorism” risks losing its meaning and becoming diluted rather than strengthened. Proscription was supposed to be about stopping those inciting direct harm and violence. Going after somebody with a poster testing the boundaries of liberty—many of whom are clear that they do not support Palestine Action, but feel strongly about Palestinian rights or free speech—confuses rather than clarifies the Government’s intention. People must be able to protest what is happening in Gaza, and the focus should be on what is happening in Palestine, not Parliament Square.
I asked for this urgent question because I think it is for us to act. Legislation on public order focuses on specific Acts; proscription orders target specific terrorist groups. Nothing sits in between. Given that, what discussions has the Minister had with the police about distinguishing between members of Palestine Action and people concerned about proscription itself? [Interruption.] The offence of recklessly encouraging support of a proscribed group runs counter to that focus on criminality. If he will not abolish that offence, will he at least set out guidance to the Crown Prosecution Service and the police on any public interest test in using it? The previous Policing Minister—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is what happens. I granted the urgent question because I thought it was important to hear you, and you were advised that it was two minutes. I think you have now finished or are about to.
Ms Creasy
I do apologise, Mr Speaker. I was advised that it was three minutes, but that is my fault.
Terrorism is different from terrorising opponents, but both should be criminal offences. Will the Minister commit to a review of that section so that we can get it right for the sake of our democracy?
Mr Speaker
Order. I believe the advice was corrected to two minutes. [Interruption.] That is correct. I do not want my department to be blamed.
Dan Jarvis
I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these issues to the House. They are important, and it is right that Ministers are held accountable for them.
I am sure that the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks about violence and intimidation, which have absolutely no place in our politics. She will be aware that there is a significant body of work taking place across Government, co-ordinated by the defending democracy taskforce, to ensure that all our elected representatives are able to do their duty and represent their constituents without fear or favour. The Government take that very seriously indeed.
My hon. Friend made a number of points, and I will struggle to respond to all of them. She will understand that the police are operationally independent of Government, but of course we remain in regular contact. It is important to take this opportunity to thank the police for their important work. They come under a huge amount of scrutiny—rightly so—but I think we saw at the weekend an impeccable police operation in which brave officers stood and did their duty, at least 17 of whom were allegedly assaulted in the line of duty.
The final thing to say to my hon. Friend relates to drawing the distinction, as she will well understand, on the absolute right of anybody in our country to express their concern about the desperately difficult situation in the middle east and more specifically in Gaza. The ability to go to the streets and join others in expressing individual or collective concern about unfolding events, be they in this country or further afield, is a cornerstone of our democracy. This Government would never do anything to get in the way of that. It was interesting that tens of thousands of people took to the streets this weekend and were able to express their concern in an entirely lawful way.
My hon. Friend asks about whether we are seeking to review any elements of the Terrorism Act. It is worth pointing her to the recently published article by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who said with regard to tackling Palestine Action that
“There is no way ordinary criminal law would be effective against funding, training and recruitment.”
The Government must ensure public safety, and that is what we will seek to do.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
We—in common, I hope, with everyone in this House—fully and unequivocally support the right to peaceful protest, including on issues in the middle east, whether the hostages who remain captive or civilians in Gaza, whose plight concerns us all. However, in exercising that right to protest, violence is never acceptable. Palestine Action has committed deliberate criminal damage against various premises, used a sledgehammer to attack a police officer, and deliberately sabotaged RAF planes. No matter how strongly people feel about an issue, and whatever the rights and wrongs of that issue, using violence to advance a political agenda is never acceptable. It is not how we do things in this country; we settle things through debate and elections.
The Security Minister has given the House assurances about the necessity of this measure. I have not been briefed, or been offered a briefing on that, but the Minister commands widespread respect across the House, and Members will take his assurances seriously. Will he give an assurance that the police are taking all possible preventive action against Palestine Action where it may be planning future attacks against premises, or future acts of violence, including using the offence of conspiracy to commit public nuisance, under which the police have wide-ranging powers? I join the Minister in extending my thanks to the police for the difficult work they do keeping us safe.
Finally, I will use this opportunity to express my support for a protest that took place on Sunday in Parliament Square, and the Campaign Against Antisemitism march, which I addressed. It was regrettable that neither the Home Secretary nor a senior Minister addressed that march, so will the Security Minister take the opportunity to express the Government’s resolve to combat antisemitism wherever it is found?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks and the tone of them. On his final point, yes, let me take the opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, to state our absolute abhorrence of antisemitism wherever it rears its ugly head. I hope he knows that the Government will do everything we possibly can to stand against the forces of racism wherever they seek to rear their ugly head.
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that violence is never acceptable in pursuing a political agenda, and I am pleased that we are able to establish a consensus across the House in that regard. On his point about briefings, we briefed the shadow Minister ahead of the proscription action back in July, and as he knows, I would be happy to brief him on Privy Council terms whenever he should wish. I am also able to give him the assurances that he seeks about the work the police are doing. As a former Home Office Minister he knows that the police are operationally independent, but I assure him that the police will be taking all necessary measures to guard against future attacks. I am happy to speak to him about those matters further, and I am grateful for his support for these matters today.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
As I understand, convictions simply for displaying the name of a proscribed group have been extremely rare unless there has been clear evidence of intent to promote a group’s more extreme actions. If that is the case, and as it is clear that the acts of protest and civil disobedience seen in recent days are not acts that would ordinarily form part of a case for proscription, why do the police not simply stop the arrests?
Dan Jarvis
I take the opportunity to acknowledge the difficult job that the police do. In my experience, recently and over a longer period, the police have done an excellent job, often under very difficult circumstances. It is important that we consider proportionality. These operational judgments have to be made by the police, often on the ground and often under pressure or in difficult circumstances. It is also important that we consider that we would not tolerate the kind of activity that we have seen in recent days and weeks from an organisation that was motivated, for example, by Islamist extremism, or by an extreme right-wing ideology. Similarly, we cannot tolerate that activity from Palestine Action, and this Government will support the police in doing the difficult job that we have asked them to do.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of a liberal democracy, but events over the weekend have set a dangerous precedent and risk having a chilling impact on free speech and legitimate protest in the UK. The arrest of 857 protesters under terror laws, following hundreds of arrests under the same powers last month, is deeply alarming. The Lib Dems warned that that would be exactly what happened when the Conservatives expanded terrorism powers in 2018. There is no doubt that those using violence, antisemitic abuse or hate speech must face the consequences, but those crimes are already covered by existing law. It cannot be right that simply displaying a placard in support of a proscribed organisation, while peacefully protesting, can result in a conviction and up to six months in prison. Will the Minister urgently review terrorism legislation, specifically as it is impacting the right to protest peacefully, to ensure it is proportionate and contains the nuance that it so clearly needs?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as always, for the sensible and reasonable tone in which she makes her remarks, but I have to say that I do not agree that the events of this weekend have had a chilling effect on our democracy. I think it is quite the opposite: tens of thousands of people came to London to exercise their absolute right to demonstrate on matters about which they are concerned. The overwhelming majority of people who came to London were able to do so in an entirely reasonable and lawful way. Only a very tiny minority were not able to do so in that way and deliberately sought to get arrested.
The hon. Lady asks entirely reasonably about necessity and proportionality, and about whether the Government intend to review existing legislation. She has raised that point previously, we have discussed it, and I know that the leader of her party, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), raised it over the summer recess. Of course we look very carefully at legislation, but the Government do not currently have any plans to amend the existing legislation. Not least in the light of the ongoing criminal proceedings relating to Palestine Action and the ongoing judicial review, it would not be appropriate to carry out a review at this time.
We think that the UK’s counter-terrorism legislation strikes the right balance between protecting national security and individual freedoms, including the right to the freedom of expression under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove knows the high regard in which I hold Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and she knows that the legislative framework is subject to independent statutory oversight by the independent reviewer. The Government will of course consider any recommendations that he seeks to make. I have advised the hon. Lady previously to get in touch with him; I think that she has and I know that she will want to look very carefully at what he says.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Those arrested were merely holding signs, wearing T-shirts and displaying general support for a group that does not come close to the loosest definition of terrorism. Meanwhile, political pundits and columnists seem free to discuss Palestine Action without fear of criminal prosecution. I do not think that anyone should face arrest for doing that, but it does not seem fair that people can get away with it as long as they are doing it in front of a TV camera. Will the Minister explain how the law is being applied, whether it is being applied fairly and where people are allowed to show support for Palestine Action? It is clear that some people are being allowed to do it, but others are not.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in and concern about these matters. I give her an absolute assurance that the law is being applied fairly. I say to her—I know that she will agree with this—that nobody is above the law. It is important to think about how we collectively seek to respond to those who behave in a similar way but underpinned by very different causes, such as extreme Islamist terrorism or an extreme right-wing ideology. If people were demonstrating on behalf of those organisations in the same way that we have seen people demonstrating in support of Palestine Action, I think people would absolutely want the police to act in the way that they saw them act over the weekend. I say again: the law is being applied fairly; nobody is above the law; and the police need to be able to ensure that they are able to enforce it without fear or favour, and that is what I think they did over the weekend.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
The burden of policing these protests is falling on certain forces more than others. That was also the case during the disorder last summer. Can the Minister give some reassurance that the Home Office is providing the support that is needed to those forces to ensure that they can manage the protests and so that their doing so does not distract from day-to-day policing?
Dan Jarvis
The Chair of the Select Committee makes an important point. Yes, I can give her the assurances that she seeks. The right hon. Lady is right that recent activity has provided particular burdens on particular forces. The Home Secretary and I, and of course the Policing Minister and colleagues right across Government, work very closely with the police and we will ensure that they have the necessary resources for the important job that they have to do.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Last August, a police officer was hospitalised after being hit with a sledgehammer while responding to a Palestine Action attack on a business near Bristol—a fact that was absent from our debate when we voted to proscribe that organisation recently. The attackers had sledgehammers, axes, whips and other home-made weapons. Does the Minister agree that that crosses the line of any legitimate protest—into terrorism?
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister has said that no one is above the law and that violence is never the answer. I agree with him and I know that he believes that the law should be wielded with integrity, so when are we going to see the proscription of violent settler groups in the west bank, many of whom are perpetrating a reign of terror on innocent Palestinians in that part of the world but who may be garnering support and raising funds in the United Kingdom?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House and has served as a Minister in the Home Office, so I am sorry to have to put my response to him in this way, but he will understand why I do so: we never comment about matters relating to future proscription. I know that his words will have been heard by colleagues in other Government Departments, as well as in my Department. He makes his points with great consistency—he has raised them with me previously—but I know that he will understand that there is a long-standing protocol, across a number of Governments, that we do not talk about future proscription activity.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question, but I concur with some of the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) about people being arrested, including my constituents, some of whom were protesting peacefully.
I want to come back to the issue of the impact on frontline policing. As a central London MP, I am seeing resources being drawn away from my local police to deal with the protests. My constituents want those frontline police officers to be solving crime on their streets; the Minister will understand the sheer scale of their concerns about ensuring the police can get to grips with that locally. Returning to the point made by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, will the Minister assure me that those ongoing discussions with the police are happening, including with the chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation, who said on the “World at One” today that the protests are “not sustainable”?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, as did the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. She will absolutely understand the importance that this Government attach to the safer streets agenda. I can give her an assurance that we are working very closely with the Metropolitan police and other police forces around the country to ensure that they have the resources they need to police these kinds of protests and activities, alongside the other activities that they are required to police. The Home Secretary, the Policing Minister and I take these matters very seriously. We met senior representatives of the Metropolitan police just last week, but I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that we will ensure that the police have the necessary resources to do the job that we ask them to do.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Given the scale of arrests over the weekend and the Minister stating that he has no intention to review legislation, will he commit instead to an independent review of the use of terrorism legislation against people peacefully protesting to see if it is fit for purpose?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question; I hope that she heard the response I gave a moment ago—that it would not be appropriate to get into a review process at this particular moment because of ongoing legal proceedings. We are incredibly fortunate to have Jonathan Hall KC as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. He brings a weight of authority and credibility to the process. I know that he has particular views on the issue, and I invite her and other Members to look closely at what he has said about it.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the continued mass arrest of peaceful protesters, many of whom are protesting about the proscription of Palestine Action but would not for a moment support the activities of Palestine Action, is something that we should distinguish and that we should advise prosectors and the police about—not least because the furore around the arrests risks drowning out the rightful protests about the difficult situation in Palestine and Gaza, to which the Minister has referred?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises some really important points. For clarity, it is an offence to display support for Palestine Action, but it is not an offence to criticise the Government’s decision to proscribe, so difficult judgments often have to be made by the police on the ground. Let me give her a categorical assurance that this Government will do nothing to get in the way of somebody’s absolute right to protest about a matter about which they are concerned. In many respects, it was incredibly heartening to see tens of thousands of people take to the streets to express their concern in an entirely peaceful and lawful way, and I hope that will long continue.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As I have indicated previously, I have my doubts about whether the terrorism label is most suited to a group that is certainly criminal, certainly violent, and arguably seditious, in its attacks on the assets of our military, but I have a positive suggestion to make. Will the Minister undertake fully to brief the Chairman and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I used to chair but on which I now no longer serve? If they were able to see information that the Minister cannot share publicly and say to us that they were satisfied with the terrorism designation, I for one would find that reassuring.
Dan Jarvis
I am always very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks with a real wisdom about these matters, and I can give him those assurances. We have been in contact with the Committee, which he used to chair; it consists of some incredibly experienced and wise parliamentarians, and we seek to take their counsel at every opportunity—so, yes, we have engaged with them and will continue to do so on this matter and others.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
While Palestine Action waged its campaign of intimidation and went about damaging military bases, with very little impact in the middle east, this week the Government will host President Abbas and President Herzog for discussions on a more peaceful future for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Does the Minister agree that, unlike Palestine Action, this Government are actually taking genuine and serious steps to support peace in the middle east?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I completely agree. I think there is an absolute point of consensus in this place—and, I hope, much further afield—about the urgent need to secure peace in the middle east. This Government, led by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, will do everything we possibly can to support that important process.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The optics of octogenarian priests being arrested alongside hundreds of peaceful protesters are absolutely awful for this Government. We had only three arrests over the weekend in Scotland, because Police Scotland seemed to deploy a much more conciliatory and community-based approach. Does the Minister support operational independence across the UK? If police forces feel it is in their interests to have different policing arrangements from the Metropolitan police, will he support them and say that there will be no Government interference in their operations?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his engagement over the course of the summer. I can give him an absolute assurance: yes, of course we believe in the absolute importance of the operational independence of the police. They have to make some very difficult judgments, but I hope he agrees that nobody should be above the law; there is not an age limitation with regard to these offences. The police have difficult judgments to make, but in the main they have acted proportionately and without fear or favour, in the best traditions of British policing.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
This weekend alone, almost 900 people—several of whom were from my constituency—were arrested. The Terrorism Act was not brought in to arrest vicars, retired grandmothers and NHS consultants for holding a placard, yet the police are now in the position where that is exactly what they are doing weekend after weekend. Will the Minister consider the views of international human rights experts, like the UN Human Rights Commissioner, who has described the ban as “disproportionate and unnecessary”? Will he also acknowledge our concerns that political decisions must be open to political challenge—otherwise, we risk a massive loss of confidence in our democracy?
Dan Jarvis
I completely agree with the point about political challenge; that is why we are here today to debate the decision and the policing around it. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that the Government have acted in good faith, as we always seek to do. The advice that the Government received was clear and unambiguous. Palestine Action is concerned in terrorism, and its members have demonstrated a willingness or intention to conduct, in pursuit of its cause, serious violence against persons. Under those particular circumstances, the Government have a responsibility and a duty to act.
As I have mentioned previously, and my hon. Friend will know, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has been widely quoted about his response to the actions that the Government have taken; he concluded in a recent article that there is no way that ordinary criminal law would have been effective against this organisation.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, while in this case, proscription may be a finely balanced decision, the law must be upheld whether you like it or not, whoever you are and wherever you are? Does he therefore share my concern that in this case, there appears to be some regional disparity in the interpretation of the law, as evidenced by the different rates at which people were arrested across this country at the weekend?
Dan Jarvis
As always, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I acknowledge his assessment of the decision as being finely balanced. As I know he will understand, should this or any Government have taken a different approach, we would no doubt have been in this Chamber debating why the Government had decided to not proscribe. These are difficult judgments, but under the circumstances I have described, the then Home Secretary did exactly the right thing in taking the decision she did.
As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about regional disparities, he will have heard the comment I made just a moment ago about the operational independence of the police. However, if he has seen particular occurrences that he thinks are not in that spirit, I ask him to write to me. I would be very happy to look at them.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
So many people, myself included, are looking at the famine in Gaza and the planned annexation of the west bank with a sense of complete desperation and a lack of agency. People want to demonstrate that desperation through peaceful protest, and it is difficult for many of us to see the mass arrests of people holding placards. I understand that the nature of proscription means that showing support for a proscribed organisation is a criminal offence, but the acts are peaceful, and the cause is so desperate. At the time of voting, the effect of arresting demonstrators was not made clear to us; we must reflect again on the effects of proscription. When assessing whether to proscribe Palestine Action, to what extent did the Government take into account the rights to free expression and free association, including under articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights—not the rights of the proscribed organisation itself, but of the wider cohort who will be criminalised for peacefully expressing support for it?
Dan Jarvis
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about peaceful protest, and I can give him an absolute assurance that in taking this or any decision, the Home Secretary acts on advice and very carefully considers a range of different factors. He is right to talk about peaceful protest. Peaceful protest took place in London over the course of this weekend, which was very good to see, but at the particular demonstration at which there were a significant number of arrests, 33 people were also arrested for separate offences, including 17 alleged assaults on police officers. None of us wants to see that kind of violent activity. We will work closely with the police to ensure people have the ability to protest in a peaceful way—that is a cornerstone of our democracy—but it is entirely unacceptable that anybody should seek to assault a police officer.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I hear the distinction that the Minister is attempting to make, but the fact remains that almost 1,000 largely peaceful protesters were arrested in London this weekend. I am sure that when we look back on this, we are going to conclude that it was not only a huge waste of police resources, but a chilling moment for free speech in this country. Given that the Government seem so convinced that these people are associated with terrorism, will they commit to publishing data on what proportion of those arrested are actually charged with terrorism-related offences?
Dan Jarvis
I say to the hon. Gentleman—hopefully in a constructive way—that the only distinction I am seeking to make is between those who break the law and those who do not. We saw a very interesting comparison over the course of this weekend; tens of thousands of people came to protest, and were able to do so, expressing their concerns about the terrible situation in Gaza without supporting a proscribed organisation. As I said in my earlier remarks, there is a big difference between being able to protest in support of a legitimate cause and expressing support for a proscribed organisation. That is a criminal offence, and the police have an absolute duty to enforce the law, which is what they did.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Nobody is above the law, yet the Metropolitan police report that a total of 857 people were arrested under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at the weekend, the vast majority for simply holding placards stating, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have received any legal advice concerning the implications of hosting a visit by Israeli President Herzog in relation to the UK’s genocide convention responsibilities, particularly given his recent record of stating that there are “no innocent civilians” in Gaza and personally signing artillery shells destined for use in Gaza? Will any visa application made by the Israeli President to visit the UK this week be rejected, or will he be subject to police investigation if he does arrive?
Dan Jarvis
I understand why my hon. Friend has asked me that question. I hope that he will understand that he is asking me about matters for which I do not have ministerial responsibility. He will also understand that the Government receive a range of legal advice across a range of different Departments. The purpose of this particular response today is to look at the issue of proscription and the recent protest activity. I can give him and the House an absolute assurance that this is a Government who believe in upholding the law. This is a Government who believe in the importance of international law, and we will work with our allies and partners to ensure that international law and domestic law are upheld.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On this day 89 years ago, three founding members of Plaid Cymru handed themselves in after burning the RAF bombing school at Penyberth. Today, they and all their supporters would likely be branded terrorists for non-violent direct action. Lumping Palestine Action with Maniacs Murder Cult and Russian Imperial Movement was calculated, cynical and disproportionate. It has led to the arrest of hundreds, if not thousands, of protesters. What does the Minister think will be the consequences now that his Government look more interested in silencing protest than maintaining policing by consent?
Dan Jarvis
I struggle to follow the logic of the right hon. Lady’s question, given that tens of thousands of people were absolutely able to express their democratic right to protest over the course of this weekend. I am sure she would have seen that. I hope she will understand that this Government have not done anything that interferes with anybody’s lawful right to express their concern about an issue. Just to pick up on one other point that she made, let me give her an absolute assurance that we did not group the three proscribed organisations together for the reasons she—[Interruption.] She is completely mistaken. She has asked me a question, and she might want to listen to the answer. There were two reasons why that decision was taken. Frankly, the first is that this is a Government with a busy legislative agenda, and we need to be efficient with precious parliamentary time. The second and perhaps more important reason is that this Government do not look at the ideological origin of the threat: we will do what we need to do to keep the public safe, regardless of where the threat comes from. That is the right approach, it is even-handed, and it was on that basis that we proceeded.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
In recent weeks, a number of my constituents in Stroud have been arrested. Many of them are over 70, and the whole situation seems to have become slightly ridiculous. Does the Minister agree that proscribing is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
Dan Jarvis
With great respect, and I do not mean to be flippant, I think it is a rather unfortunate use of “sledgehammer”, given previous events. No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think the actions of the Government have been necessary and proportionate for the reasons I explained earlier. I worry that there are a number of people who seek to express support for an organisation who do not fully understand the activities that that organisation has engaged in in recent times.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Mr Justice Chamberlain granted the judicial review on the basis that the Home Secretary had not consulted Palestine Action before proscribing it. The judge ruled that it was “reasonably arguable” that there was a duty to consult Palestine Action before proscribing it, as reported in The Guardian. If organisations meet a high standard and a high threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act, why should there be a duty to consult that organisation before proscribing it?
Dan Jarvis
I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that given that there are ongoing legal proceedings, it would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on any legal rulings or judgments that have been made, but I can give him an assurance that when it came to making this decision, all the necessary legal and expert advice was considered very carefully. There is a formal process that enables any organisation that is proscribed to seek a legal right to redress, and the Government are very supportive of any organisation that has been proscribed pursuing a legal avenue of appeal. It is the right of any such organisation to do so, and this Government would never get in the way of that legal right.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a case of people’s democratic rights to protest being curtailed? The democratically elected Government and Parliament have legislated, Members have proscribed Palestine Action lawfully, and now police enforce the law free from political interference. The law is clear: people are no longer allowed to support this organisation, and to do so risks lawful arrest. Does my hon. Friend further agree that there is nothing to stop people protesting in support of the Palestinians or against this Israeli Government, as long as they so do peacefully and within the law?
Dan Jarvis
I completely agree with all my hon. Friend’s points. He knows and I know, and I am sure the House knows, that had the Government taken a different decision, I would be standing here at the Dispatch Box seeking to justify that decision as well.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
May I ask the Minister to reflect for a moment on the fact that this is the largest number of people arrested since the Terrorism Act 2000 came into force? Those people who were protesting on Saturday were protesting at the horror of the genocide in Gaza, and British complicity in it through arms sales and military co-operation and support. They are deeply concerned about civil liberties in our society, and feel that the legislation rushed through this Parliament damages their right to civil peaceful protest in our society.
The Minister knows that the weight of history is against him. He knows that at some point the Government will have to review this legislation, because otherwise the situation will simply get worse and worse. Can he not just bring himself to say now that the Government will look at it again, review the whole situation, and, rather than proscribing peaceful protest in our society, accept that we have a history behind us that brought us all here, and is built on protest and dissent?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for a very, very long time, so he will know that this legislation was not rushed through Parliament. It came through Parliament in the same way that other proscription actions have come through over many, many years.
Let me seek, perhaps, two points of consensus. The first involves freedom of speech. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman was up to at the weekend, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he may have been on the streets of London, and good luck to him. It is his absolute democratic right to protest in the way in which he is well known for doing. The Government have done nothing to stand in the way of him and his colleagues in that regard. Let me, however, say one more thing to him. Although he and I may disagree on many things, I hope that, as supporters of the trade union movement, we agree on the importance of people’s safety in the workplace. He asked me to consider something; perhaps I should ask him to consider the importance of safeguarding people’s safety and security in the workplace, which is not a matter to which the organisation that we are discussing today has given much consideration.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Hundreds of people have now been arrested for terror offences, facing up to 14 years’ imprisonment, for no more than peacefully holding a placard. Most are elderly, and many are healthcare workers, priests and ordinary working people. All are prepared to risk severe punishment for doing what our Government have failed to do. The proscription of Palestine Action is an authoritarian attack on the right to protest. It is absurd, unworkable and unsustainable. Will the Minister, and the new Home Secretary, consider the Government’s position?
Dan Jarvis
This Government and the new Home Secretary will do everything that is necessary and proportionate to keep the public safe. These are difficult judgments that require very careful consideration. Very careful consideration was given to the decision that was taken, and it was motivated by a very strong desire, and a responsibility, to keep the public safe.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
May I thank and congratulate the police for arresting successfully so many hundreds of people who broke the law and shockingly supported a proscribed terror group? Does the Minister expect them to be charged and prosecuted to ensure we have a proper deterrent against supporting a proscribed terror group?
Dan Jarvis
Let me first join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the police for the important work that they do. It is absolutely shameful that there were 17 assaults on members of the police doing their job in London this weekend. That is totally unacceptable and rather undermines the credibility of those who say that these are entirely peaceful protests.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s other point, I hope he will understand that these are matters for the Crown Prosecution Service, which is independent of Government, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them, but I share the concerns that he has expressed.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I abhor the methods of Palestine Action, and indeed any violence in the course of protest, but I understand that four groups have been de-proscribed in the last 20 years. I am sure that the aim is for all banned groups to de-escalate and become legitimate protest groups, so what steps or evidence would be required for Palestine Action to be de-proscribed in the future?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughtful and sensible question. There is a formal legal process to be followed. As I said in response to an earlier question, the Government completely understand that any organisation that is proscribed has an absolute legal right to contest that decision. This Government will not stand in the way of that legal process, and we will respond in a reasonable and responsible way. There is a legal appeal under way. That will run its course, and then we will have a legal ruling. The Government will, of course, abide by that.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Many members of my community were arrested in London on Saturday, including a senior priest, an elderly Jewish man, and a teacher who has spent years with Gazan children and has witnessed the horror of seeing them killed by Israeli troops over the last couple of years. These people are not terrorists. While I am sure all Members of the House agree that anybody attacking serving police officers in the streets deserves to be arrested, does the Minister accept that the use of counter-terror powers is wholly disproportionate to the peaceful action that these people took by simply holding signs, and sets a dangerous precedent for free speech?
Dan Jarvis
I do not accept the hon. Lady’s critique about the precedent with regard to free speech, for the reasons that I have already referenced and because tens of thousands of people were on the streets of London this weekend expressing their free speech. The police have difficult judgments to make. I do not accept her analysis that this was not proportionate. The Government have an absolute responsibility to act when the evidence suggests that we need to take decisions to secure public safety, which is what the Government have done. We stand by that decision, and we will work with the police to ensure that people obey the law. Where they do not, regardless of their age or professional background, I am afraid there have to be consequences.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Many of those arrested over the weekend for simply holding placards were older and disabled citizens and human rights activists, who can hardly be described as terrorists. Considering that the UN human rights chief has warned that proscription dangerously conflates protest with terrorism, does the Minister accept that we at least run some risk of suppressing protest and dissent, through which we obtained many of the freedoms that we enjoy today?
Dan Jarvis
I really do not think that that is the case. At every stage of these proceedings, the Government have been absolutely clear about the important right—the cornerstone of our democracy—of people to protest about matters about which they are concerned. This Government have not done anything to get in the way or prevent people from doing that. We saw that this weekend: tens of thousands of people having their say. They were able to do so in a way that was lawful and did not require them to be arrested, because they had not broken the law. I do not accept the analysis that this has a chilling effect on free speech—quite the opposite. I think it absolutely demonstrates that people can come and demonstrate in a lawful way, and that the police will respond in an appropriate manner.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
It is a shame that the Home Secretary could not come here today to defend her Government. Over 1,600 people have been arrested since this Labour Government proscribed a non-violent direct action group for the first time in British history, including elderly people, disabled people, priests, NHS workers and the children of Holocaust survivors. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has condemned this proscription as “disproportionate and unnecessary”, warning that it risks creating a “further chilling effect”. Will the Minister finally admit that his Government got it wrong and that they have threatened and undermined our free speech and right to protest, and will they review and immediately lift this ban?
Dan Jarvis
First, the Home Secretary is meeting our Five Eyes allies who are here for the five-country ministerial. That is incredibly important work in securing our alliances with our United States, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand allies. These are important partnerships that this Government value and that this Home Secretary is investing in on almost her first full day in office.
On the other points the hon. Lady seeks to raise, she has an absolute right, as everybody does, to protest in a lawful way. There is nothing that this Government have done to prevent her or anybody else from doing that. What this Government have done is ensure that we are best placed to protect the public. I am sorry that she does not agree with that—that is her absolute right—but I maintain that support for freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, and this Government will always enable people to have their say.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
I absolutely condemn any action or violence taken against the public or, indeed, the police. However, I wrote to the former Home Secretary twice on this matter, because many legislators here have yet to see evidence that satisfies us about the proportionality of the proscription of Palestine Action and how the Government balance that with the public’s right to protest and freedom of speech. Could I encourage the Minister to review this law, not least because it has an impact contrary to what the Government want, in that the more arrests there are, the more it draws attention to Palestine Action?
Dan Jarvis
I entirely understand why the hon. Lady may wish to raise concerns in the way she has. She made an important point about evidence, and I give her an assurance that we have put into the public domain all the evidence we have been able to. I hope she will understand that there are strict limitations on some things we are able to say for a variety of reasons, not least that there are ongoing police investigations and ongoing criminal proceedings. That limits the ability of Ministers to talk about this issue, but within those constraints we have tried to be as clear as we possibly can about the reasons for this decision. On a number of occasions, the previous Home Secretary and I have laid out the reasons why we took this decision.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I urge the Minister to be a bit more succinct in his responses.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Hundreds of peaceful protesters have been arrested this weekend in the name of national security, but in what way does a peaceful protester’s tactic of holding a banner compromise national security? If the aim of national security is fundamentally to ensure that we can live in a free society where our democratic freedoms are protected, can the Minister not see that the mass arrest of peaceful protesters is an authoritarian measure that undermines, not protects, those freedoms?
Dan Jarvis
I completely acknowledge that the concerns the hon. Member has expressed are entirely genuine and well-meaning. I hope he understands the importance that we attach to the rule of law. We do not think that people should be excepted from the rule of law because they are of a particular age, have a disability or have a particular professional background. That would be entirely unfair. Nobody is above the law. The police have a difficult job to do to police these protests. I gently say to him that the protests we saw over the weekend were not entirely peaceful, with 33 other arrests, including 17 for assaults on police officers. I hope that none of us wants to see that activity in our capital, or anywhere else for that matter.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)
I thank the Minister for his answers, and I fully agree that there can be no place for violence in our politics. However, does he accept that elderly retired priests and disabled veterans would not be protesting in the way they are if they genuinely believed that Palestine Action was a similar organisation to ISIS or al-Qaeda? Can he provide any additional guidance or advice on how members of the public can legitimately protest against the proscription of this organisation?
Dan Jarvis
First, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that neither the Government nor I are seeking to make the comparison he offers. What we do believe is that people should follow the law. It is a criminal offence to seek to support a proscribed group. The police are doing the job of ensuring the law is enforced. Again, I make the comparison that if it were people protesting about other organisations—extreme right-wing ideological or Islamist organisations—then certain commentators, not in this place but outside it, would seek to view the matter in a different way. We have to be even-handed and fair, and that is what we have sought to be.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Nobody would support the violent actions of some of the people in Palestine Action, of course, but the number of arrests is placing huge pressure on our police. The demographic of those arrested is clearly absurd. The nature of what they are doing is holding a placard in response to the horrors they are seeing on their televisions. We are all, in this House, seeing those horrors. The previous Home Secretary said that many of the people who support the group do not know the nature of the more violent elements of it. Given the apparent imbalance of what we are seeing, is the Minister not concerned that it creates a dangerous precedent when, in future, we try to enforce against people who are actually terrorists and have malign intent on our streets?
Dan Jarvis
As I have said previously, I understand the concerns that are being expressed. The hon. Gentleman refers to somebody holding a placard. They are holding a placard that expresses support for a proscribed organisation, and that is a criminal offence. In an answer I gave just a moment ago, I said that the Government are limited in terms of the detail they can provide about the activities of Palestine Action, for the reasons I have explained. If people are considering seeking to protest and provide their support for this proscribed organisation, I invite them to look very carefully at what that organisation has been engaged in. There has been significant reporting about some of those activities. That might focus the minds of those who seek to support them in future.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The more than 1,000 people who have been arrested include blind veterans, elderly people, NHS workers and even the children of Holocaust survivors, yet the Government are intent on aiding and abetting Israeli firms—51 of them will be exhibiting in London this week at the arms fair—alongside rolling out the carpet, stained with the blood of the children of Gaza, for the President of Israel. Why are non-violent protesters being treated with greater punishment than a Government bombing and starving millions of children? Does the Minister agree that if there was real justice, the Government would arrest the Israeli leadership and send them to the International Criminal Court?
Dan Jarvis
I hope very much that there is consensus across the House about the desperate situation in Gaza and the middle east. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Government will do everything they can to work with partners and allies to seek to bring a resolution to that desperate situation. He referred to the age of the protesters. I just say to him that the law has to be applied fairly and universally. Therefore, if someone is of a particular age, that does not enable them to break the law, in the same way that it would not enable someone of a younger age to do so.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
With over 800 people arrested this weekend, proscribing Palestine Action clearly has not worked as intended. Will the Government urgently review our terrorism legislation to ensure that those who legitimately protest in favour of the Palestinian cause are not treated as terrorists for simply wearing a T-shirt or holding a placard?
Dan Jarvis
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks that have been published recently by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Can the Minister tell me what safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure that terrorism powers are not misused against people exercising their democratic right to protest peacefully against proscription, including elderly vicars holding placards?
Dan Jarvis
That is an entirely fair challenge. That is precisely why we have Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, look at these matters very closely—an expert in this field who is entirely independent from Government. There is respect for him across the House; the Government certainly hugely value his opinion. I would ask the hon. Lady to look carefully at what he has said on these matters.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Sixteen hundred individuals—mainly senior citizens—have been arrested. The Minister will understand that this is not just a big operation, but one that involves taxpayers’ money, with millions of pounds spent on arrests, and no doubt millions spent on legal aid if people are prosecuted in our courts system. Will the Minister release the legal advice upon which this proscription took place so that the public can see whether taxpayer money is being used effectively?
Dan Jarvis
There is a process in place when the Home Secretary makes decisions on proscription. As part of that process, she will, of course, consider legal advice, as well as advice from experts right across Government and law enforcement. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that these decisions are not taken lightly. No Government and no Home Secretary would seek to take these decisions lightly, and the previous Home Secretary certainly did not do so.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Our free speech is protected under the European convention on human rights, and we should view with great suspicion anybody who would remove the United Kingdom’s signature from that convention. This Government’s proscription of Palestine Action has led to the arrest of more than 1,000 peaceful protesters—another assault on freedom of expression. I urge the Government to review these powers, which also risk undermining our anti-terrorism laws.
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman will have heard the response I gave earlier to questions on that specific point. I would gently say to him that 17 police officers were assaulted over the weekend, and, while I completely understand why people want to refer to non-violent protest, and I completely accept that the majority of people were behaving in a non-violent way, I hope that he and others will join with me in absolutely condemning any attack on the police that took place over the weekend.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for all his answers. I was and am pleased to see steps to ensure that protesters who were outside the realms of peaceful protest and demonstrating support for a proscribed organisation were dealt with in terms that line up with the law. Palestine Action’s illegal street protests are impacting the police’s ability to do their normal job. Does the Minister believe there are enough police officers to deal with more of these scenarios, and how will the Government ensure that policing on the ground in communities is not sacrificed in order to police these protests?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I can give him an absolute assurance that we work very closely with the police to ensure that they have the resources they need and the necessary legislative framework in order to do their difficult job. As he will understand from his own part of the world, it is important that the police are able to enforce the law without fear or favour. It is worth pointing out that the police work closely with organisers each week to facilitate safe, lawful protests, and I know that they will continue to do so. Hundreds of thousands of people have been able to make their voices heard, while only a very tiny minority have been arrested for breaking the law.
Omar al-Bayoumi: Arrest and Extradition
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the 2001 arrest of Saudi national Omar al-Bayoumi and the failure to extradite Mr al-Bayoumi for his alleged involvement in the 11 September terror attacks.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
The attacks on 9/11 were an appalling assault on freedom. We remember the courage displayed by the American people in the aftermath and in the years since; ahead of the anniversary this week, our thoughts remain with the victims and survivors, as well as all who loved them. Almost 25 years on, there is a risk that we might forget the destructive and barbaric scale of the attacks on 9/11. I would like to remind this House that the attacks killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, injured thousands more and gave rise to substantial long-term health consequences for the victims. The 11 September attacks are the deadliest act of terrorism in human history. I would like to take this opportunity to remember every single one of the victims and their families. In addition to the huge loss of life, the attacks also caused at least $10 billion-worth of infrastructure and property damage.
It would be inappropriate to comment on an individual case, such as the one that the right hon. Gentleman raises. As he will know, it is also a long-standing Government policy—followed by successive Governments —to neither confirm nor deny an arrest for the purpose of an extradition request. The purpose of this policy is to protect the confidentiality of ongoing investigations, reciprocate international best practice, maintain trust and confidence between states, and minimise the risk of fugitives escaping justice. It is always a matter for the competent authorities in requesting territories if they wish to make a request for extradition to the UK. There is an ongoing civil legal action in the United States, and due to those ongoing legal proceedings, the Government are not able to comment further today.
The extradition process is a formal international procedure where one country requests another to return a person accused or convicted of a serious offence to stand trial or serve a sentence. The process typically begins with a formal request from one country to another. Extradition from the UK is governed by the Extradition Act 2003. For all countries outside the EU, a state-to-state system operates, whereby requests are sent between Governments, with decision-making split between Ministers and the UK courts. Whether or not formal extradition arrangements are in place with the requesting state will determine how incoming requests progress through the UK system. There are many countries where bilateral or multilateral treaties are in place. However, the UK can co-operate with any country on an ad hoc basis through the special extradition arrangements provisions in the 2003 Act.
The Home Office has an operational case working unit—the UK central authority—which exercises the Home Secretary’s responsibilities for non-EU extradition to and from the UK. For all incoming extradition requests sent to the UK from any country in the world, the 2003 Act requires a UK judge to decide whether the requested person’s extradition would be compatible with their human rights. The UK unequivocally supports the rule of law; all individuals requested for extradition are considered individually by our independent courts, complying with the provisions of the 2003 Act.
David Davis
Yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Times revealed that in the aftermath of 9/11 the Metropolitan police were forced to release Omar al-Bayoumi, who was believed to be a Saudi intelligence agent accused of supporting the hijackers, because the FBI withheld evidence. Arrested in Birmingham 10 days after 9/11, al-Bayoumi was taken to London to be interrogated by Met counter-terror officers. The FBI declined to provide those officers with vital evidence of al-Bayoumi’s involvement in 9/11. The evidence included a hand-drawn aircraft diagram, trajectory calculations matching the Pentagon attack, and an address book with the attackers’ code name—a code name that bin Laden himself did not disclose until a year later.
The FBI’s refusal to disclose this evidence prevented al-Bayoumi’s extradition to the United States. FBI records show that in 1999, al-Bayoumi met two officials from the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs. Those officials were assessed to be part of a network of individuals connected with the facilitation of two 9/11 attackers. A separate 2017 assessment by the FBI’s Arabic specialists concluded that Mr al-Bayoumi was a co-optee of the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency, which is its secret service.
A full investigation by the Intelligence and Security Committee is needed. It must investigate why the FBI clearly avoided extraditing Mr al-Bayoumi and exactly what was the involvement of the Saudi Government, in particular their Ministry of Islamic Affairs and secret service. As the Minister said, it is nearly 25 years since 9/11. In that time we have extradited many innocent people to America, but we failed to extradite someone who deserved to be sent over there. We need to get to the bottom of this, in part so that we do not see this terrible atrocity happen again.
Dan Jarvis
I know that the right hon. Gentleman applies a huge weight of judgment and consideration to these matters, so I completely understand why he sought to bring this matter to the House’s attention. I hope, though, that he understands that I am very limited in what I can say by way of response.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember—I do not think he will mind my saying that he has been around for quite a long time—that in 2001 we were operating under the Extradition Act 1989. As he has mentioned, The Sunday Times has reported that key documents were not considered in 2001 when Mr Omar al-Bayoumi was subject to investigation in respect of the 9/11 bombings in the United States of America. The Sunday Times article suggests that the US did not pursue extradition in 2001. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are legal proceedings ongoing in the United States, and that means that I am not able to say any more at this point. I hope that he and the House will understand the reasons for that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Let me start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on securing the urgent question and The Sunday Times on its reporting. As the Minister said, 9/11 was one of the most sickening terrorist atrocities of our lifetime, committed by Islamist extremists. Yesterday’s piece in The Sunday Times raises serious questions about the case of Omar al-Bayoumi. It appears that the UK police and the FBI had clear evidence that Omar al-Bayoumi assisted terrorists and had close links to the Saudi Government—or elements of the Saudi Government—and indeed was their agent.
It is not me saying that: just last week, US district court judge George Daniels sitting in New York found there was “reasonable evidence” that two Saudi citizens—one of whom was al-Bayoumi—were sent by the Saudi Government to assist the hijackers. That raises some extremely serious questions that I would like the Security Minister to answer. I gently say to him that the ongoing civil proceedings in New York by no means preclude him from answering; I ask him not to hide behind that.
First, why did the UK police release al-Bayoumi so quickly when they held other suspects, including someone in an adjacent cell, for extended periods—in that case for five months? Secondly, did the Saudi Government or the US Government pressure the UK Government to release al-Bayoumi early and not pursue the matter? Does the Security Minister agree with the judge that al-Bayoumi assisted terrorists and that he was sent by the Saudi Government to do so?
Will the Security Minister release all the relevant documents, including those held in the National Archives? Will he look into this matter and report back to the House? Finally, does he agree that the Intelligence and Security Committee should urgently investigate this matter?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks. He understandably referenced the article in yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Times, which I accept raises a number of important questions that are absolutely worthy of scrutiny and deserving of the House’s attention. I give him an assurance that the Government and I, as Security Minister, will look closely at the matters raised in the context of the debate. I do not accept the point he made that we are seeking to hide behind the legal proceedings taking place in the US. An article was published in a newspaper yesterday, and I give both the shadow Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) an assurance that we will look carefully at the detail contained within it.
The shadow Home Secretary also made a reasonable point about the Intelligence and Security Committee. As an experienced Member and a former Minister, he will know that it is not for me to direct the activities of the ISC. It is an independent Committee, and it is very much a matter for the Chair and the Committee to decide what they wish to pursue. However, knowing the Chair as I do—he will be well known to hon. Members right across the House—I would be surprised if he did not want to take a look at it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Ben Maguire.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his update, and I echo his tribute to the victims of the appalling 9/11 attack. However, after recent revelations about Omar al-Bayoumi, his alleged involvement with the Saudi intelligence services and his links to the 9/11 hijackers, a number of pressing questions remain unanswered. First, why were British investigators not given access to all the evidence that the FBI held, including the Capitol Hill video and the aircraft sketch? Who in the UK Government was briefed about al-Bayoumi’s arrest at the time? Why is there no clear record of ministerial oversight? Did the Saudi authorities make representations to the UK Government regarding al-Bayoumi’s detention? If so, did this ultimately influence the decision to release him? Finally, and most importantly, what safeguards are now in place to make sure that crucial evidence from foreign intelligence agencies cannot be withheld from British counter-terrorism investigations?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least because he rightly raises the important point that we should always seek to remember and reflect on the sacrifice and the loss of the victims and survivors of terrorism. He is right: the victims and survivors of the horrific terrorist attacks that have scarred communities here and around the world must be remembered. This Government take that incredibly seriously, and in that spirit we have recently consulted on the creation of a national day for victims and survivors of terrorism. It is vital that the day reflects the voices and experience of those who have been directly impacted by terrorism offences.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of detailed questions, but I will not be able to respond in detail to all of them, for reasons that I have already outlined. I can say that we will look closely at the matters that have been raised. I hope he sees that there are reasons why we cannot get into the detail of this today, but I give him and the House and assurance that we will look closely at this.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) did the House a service today in raising this important matter, but there are wider issues associated with the extradition treaty with America. The House will recall that the treaty was set up when Sir Tony Blair was Prime Minister to address terrorism, but in recent years, it has controversially been used for a much wider remit; from time to time, it has looked as though commercial and national advantage was sought from it. That suggests that the time may be right to review it. Will the Minister look at the matter carefully, and consider whether now is the time to do that?
Dan Jarvis
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important matter with wider ramifications. I will not commit to the formal review that he describes, but I commit to him, and to the House, that we will look carefully at the issues that have been raised and the points he makes, and I will endeavour to come back to him and others on this issue as soon as possible.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that ever since the Saudi nationality of the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers became known, there has been deep suspicion about the role of the then Saudi Government in the atrocity that took place? To what extent do the Government believe that the nature and attitude of the Saudi Government have changed over the past 24 years?
Dan Jarvis
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that on this occasion, I want to look forward, rather than back. The United Kingdom Government hugely value the relationship that we have with Saudi Arabia, and I visited it relatively recently. It is an important regional partner, and we want to work as closely and constructively with it as we can.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
We know that 67 Britons died on 9/11. Does the Minister agree that we owe it to them, their memory and the families to get to the bottom of what look like very fishy reports over the weekend on how this individual was handled? Will he assure the House that the police at the time had operational independence—an issue that he referred to in his response to the previous urgent question? Does he understand that the British public are deeply sceptical about the stance taken by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, particularly as the 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi is still very much at the forefront of their mind?
Dan Jarvis
On the right hon. Member’s final point, I refer him to the response I gave to his right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) a moment ago, but I agree about the importance of this matter. That day will be engrained in the minds of us all; I certainly remember exactly where I was. The world changed, and my life changed alongside it. I absolutely share his concern about these matters, and I completely agree with his point about the responsibility we have for the UK victims of that horrendous terrorist attack. I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his update and his answers. Does he not agree that our obligation to expose international terrorism and support our allies in the fight against those responsible for the 9/11 bombings is incredibly clear? Every step must be taken to ensure that anyone on British soil understands that we will never be a shield for terrorists. How will he ensure that every possible step is taken to make sure that this man is questioned—and held to account if, in fact, he is guilty?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am, not least because he speaks with great authority on matters relating to terrorism. I have had the privilege of discussing it with him on many occasions. He raises important points. I can only reiterate the importance that this Government attach to keeping the public safe and working with our international allies to defeat international terrorism. This Government will do everything that we need to do to stand against the terrorists and with those affected by their destructive activities.
Defence Industrial Strategy
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Luke Pollard)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the defence industrial strategy. Today we fulfil another manifesto commitment by publishing our plan to strengthen our security and grow our economy. It is a plan to back British-based industry, create British jobs and drive British innovation.
Before I set out the detail of the strategy, I would like to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) for her work in developing the strategy. I also extend a warm welcome to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), who has joined the Ministry of Defence team.
This is a plan supported by £773 million of investment—a plan to make defence an engine for economic growth in every nation and region of our country. The men and women who serve our nation are rightly respected across the world for their dedication and professionalism, yet as we know from the war in Ukraine, when a country is forced to fight, its armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. The UK has one of the most advanced, innovative defence industrial bases the world over, but we are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era of UK defence.
Our strategic defence review set out our vision to make Britain safer—secure at home and strong abroad. Through our defence industrial strategy, we will ensure that we have an industry to deliver that vision. All the pledges made today can only be met because this Labour Government have committed the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war: 2.6% of GDP by 2027, and 3.5% by 2035, alongside our NATO allies. But with the promise to invest more comes the responsibility to invest better. By implementing our strategy, we will ensure that workers and businesses across the UK feel the benefit of the defence dividend.
In opposition, the now Defence Secretary told the House:
“Labour’s determination to see British investment directed first to British industry is fundamental.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 798.]
Today, ambition in opposition becomes action in government. Using every lever available to the Government, our strategy will prioritise British-based businesses. We will make it easier for British-based firms to do business with the Ministry of Defence. We will launch an office of small business growth to support small and medium-sized enterprises in accessing MOD contracts, and we will give greater clarity by sharing our five-year acquisition pipeline, allowing businesses to invest with confidence.
The £10 billion frigate contract signed with Norway last week was the biggest warship deal in our history—a demonstration that when we export defence capabilities, we not only strengthen our security abroad, but create high-skilled jobs at home. Through our strategy, we will back British businesses to go out and win—win more contracts and create more jobs. The new office of defence exports brings responsibility for defence exports back into the Ministry of Defence and creates a Government-to-Government exports structure that reflects what our allies and industry need.
Sustaining sovereign capabilities is the cornerstone of national security, so our strategy sets out the requirement to onshore key assets. We will maintain the advantages afforded by open international competition, but in a way that improves value for the British taxpayer. For the first time ever, we will introduce an offset policy, designed in consultation with industry. It will mean that when we buy from our allies, the UK economy will be strengthened in return through new jobs and novel technologies.
Our defence industrial base represents a commitment to innovation and excellence. Today, it supports over 460,000 jobs and over 24,000 apprenticeships across the UK, the vast majority of which are unionised. As a trade union member, I know that good, well-paid and unionised jobs are good not only for defence but for growth. The defence industry is a source of not only prosperity but pride; it proves that we are still a nation of makers. When I speak with defence workers, I see their deep sense of purpose in what they do. They are right to feel that way; their efforts keep our nation safe. Through our strategy, more people will be afforded the opportunities and rewards of working in this industry.
To ensure that the benefits of the defence dividend are shared across every nation and region of the UK, we are investing £250 million in defence growth deals. Our deals will build on inherent strengths in defence communities by improving skills and infrastructure. The first phase will be launched in Plymouth, where we will focus on advanced marine technologies and autonomous systems, and in south Yorkshire, where we will build on our recent investment in defence and steel. Further locations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be announced, because there is not only a defence dividend from our uplift in defence spending, but a Union dividend, strengthening our United Kingdom.
ADS analysis indicates that the defence industry workforce could grow by 50,000 people by 2035, when defence spending increases to 3% of GDP. To ensure that the UK can take full advantage, we must ensure that we have the workers with the right skills to fulfil those roles, so I am today announcing the biggest ever investment in defence skills: £182 million of new Government funding to establish five defence technical excellence colleges, so that we can promote to over 800,000 school pupils the benefits of a career in the defence industry; and our new defence skills passport, which will make it easier and faster for veterans and workers in other industries to move into the defence sector.
Over the past few years, defence firms have expressed growing concerns about attending jobs fairs. The harassment and intimidation to which they have been subjected has forced companies to cancel events on university campuses. The campaign to boycott and target defence firms misunderstands the purpose of deterrence. We know the full measure of freedom and security in Britain because of what our defence industry does. The strategy will help the industry to attract the talent it needs by creating a dedicated presence on the UCAS website, a new defence apprenticeship and graduate clearing system, and a defence university alliance to strengthen careers in the sector.
The war in Ukraine reminds us that innovation is the central pillar of deterrence. To ensure that we meet our objectives of better capability and increased growth, we are committed to spending at least 10% of our equipment budget on novel technologies. The newly established UK Defence Innovation is backed by £400 million of ringfenced investment and has the authority to reallocate funding and resources, ensuring a focus on priorities and value for money. Today’s strategy outlines how we will employ UKDI to rapidly produce technologies that give our armed forces an advantage. We will set out the first of the innovation challenges that we want industry to go after, as well as how we will better support firms in testing their innovations.
This Government inherited what the Public Accounts Committee described as a “broken procurement system”. For too long, defence has been burdened by waste, delay and complexity, yet today we know that whoever gets technology to its frontline forces the fastest, wins. We have proved that we can do it for Ukraine; now we must do it for Britain. Our segmented approach to procurement sets ambitious targets to drastically reduce the timescales to get new projects on contract. As part of the biggest shake-up to the Ministry of Defence in over 50 years, we have created the role of National armaments director, and because we want UK firms to win not just at home but abroad, we will improve our export licensing system with a new digital platform, better training for staff, and reformed procedures, including allowing exporters to apply for licences during the bidding process.
Unlike previous strategies, our one is funded. It is also the culmination of months of detailed work and close engagement with industry, academia, and trade unions. Throughout the process, our aim has been to produce a strategy with the defence sector, rather than to it. With a clear plan backed by historic investment, our Government, alongside industry, will now deliver for Britain. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Defence.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for early sight of both his statement and the hard copy document. Before I respond to the statement, may I express on behalf of the Opposition our wholehearted condemnation of the latest drone attack on Kyiv, the largest of the war, with small children among the dead? It is a reminder of why we need to step up and rearm at pace and scale, to strengthen our deterrence in a dangerous world.
The strategy’s statement of intent, published last December stated:
“The Defence Industrial Strategy will be developed at pace...and will be published in late Spring 2025”.
It is now autumn—it has been delayed when we need real pace from the Government, and that is part of a pattern. Some 26 times Ministers promised on the Floor of the House that the strategic defence review would be published in the spring, but it was published in the summer. The defence housing strategy was promised for the summer, and we now understand that it will be published as late as the Christmas recess. Can the Minister guarantee that the defence industrial policy will be published this year?
It is not just Labour’s reviews that are being published far later than promised. The SDR promised that a National armaments director would be in place from 1 April 2025. On page 6, and as the Minister just said, the defence industrial strategy states that
“we have created the role of National armaments director”.
If the Government have created the role, could they kindly tell us the name? Is Andy Start the interim NAD, or is he the new permanent empowered NAD? If so, is he on his previous salary, or the much higher one for the new role? Key appointments and strategies—months late. War is changing rapidly, but Labour is moving far too slowly.
On the contents of the defence industrial strategy, we welcome further measures to boost the skills base of our defence sector. While we will wait to see the full details of the growth deals, we strongly share the Government’s goal of spreading the prosperity benefits of defence around the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell us when those will be up and running, and whether the £250 million investment represents new money that was not previously included in the MOD budget? I also welcome measures to boost defence exports, not least establishing a real Government-to-Government offer, and restoring the defence export team back into the MOD—that is something I was working on, and I am glad the Government are implementing it.
Our main concern about the strategy is that it lacks the ambition to fire up our defence industrial base at the scale and pace required, at a time when the threats we face are so stark. The blunt reality is that, for all Labour’s talk, actual procurement has been largely on hold since the election, with the now notorious written answer confirming in spring that the Government had purchased just three new drones since the election last July. Quite simply, they need to start signing actual capability contracts. Thousands of jobs are at stake in some of those major procurements that were meant to have been resolved in the SDR, but on which we still await a decision.
For example, on Friday I had the pleasure to visit Leonardo in Yeovil, the cornerstone of UK military rotary. It is clear that the New Medium Helicopter procurement is critical to its future. When I announced the NMH competition, I deliberately strengthened tender scoring to support defence jobs here in the UK. Are the Government still committed to NMH? If so, when will they give the green light? We hope that will be at the Defence and Security Equipment International. For that matter, when will we see further progress on Skynet, the Red Arrows replacement, M270 artillery and the many other key decisions that the industry is waiting on?
We want to see pace in procurement, not endless dithering and delay. However, we all know the reason why the waiting goes on for so many UK defence companies, large and small: the Government have not prioritised boosting defence spending meaningfully in the near term. Instead, they use smoke and mirrors to inflate what appears to be going into the MOD. For example, the Government reclassified the intelligence budget into defence, so that they can claim to be spending 2.6% by 2027, when the reality is that the MOD budget—that which actually funds the equipment plan—will be equivalent to only 2.2% of GDP in that same year.
While key procurement decisions continue to be put off, tomorrow Labour will plough on as fast as possible with surrendering sovereignty of our critical defence base on Diego Garcia at a cost of £35 billion. The first payment is of £250 million next year and I can safely say that, instead of giving that to the Government of Mauritius, we would spend the money on rapid procurement of drones and counter-drone tech for the British Army from our brilliant British defence SMEs.
That is what we wanted to see from today’s strategy—the delivery of a strong, sovereign drone industrial base, and the same for space, rotary, military vehicles and so many others, as well as artificial intelligence and tech. Warm words delivered late are not enough. We need to see a real-world ramping up of the defence industrial base, with serious investment and not smoke and mirrors, the prioritisation of UK defence companies, and a rapid boost in our ability to deter the rising threats we face.
Luke Pollard
I think the shadow Defence Secretary really wanted to welcome this strategy, but is finding it difficult, because the politics have got in the way. I will deal with some of that, but first let me say that I am grateful to him for his words about the attack in Kyiv. It is so important that, although we may disagree about some things across this House, there is strong cross-party support against Putin’s illegal invasion. That must never wane.
I suggest politely to the hon. Gentleman that the mess in defence procurement that we inherited was one that he was in charge of when he was in government. It is, therefore, a bit cheeky of him—though, generally speaking, I like cheekiness—to raise these questions. The platforms that he asked about should have been sorted out under his Government, but never were. He knows for sure that our investments will be in the defence investment plan we will publish later this year. He also knows that for the national armaments director, recruitment is well advanced—we have appointed Andy Start as the interim NAD, but it is important that we get the right person for the role. We will continue that process. The shadow Secretary of State also asked about defence growth deals, and that is new money. He also knows that we have signed 900 deals for defence procurement contracts since the election. We will sign more on the back of the defence investment plan later this year.
The hon. Gentleman also accuses us of dithering and delay, but I fear that that is political projection from the failures of his time in government. We have a clear increase in defence spending and a clear strategy published today that directs that increased defence budget at British companies, that backs British SMEs and that creates the skills that our industry needs. I know that he wants to back it. I know that he is passionate about drones, which is why I know that he will back our doubling of funding for drones and autonomous systems in the SDR. I say to him politely: this is a huge opportunity for British businesses up and down the country, in every single nation and region of our land, and the strategy sets out the objectives and opportunities. I hope that, on reflection, he will be able to welcome the strategy thoroughly and to give it full-hearted support, because our industry deserves the support of this House. It has the support of this Labour Government, and we will continue to increase defence spending, directing more of it at British businesses.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement and advance sight of the Government’s defence industrial strategy, which rightly seeks to strengthen our sovereign capabilities and to bolster British defence businesses. One element of the strategy is offsetting, as set out on page 7 of the document, whereby contracts with overseas companies will lead to British jobs and novel technologies. The Minister will be aware, however, that while the practice is used in other nations, previous attempts have been abandoned, because they have led to increased costs and complex contract problems. How will the Minister ensure that the Government get the details correct, that the practice will indeed benefit British workers and that the costs are not merely loaded on to other contracts?
Luke Pollard
The offset policy that we will shortly consult on with industry provides not just the opportunity for us to bring our industries closer together, but means that in circumstances where we have to buy from a foreign provider, which could be because of quality or specific opportunities, we have the ability to then invest more in UK businesses. This is commonplace and has featured in the Norway deal and in procurement by the Australian Government and South Korea. It is a model that works and it creates an environment where we can mesh our industries together more closely with those of our allies, helping to share research and development costs for new platforms and ensuring that when we are not able to spend money on British purchases, British industry still benefits from increased skills and increased investment in novel technology. This is an area that will directly benefit UK firms and our entire defence ecosystem, especially with those investments in skills, which will last a lifetime for the workers involved and show a real defence dividend.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the defence industrial statement. I welcome the announcement today of the new defence industrial strategy because for too many years, the Conservatives chose to ignore the challenges across our defence industrial base. In light of the threats that we face from an imperial Putin and other revisionist powers, it is right that this Government have a serious approach to the defence industrial base in our country.
The opportunities offered through the defence skills passports will add vital channels for people who are already in employment to make the transition to the sector. UK businesses are playing a vital role in supporting military operations in Ukraine, yet we know that many businesses operate internationality. Will the Minister ensure that all British individuals working in the defence sector in offices abroad will also have the skills that they need to support our allies? As the need to work closely with our European allies continues to grow, will he provide an update on what progress the Government have made on securing the UK’s access to the EU Security Action for Europe fund?
It is vital that we properly incorporate small and medium-sized companies into the defence supply chain across Britain. While I welcome the Government’s commitment to a new defence office for small business growth, will the Minister set out how the new office will effectively support the integration of small and medium-sized companies into supply and procurement?
It is crucial that the UK is prioritising spending its money at home and with the best businesses. To create a forward-thinking defence industry, will the Minister support an innovative approach to the development of new defence capabilities that continue to give businesses opportunities to innovate, even when the product is in use?
While the Type 26 deal with Norway is a positive step in working closely with our allies, will the Minister confirm that the delivery timeline for expanding the UK’s own Type 26 fleet will not be delayed?
Finally, last week my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) asked the then Foreign Secretary to assure the House that the Government would not award a £2 billion contract to Israeli defence manufacturer Elbit, to which he replied with a resounding yes. Will the Minister reconfirm that position today?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for welcoming the strategy—it is good to see cross-party support for our defence industry. I also welcome her words about the support that we provide to Ukraine. A lesson that we are learning from the war in Ukraine is that we can procure faster, better and more effectively using increased freedoms. That is precisely the lesson from our work supporting our Ukrainian friends that we are seeking to apply in order to support UK armed forces.
Negotiations on UK participation in SAFE are led jointly by the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence. We will seek to continue those conversations. There needs to be provision of value for money for the British taxpayer and opportunities for British businesses, and I am confident that the discussions will be productive.
The SME office that we are seeking to create is one way of helping those small businesses that feel that they have an innovative project for defence, but struggle with the labyrinthine bureaucracy and confusion about who to go to. Having a one-stop shop that enables people to access those contracts and navigate the process will be a real boost for SMEs selling their products into the Ministry of Defence.
The hon. Member is right about the need for spiral development, but in reducing the contracting times, we need to be alive to the fact that the technologies that we procure need to be spiral developed at pace, so that we do not have a legacy system that then gets spiral development many years later.
On the hon. Member’s two final questions, the Type 26 deal with Norway is a superb boost for shipbuilding on the Clyde. Discussions with our Norwegian friends have already started about the build slots, but the Royal Navy will receive our Type 26 frigates in the 2030s as planned. No decisions have been made about the recruitment contract that she mentioned. The intention is to make a decision in February 2026, but I have heard what she said in relation to that.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
On Thursday, I had the pleasure of visiting BAE Systems in my constituency with the Prime Minister. I spoke to many of the apprentices there, who are looking forward to a very long and secure future in their jobs. Can the training academy model used at Scotstoun be considered for integration into the defence academies? Might Glasgow be one of the locations for such an academy, presumably following discussions with the Scottish Government?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for championing the work that takes place at Scotstoun. In both Govan and Scotstoun, we have an incredible workforce building the world’s best anti-submarine warfare frigate, and I am very glad that they have been getting such a lot of attention since the Norway deal, because they deserve it. The skills academy that BAE has built on the Clyde, as well as the skills academy it has built in Barrow for the submarine build work, are best in class. They really provide an opportunity to skill people up for a lifetime of opportunity, and they are precisely the types of investments that we want to see more defence companies make. I will take her question as an early bid for one of those colleges. I look forward to continuing work with her and other Glasgow MPs on how we make the most of the Type 26 project.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Swedish Archer self-propelled gun is in the process of replacing the AS-90, and it will itself be replaced by the German Remote Controlled Howitzer 155 system. Can the Minister say when the in-service date of the Howitzer will be? How much UK componentry will be in it? How many UK jobs does he anticipate will be generated by it?
Luke Pollard
It is entirely right that we donated the AS-90 platforms; nearly all of them are now in operation with our Ukrainian friends. That was the right decision, which was originally taken by the right hon. Gentleman’s own party, supported by the Labour party. It is right that we have transferred those. The Archer is a good platform that will provide interim capability; I can get him the stats, and I will write to him with further details. It is absolutely right that we equip our forces with the latest technologies and do so where possible by procuring with our allies to reduce the R&D costs and increase the real benefit from them.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I welcome the defence industrial strategy. In Aldershot and Farnborough, we have a strong ecosystem that includes the home of the British Army, Standing Joint Command, QinetiQ and a hub of amazing SMEs on Cody technology park, so I am really pleased to see the Government acknowledging my community’s role in putting the UK at the cutting edge of defence innovation in this strategy. I am also pleased to see regional investment through the growth deals. What assessment has the Minister made of quick-win places such as Aldershot and Farnborough that are already delivering for the Government on defence but, with the right extra support and a brief from Government, could do even more?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for championing her local businesses. Her constituency is not only the home of the British Army, but an incredible base for innovation and advanced technologies. There are real opportunities to grow this sector further in her constituency and across the UK, and the defence industrial strategy seeks to do that by directing more of the increase in the defence budget at British-based firms and investing in the skills required. With a constituency as hungry and ambitious as hers, we will need even more skills. That is why the investment in FE colleges, schools and university partnerships is so essential in providing those skills. I am happy to meet her to discuss this matter further.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on his promotion. I have just returned from the US with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where we reviewed disruptive technology from AI to quantum and saw how it has a chance to change the defence industrial base. What consideration of that fast-moving technology is there in this defence industrial strategy?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for championing novel technologies. The £400 million that we have allocated to UK Defence Innovation is intended to champion those disruptive high-end technologies, but we have also been clear that we want to spend 10% of our equipment budget on those advanced pieces of technology. We also need to support the wider R&D ecosystem that supports those technologies, which is why we also make announcements in the strategy about supporting our university and research partnerships that deliver them. Certainly, with US projects relying in many cases on British technology, there is a really strong ecosystem for learning the lessons from Ukraine and maintaining a technological edge. There are real opportunities for UK businesses to do more, and the more links we have with our US friends on those advanced technologies and R&D, the better.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to support for Ukraine, to our security and to our regional economies. The north-east sends proportionately more of its young people into the armed forces than any other region in the country, yet the Ministry of Defence spends less with our businesses and industries than it does with any other region, despite our fantastic, high-value advanced manufacturing. It appears that we have not been offered a defence growth deal, so will the Minister meet me and stakeholders to address this question urgently? My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) had agreed to do so; will he make that commitment?
Luke Pollard
I replied to the debate on defence in the north-east only a few weeks ago, and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to look at that issue. This is not just about how we back the current defence industries that exist right across the country, including in the north-east; it is about how we provide routes for firms that might not think of themselves as defence companies to sell their products and services into defence. Making those routes easier to navigate, especially with the new SME offer, will greatly support many of the businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I am happy to meet her and her regional colleagues to make that case further.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Government said over the summer that the Dreadnought programme was on track, despite the fire last year at Barrow, the challenges of covid and the other Government programmes that are running delayed. However, there is a lot of latitude in saying that the programme will be delivered in the early 2030s. Is the Minister able to clarify in which year the first vessels will be in service? That has significant implications for the length at sea of existing submariners.
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and in particular for framing it around our submariners. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have both been to zero-day events, at which our nuclear bombers return to base after many months away. Their tours are far too long, and to ensure we can bring those down, we need to not only bring on the new Dreadnought-class submarines but make sure that the submarines that are in refit—the Vanguard class—get to sea faster. We are making efforts to deliver both those things. It is difficult for me to give the full in-service dates on the Floor of the House, but I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with some details that I may be able to publish.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome this industrial strategy, which—as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said—demonstrates how closely aligned a strong domestic defence sector is with our economic security and sovereignty. Can the Minister add a bit more detail about what assessment his Department has made of the potential further export opportunities arising from this industrial strategy, which will strengthen not only UK economic growth but our economic and defence relationships with our allies?
Luke Pollard
I have just returned from South Korea, where I held a number of discussions with Government Ministers about export opportunities and, importantly, partnerships—about how we can use British ingenuity and expertise in support of our allies’ generating capabilities, which benefits all of us in a win-win situation. There are export opportunities across every single sector of British defence manufacturing. In bringing defence exports into the Ministry of Defence, we aim to align the infrastructure that we have within the MOD, both in our overseas representation and in our expertise, to power those deals so that we can announce more deals like the Type 26 deal and the £1.6 billion lightweight multi-role missiles contract, with missiles being made in Northern Ireland and exported to Ukraine. There are huge opportunities for us to do even more, and it is good to have my hon. Friend’s support for powering up those exports, especially for those SMEs that could be the powerhouses of the next-generation technologies.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I am sure that the Minister, as a fellow Devon MP, will be only too well aware of our thriving high-tech cluster and the support it provides to the defence industry from its base in Torbay. What assurance can the Minister give our high-tech cluster in Torbay that it will be taken account of as this strategy develops, so that it can play its part in supporting our nation’s defence?
Luke Pollard
As a Plymouth MP, I know that the success of the defence industry in Plymouth is about what happens not just in the PL postcode, but in the wider regional ecosystem. Torbay, especially with its marine technology, has an awful lot to offer. An important part of how we power growth is ensuring that the Plymouth growth deal and, indeed, all the growth deals that we have announced today benefit the wider region, and not just the particular locations. The increase in skills and the focus on buying British from British-based firms will help businesses right across the country, including in the hon. Member’s constituency.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
This morning, I was at the Nuclear Skills Academy in Derby. It is a partnership between Rolls-Royce and the University of Derby that teaches the skills needed to create the reactors that power our submarines, and it delivers 200 apprenticeships a year. The defence industrial strategy delivers the biggest investment in defence skills in decades. Can the Minister tell us more about how it will help smaller defence suppliers to secure the skills that they need, too?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the Rolls-Royce skills work, because Derby is one of the best-in-class examples in this area. That company can invest in its people because of the long-term security that this Government have provided with the multibillion-pound commitment to buy new nuclear reactors from Derby for our nuclear submarines. Our skills investment is not just about the primes investing in skills for that single business; it is about the skills ecosystem, so we must invest for all the suppliers and SMEs as well. There is no point in primes having full apprenticeships if the suppliers they buy from, which are essential to the end product, do not have enough skills. That is precisely why skills are at the very heart of the defence industrial strategy we have announced today. Exemplary examples like Rolls-Royce are superb in delivering those skills.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I place on record my excitement at seeing RAF Wyton in my constituency directly mentioned in the defence industrial strategy. Last week, I was at RAF Wyton for a hugely successful discussion on its future as a defence technology cluster, with senior officers from the cyber and specialist operations command, the leadership of Huntingdonshire district council and planners from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority. I invite the procurement Minister and the Defence Secretary to visit RAF Wyton—I believe they may be due to anyway—not only to see the tremendous work that defence intelligence does, but to see its suitability as the defence, energy and capability resilience centre of excellence. That would address my fears that the land may be sold off for housing by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation by accident in the interim. I also invite them both to the Huntingdonshire defence showcase right here in Parliament next month.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for championing his constituency. There is a real opportunity at RAF Wyton, not just in terms of the military purpose that defence intelligence provides there—that is obviously difficult to talk about in the public space—but in terms of the spin-offs and industrial opportunities that the wider estate offers. I would be happy to attend those events, and I look forward to continuing the conversation about Wyton and returning to visit there soon.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Today’s blockbuster strategy completely rewires many of the institutions at the heart of our defence financing: the National Wealth Fund, the British Business Bank and UK Export Finance. With the news that the Chinese bond market may now be open to Russian defence companies, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to keep innovating and keep evolving how we do defence financing to support our own industrial base?
Luke Pollard
First, I thank my hon. Friend for the work he has been doing on how we open up finance to small businesses in particular and how we deal with some of the policies that restrict access to finance for those firms that work in defence. He is absolutely right that internationally we are seeing more of those nations that sometimes oppose our values come together, but we need to make sure we are innovating with our finance and that SMEs have access to capital. That is one reason why we are seeking to create a more predictable pipeline of acquisitions that enables businesses, especially small businesses, to borrow to invest.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
If Scotland is lucky, we will get a per capita share of the £250 million in the growth deal, which is barely twice what the SNP Scottish Government have invested in the skills academy in BAE alone. However, the omens are not good, because Scotland is routinely short-changed in defence expenditure. The London Government are spending more in the south-east of England than they do in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland put together. The Minister’s own region seems set to benefit, and I am not sure where the Union dividend is between Portsmouth and Yorkshire. Seeing as he is holding the pen and writing the cheque, which hopefully will not bounce, will Scotland at the very least get its per capita share of that £250 million?
Luke Pollard
We hear such negativity from the Scottish National party. On a day when we have announced a growth deal for Scotland, creating skills and infrastructure, rather than welcome for that investment, we hear more negativity. It continues the pattern that we have seen from the SNP in Scotland: not interested in defence, not interested in defence jobs, not interested in the growth that that brings. Only when there is a win do SNP Members finally come out and say something positive. There is a lot to be done in Scotland to grow that sector. We are backing the Scottish defence industry, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s party will do so soon.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
We know that when we back British jobs, British industry and British innovators, communities across our country reap the rewards. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that our proudly home-grown small and medium-sized enterprises can be supportive in delivering this industrial strategy?
Luke Pollard
I have seen some incredible innovation in our defence SMEs. Such companies have the opportunity to transform the warfighting capabilities of our forces and to support our allies, but for far too many of them it has been too difficult to find the person who is awarding the contract, to navigate the process, to understand how to access the forward supply, or even to get security clearance to understand what their competitors are doing. This defence industrial strategy seeks to rectify those problems by creating a single new one-stop shop for SMEs so that all of them, in every part of the UK, can access MOD contracts and we can benefit from their innovation and agility.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I imagine that the timing of the defence industrial strategy is linked to the Defence Security and Equipment International conference that is happening in London this week, so could the Minister have a word with the Mayor of London, emphasising the importance of that event for the defence industrial strategy?
The brilliant brains in Malvern in my constituency have come up with something that is very topical and timely: a better way to deal with those who seek to spoof and jam the GPS signal. It was delivered with MOD funding, and is being sold to other countries around the world, but the UK does not seem to be buying it. Could the Minister look into that specific issue?
Luke Pollard
If the hon. Lady writes to me about it, I will certainly look into it.
This morning I was on the bridge of HMS Mersey, one of our offshore patrol vessels, which is moored outside the ExCeL centre in east London as part of the DSEI conference. This is a huge opportunity for growth—and, of course, there are 10,000 defence jobs in London and an opportunity to grow even more in every part of the UK, including the nation’s capital.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, and congratulate him on his new role. It is fantastic that Plymouth has been named as the site of one of the defence growth deals; this is very positive for South East Cornwall, given our close ties with the workers who cross the River Tamar daily using Tamar crossings, and the autonomous naval vessels training in our local Cornish waters. In fact, 23% of Babcock’s Devonport workforce live in South East Cornwall. Will the Minister outline how the positive impacts of this announcement will be felt throughout the region, and will he assure me that local housing and transport improvements will be considered critical to the successful delivery of this important deal?
Luke Pollard
I thank my constituency neighbour for her advocacy. All the growth deals that we have announced today, including the Plymouth growth deal, will help the wider region in each location, not just the specific location, to build a skills base that will help the suppliers as well as the primes in those locations. My hon. Friend is right: we also need to look at skills and at housing. The Barrow model, for instance, is a good one for us to look at, because Barrow needs to grow bigger in order to build the submarines that the Royal Navy needs. That is not just about the shipyard, although investment from this Government is going into it; it is about housing, education and health in that community. This is precisely the model that is being followed for other locations across the UK, including those in the south-west.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
May I ask Members to be brief, and the Minister to be even shorter?
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Over the summer I joined the Chief of the General Staff on a visit to Supacat at Dunkeswell in Devon. I learned there that to keep supply chains active, manufacturers need continuous orders that keep British-made capabilities sharp. I am pleased to hear that Plymouth is going to enjoy a cut of the £250 million pledged for defence growth deals, but can the Minister let us know about the next order for the incredible Jackal 3 high mobility transporter?
Luke Pollard
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Jackal 3 is made in Devonport, in the constituency that I represent. It is a good platform. We will be making further announcements about orders across a whole range of land vehicles, which companies across the UK will be able to bid into. The work on the Jackal 3 continues, with the long wheelbase variants being produced at the moment.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Can the Minister assure me that, along with the huge defence contracts that this Government have already secured for shipyards in Scotland, this strategy will also offer great opportunities for fabrication yards, including at Methil in my constituency? It was saved from closure by Labour Ministers, and its brilliant workforce are already delivering a new £8 million Government contract under its new owners, Navantia UK.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that example. Our £8 million investment will create the facility for the build of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary’s new fleet solid support ships. That is an important part of keeping our Royal Navy supplied well into the future. I am grateful that he spoke about manufacturing, because there are huge opportunities in this strategy for businesses like the ones he mentioned.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I very much welcome the indication that Northern Ireland will participate in the defence growth deals, but will the Minister explain the interplay, if any, with the devolved Government? I ask because we in Northern Ireland have the misfortune of having an anti-British and anti-British-defence Economy Minister in the shape of a Sinn Féin Minister. Can I have an assurance that she will not be able to thwart any of Northern Ireland’s benefits under this deal? I ask that in the context that today, sadly, the MOD had to abandon its jobs fair participation in Londonderry, courtesy of Sinn Féin pressure.
Luke Pollard
We are proud that the growth deals will be in every single part of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. The precise location of those in the devolved Administrations will be set following discussions with those devolved Administrations, including in conjunction with those in Northern Ireland. We are absolutely clear that there is a growth opportunity to provide new, well-paid and good jobs to people there. That is why we will work with partners in Northern Ireland to find the right location and to invest in the skills that the industry there needs.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, as well as for last week’s news of the significant infrastructure investment in the Rosyth dockyard in my constituency, which is highly welcome for jobs in the area. As the Minister said, the real defence dividend will be the long-term skills. We have seen skills devolved to the Scottish Government, but they have utterly failed when it comes to defence skills because of their absolutely childish attitude towards the defence industry. Seventy-two hours does not make up for 20 years of failure. Will the Minister meet me to discuss options to ensure that skills, and the delivery of skills opportunities in Scotland’s defence sector, can be delivered for people in my constituency and across Scotland, so that they can take advantage of the long-term opportunities and sustainable jobs that exist?
Luke Pollard
Scotland has good representatives on this side of the House: representatives who value defence jobs in Scotland and the people who work in those jobs, and who see growth opportunities. I know that there are huge opportunities in Rosyth, in my hon. Friend’s constituency—not just the submarine recycling work and the build of the Type 31 frigates, but supply chain opportunities for other platforms. We will continue to invest in Scotland and I hope that, after the Scottish Parliament elections, we can find a new partnership between the Scottish Government, whoever may form that, and the UK Government, so that we have less politics and more focus on growth.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Now that the killer in the Kremlin has reinstated the serious prospect of all-out war on the continent of Europe, does the Minister accept that this places a premium on national autonomy in our procurement process? In future with procurement issues, will the Government make it clear to what extent we can proceed with acquiring the necessary munitions, irrespective of what is happening to the allies with whom we might normally co-operate?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his customarily thoughtful question. He will know of our intention to build six new munitions factories, including a new energetics factory, precisely because there is a shortage and there are concerns about supply and resilience. He will also know that we are seeking to onshore a number of capabilities. The defence industrial strategy deals with a number of those capabilities, especially around national security, which we want to see enhance our sovereign capability. I encourage him to read that part of the strategy shortly.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
This defence industrial strategy shows that we finally have a Government who take our British defence industry seriously. A foundation of domestic orders enables British businesses to compete effectively for export orders. Can the Minister outline the nature of the support from UK Defence Innovation that our defence and defence-adjacent SMEs might need in order to help them commercialise their technology? I hope he will consider Teesside and the north-east for a future skills academy and any future growth zone deals.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for his community. There are certainly opportunities in every part of the country, including on Teesside, for defence companies and for companies that are not selling into defence currently, but which have an opportunity to do so. The £400 million investment in UK Defence Innovation is designed to go after the most innovative and disruptive technologies. Primes have a good role in this, but so do SMEs. I encourage all businesses to lean into that opportunity, and to really go after the increased funding and the export and contractual opportunities that that will provide.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Minister has made a number of announcements about skills in the defence industrial strategy, which is much appreciated, but can he explain how they will integrate with existing skills frameworks and whether the industry will be given the flexibility to develop new courses at the “wartime pace” that the strategic defence review referenced?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. For instance, the work that ADS is doing on its new curriculum is really interesting and exciting. There is a real opportunity to go after the skills challenges nationwide. In order to give the men and women in our armed forces the kit they need and to export to our allies, we need to invest more in skills. It is something in which this nation has under-invested for far too long. That changes with the defence industrial strategy today.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. The defence industrial strategy will strengthen our security and grow our economy. These reforms will boost jobs in communities such as my West Dunbartonshire constituency, which is sandwiched between the £250 million investment in Faslane and the £10 billion contract with Norway, guaranteeing shipbuilding on the Clyde for years to come. Will the Minister agree to meet me, the leader of my local authority and the chief executive of West Dunbartonshire council to explore the opportunities for bringing further defence investment and employment to West Dunbartonshire?
Luke Pollard
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and Councillor Rooney, his local authority leader. There are real opportunities to look at some of the sites, especially given the investment in nuclear technology in my hon. Friend’s part of the world. I know that he is seeking engagement with the Department for Business and Trade about the locations in West Dunbartonshire, and I am happy to meet him to discuss this matter further.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
In his opening remarks, the Minister mentioned the importance of the strategic defence review to the industrial strategy. When that strategy was announced, some unions, organisations and businesses were given preferential access to it, but the Minister has consistently refused to say who and when. Written questions have received flannel as answers, and freedom of information requests are now almost a month out of date. What is the Minister trying to hide, and when will he answer the question?
Luke Pollard
On a day when the hon. Lady could be celebrating the work of SMEs in her constituency and talking up British growth, she is here again with a complaint. There is a clear process with the SDR, which we followed, on the predication of the previous Administration. We have followed a clear plan today to brief the Opposition and to make sure that it is clear that we are backing British businesses. I wish she had taken the opportunity to do so as well.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
SMEs like Affinity at RAF Valley, in my constituency, offer apprenticeships that equip young people with crucial engineering skills. It is vital that the defence industrial strategy’s new clearing-style system for apprenticeships works with local SMEs and colleges to expand these opportunities. Can the Minister clarify how the system will operate in Wales, where apprenticeships are devolved?
Luke Pollard
That is precisely why we are seeking more engagement on defence with the devolved Administrations. Defence is a reserved matter, but skills are devolved, so we need to form a new partnership between the different Governments across the United Kingdom, including in Wales. The skills around RAF Valley are really very impressive, and there is huge opportunity for growth. If we get this right, we will create more good, well-paid jobs in the hon. Lady’s constituency and across Wales—an opportunity that this Government are going to seize with both hands.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I am delighted that the face of procurement is changing and that, hopefully, we will see a telescoping of the time between the flash of inspiration and the bang of kinetic effectors, as they say. The neutral vendor framework for innovation is a very important part of that, but will the Minister give me an assurance that the Business and Trade Committee’s recommendation—that we have metrics so that we can measure outputs and not simply inputs—can be brought forward?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member, and I agree with him. I am a big fan of a data-led dashboard, and the Ministry of Defence will be producing those, because when it comes to procurement we need a greater data-led approach and a focus on prioritisation. We will be going after areas that have fallen behind, which I am afraid the last Government failed to do. That is our new approach. I have already met the Chair of the Committee, and I look forward to meeting him further to discuss how we can take on board the recommendations to make sure we get this system right.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
To provide certainty for the whole defence sector, but particularly for the small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency, will the Minister confirm when negotiations on the UK joining the €150 billion Security Action for Europe will conclude and a decision will be made, so that those businesses have the certainty and long-term security that this strategy is meant to provide?
Luke Pollard
The EU-UK reset deal signed by the Prime Minister recently opened the door to discussions on SAFE, and the Cabinet Office and the MOD are jointly working on those discussions to make sure they happen properly. We need to make sure we achieve value for money, and that we build and support UK businesses selling products to our European allies. There is a huge opportunity here, and we will continue those discussions. I do not want to set an arbitrary deadline, but those discussions are ongoing and I hope the Cabinet Office and the MOD will be able to come back with good news in due course.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I welcome the Government’s announcement of a dedicated procurement hub in Northern Ireland to support our SMEs, although I note that no location has been announced in Northern Ireland. Can I remind the Minister of the excellent opportunity that the Aldergrove base in my constituency presents and how it would be an excellent location for an uncrewed systems centre? Will he meet me and the leadership of Antrim and Newtownabbey borough council to develop that opportunity further?
Luke Pollard
There is no better champion than the hon. Gentleman; I have met him a number of times when he has spoken about his constituency. I agree with him that there is real opportunity in Northern Ireland for defence investment, and I look forward to the continued discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive, as well as with local communities, Members of Parliament and councils, to make sure we find the right locations for the investment and that Northern Ireland gets the defence growth deal we have announced today—and gets it soon.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the statement. I am really excited about the emphasis on skills. I note the ambitious timetable to create the five academies created by the end of 2026. In the spirit of the cheekiness that he says he admires, can I encourage him to pop over the constituency border from Aldershot to Surrey Heath to find a constituency that would be a ready and expedient site for one of those academies? The site already has Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and Pirbright, and it is the historic home of Chobham armour. Defence is part of our history and our heritage, and I hope it is also part of our future.
Luke Pollard
I take that as a strong early bid, and I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about how we can maximise skills in his constituency.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for the incredibly good news that he and the Labour Government have delivered today in this Chamber. Every one of us across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will relish the idea of jobs coming our way.
We in the Democratic Unionist party welcome the defence industrial strategy, acknowledging the need for world-class defence and making the most of our world-class defence businesses. One of those, Thales, employs hundreds of my Strangford constituents, and it has been instrumental in protecting Ukraine. There were some 200 new jobs—including, I understand, 30 apprenticeships—no more than three months ago. With news circulating that defence spending commitments will create a total of 85,000 jobs across the sector in the next 10 years, will the Minister reaffirm the role of Northern Ireland in the industry and indeed in the defence of this great nation?
Luke Pollard
Let me be very clear: there are growth opportunities in every nation and region of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. We have today announced a defence growth deal for Northern Ireland, which builds on the incredible skills that we already see in defence companies in Northern Ireland. This Government were very proud to announce the £1.6 billion contract for the lightweight multirole missile, which will be built in Northern Ireland. It will be used to shoot down Russian drones attacking our allies in Ukraine, which is precisely how we can make defence an engine of growth as well as support our security objectives. The workers in Northern Ireland should be very proud of the work they are doing; I certainly am.
Point of Order
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), at a congressional hearing and in written evidence, has suggested that the US Government explore possible trade consequences in response to the UK’s Online Safety Act 2023. Would you agree that suggesting that a foreign Government take measures harmful to the interests of this country is not behaviour commensurate with the office of a Member of the UK Parliament? Indeed, would you agree with several constituents of Clacton who have described the Member’s statements as “treacherous”?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I take it that he notified the hon. Member for Clacton that he intended to refer to him in the Chamber.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member is nodding. The Chair is not responsible for anything that hon. Members say outside the Chamber—that in itself would be a full-time job—but he has put his point on the record.
Renters’ Rights Bill: Programme (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Renters’ Rights Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9 October 2024 (Renters’ Rights Bill: Programme):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 11, 14, 18, 19, 26, 27, 39, 53, 55 to 62, 64, 67, 1 to 10, 12 and 13, 15 to 17, 20 to 25, 28 to 38, 40 to 52, 54, 63, 65 and 66, 68 to 77.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Sir Nicholas Dakin.)
Question agreed to.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 398 / Noes: 93 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 402 / Noes: 97 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 336 / Noes: 158 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 404 / Noes: 98 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 325 / Noes: 171 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 401 / Noes: 96 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 335 / Noes: 160 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendments 39 and 68 engage Commons financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 12
Right to request permission to keep a pet
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 14, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 18, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 53, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 55 to 62, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 64, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 67, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 1 to 10, 12, 13, 15 to 17, 20 to 25, 28 to 38, 40 to 52, 54, 63, 65, 66 and 68 to 77.
Matthew Pennycook
This Government were elected with a clear mandate to do what the Conservatives failed to do in the last Parliament—namely, to modernise the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector, and empower private renters by providing them with greater security rights and protections. Our Renters’ Rights Bill does just that, and it needs to receive Royal Assent as quickly as possible so that England’s 11 million private renters can benefit from its provisions.
Before I turn to the Lords amendments, I want to thank Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through the other place. I put on record my appreciation of all the peers who contributed to its detailed scrutiny.
As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government made several important changes to the Bill in the other place with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended and in response to the legitimate concerns raised about the implementation of specific provisions. In the interests of time, I will update the House only on the two that are most apposite.
The first change concerns the date from which a tenant is required to pay a new rent in instances where the first-tier tribunal has set a new rent amount following a tenant’s challenge to a proposed increase. The Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. It is essential that we deliver on that commitment not only to protect tenants from undue financial pressure, but to prevent rent hikes from being used as a form of back-door eviction once section 21 notices have been abolished.
However, recognising that there is inherent uncertainty about the volume of rent increase challenges that will be brought when the new tenancy system comes into force, and as a safeguard against a scenario in which the first-tier tribunal is overwhelmed by a sharp increase in challenges, Lords amendments 6 to 8 introduce a new delegated power that will enable the backdating of rent increases following determinations by the tribunal of new rent amounts. I want to reiterate what Baroness Taylor made clear in the other place—namely, that it is not the Government’s intention to make use of this new power unless and until it is considered necessary to avoid lengthy delays for genuine cases to be heard. If used, it would be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. In addition to introducing that important safeguard, the Government also concluded that there is a compelling case for the use of an alternative body or mechanism to make initial rent determinations. Subject to a final viability assessment, we intend to establish such an alternative body or mechanism as soon as possible, and will confirm further details in due course.
The second important change the Government made in the other place concerns insurance to cover potential damage from pets. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill as originally introduced, mirroring provisions in the previous Government’s Renters (Reform) Bill, enabled landlords to request such insurance in instances where a tenant had requested a pet. In response to concerns expressed by several peers that the insurance industry appears unlikely to provide suitable financial products at the speed and scale required, and that the reasonable request of tenants to keep pets might be hampered as a result, Lords amendments 10, 12 and 13 remove the provisions in the Bill which made landlord consent to a request to keep a pet conditional on the tenant taking out, or paying for, pet damage insurance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Just last week, I was asked a similar question back home; the legislation back home is not covered by this House. The issue for those who have animals is that almost every person who has an animal in a flat, apartment or other property always looks after the property as if it were their own and the issue of animal damage does not come up. It does, however, come up the odd time, so is it not better—I think the Minister is saying this—to have an obligation rather than legislation to ensure that the tenant covers any damage by a pet, because most tenants will be accountable for their pets no matter what?
Matthew Pennycook
As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a good point. There is evidence that pet damage is, in many cases, not extensive or a particular issue. Where pet damage occurs, as I will come on to make clear in response to the relevant Lords amendment, we think that the provisions in the Tenant Fees Act 2019, which allow for tenant deposits to be changed in response to such issues, mean that we have the necessary delegated powers, but I will set out further detail on that particular issue in due course.
I will now turn to the amendments made by peers in the other place. We welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided, and are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, but most of the amendments in question serve to undermine the core principles of the Bill and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely, in each instance, where that is the case, starting with Lords amendment 53.
Lords amendment 53 dramatically broadens the scope of possession ground 4A, so that it encompasses not only full-time students living in houses in multiple occupation, but non-typical students, such as older students with families undertaking postgraduate studies who may live in self-contained one and two-bed properties. Ground 4A exists precisely because the Government recognise the unique nature of the student rental market and are determined to ensure that the annual cycle of student lettings continues accordingly. However, ground 4A was deliberately designed to ensure that the benefits of the new tenancy system introduced in the Bill were not denied to non-typical students. We believe restricting its use to HMOs or dwelling-houses in HMOs strikes the right balance, and I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendment 53.
Lords amendment 64 introduces a new ground for possession for the sole purpose of allowing a landlord to regain their property to house a carer for themselves or a member of their family living with them. Everyone in this Chamber recognises the vital work carers do to support people to live independently and with dignity. However, while the Government are profoundly sympathetic to the needs of those who require care, I am afraid we cannot support this amendment for two main reasons. First, while I appreciate entirely that some peers currently own and let rental properties in close proximity to their homes, with a view to one day using them to house a carer for themselves or members of their family, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that this practice is sufficiently widespread to justify the insertion into the Bill at this late stage of a dedicated possession ground to cater specifically for it. Secondly, the definition of “carer” in the amendment—namely, anyone providing any form of care in a voluntary or contractual arrangement, is so broad that the scope for abuse, in our view, is substantial. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment.
Lords amendment 18 would reduce the prohibition on re-letting or re-marketing a property following the use of possession ground 1A from 12 months to six. We recognise that there will be occasions when landlords regain vacant possession of their property using ground 1A but are unable subsequently to sell it despite repeated attempts to do so, but we are not prepared to weaken the strong safeguard against abuse provided by the 12-month no-let provision. It is essential to prevent landlords misusing ground 1A and evicting tenants who are not at fault, whether that be because they have made a legitimate complaint or simply because the landlord wants to re-let at a higher rate. The Government remain firmly committed to the 12-month no-let restriction, and I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 18 on that basis.
Lords amendment 19 is a related amendment that exempts shared owners from the 12-month re-letting and re-marketing restriction, as well as other important restrictions. I want to make it clear that the Government recognise the plight of shared owners living in buildings that require remediation. I know from my own efforts to support shared owners in my constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich that those affected by the building safety crisis often face unaffordable costs, often with no viable exit route other than a distressed sale.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The UK needs a vibrant and fluid private rented sector. We need it to deliver communities that are happy and cohesive, and to deliver fairness, stability and security for families. I have been looking at the Government’s position on the Bill, and I pay tribute to the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for the work he has done on it—or is he the right hon. Member?
Sir James Cleverly
Well, he deserves to be the right hon. Gentleman. He has been doing the hard yards; he has done loads of work on this Bill. I am sure he was disappointed that he did not get to lead the Department—congratulations to the new Secretary of State—but I have no doubt that the opportunity will come in the near future. I would just say: be patient for the moment.
While I have no doubt that the Bill is full of good intentions, it is poorly though through and counterproductive. In fact, I am assuming it is poorly thought through, but it is entirely feasible that the measures within it are well though through, and are designed to undermine the private rented sector. It is inept, either by accident or on purpose—I will go with inept by accident, because that is more in keeping with the Government’s actions in this Department.
The Bill is clearly a mishmash of measures on issues that are Back-Bench hobby horses—issues that those on the Front Bench do not have the authority or the courage to put to bed. It is entirely counterproductive, as has been recognised and highlighted by their lordships in the other place. The Bill risks driving private landlords out of the sector, reducing the supply of private rented accommodation and pushing up rents for those in the private rented sector. Limiting the supply of such accommodation means limiting the options for tenants in the private rented sector, and leaving them worse off.
We do not need to look very far to see what happens when Governments get this wrong. In Scotland, fixed-term tenancies were abolished, rent controls imposed and regulations tightened, and what was the result? Fewer landlords, shrinking supply and the fastest rises in rents in the UK, with Edinburgh and Glasgow facing steeper rent rises than ineptly Labour-run London. The Labour Government in Westminster are about to make the same mistake, because Government Back Benchers are, for whatever reason, obsessed with “fixing” an already highly successful sector. The private rented sector has the highest satisfaction levels of any tenure type—higher than levels in the social rented sector or among owner-occupiers.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I do not know what correspondence the right hon. Gentleman is looking at, but the correspondence I receive from my constituents in Hillingdon does not tell a story of a sector that is secure and safe; instead, my constituents tell me that they are battling damp and mould, and have had 35% rent increases in recent years. Is that success, in the Opposition’s view?
Sir James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes the classic statistical error of assuming that his inbox is representative of all the people in the sector. Has it not occurred to him that people who are happy in their private rented accommodation do not tend to write to their MP, saying, “Apropos of nothing, I just want to let you know that I am happy”? I have it on good authority from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds)—my good friend and colleague—that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) is not doing a terribly good job of championing the social rented sector in his constituency. He seeks to deny the private rented sector, while simultaneously denying people the social rented sector. I am not sure where he thinks people in his constituency should live.
The point is that the Bill is a mishmash of incoherent proposals, which, instead of being designed to improve the private rented sector, are designed to keep angsty Back Benchers happy, but Front Benchers are already starting to learn that they cannot pay political Danegeld to their Back Benchers. I give the Front-Bench team due notice: their Back Benchers will be insatiable. They will take whatever red meat they are thrown, and they will ask for more. We have already seen this, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the proposed changes to social security and disability benefits. The Front Benchers had plans, but their Back Benchers had other plans, and guess who won? Those showing courageous leadership on the turbulent Back Benches. The Government will see the same again on this issue.
The Opposition understand that a good tenure mix is good for the UK. We took measures to improve the private rented sector, but we made sure that we did it in the right order. We made sure that the courts were ready.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I was intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the success of the private rented sector. If the sector is so successful and is working so well, why have the Opposition consistently held the position—both when they were in government and, I believe, going into the election—that they would go forward with ending no-fault evictions? I am confused. I would be grateful if he could explain.
Sir James Cleverly
It is interesting that on the one hand, we have voices on the Front Bench saying that we did not do anything in government, while at the same time, voices on the Labour Back Benches say that we were doing something.
Sir James Cleverly
No. Perhaps Labour Members should co-ordinate their criticism.
The previous Conservative Government understood that there is a need to reform the system, but that every part of the system needs to be ready. That is why we made sure that the justice system was ready first before we started making changes to the legal frameworks, giving tenants, landlords and courts the time to adjust. However, the Labour Government have abandoned that discipline. The changes put forward by their lordships came about through careful consideration of the provisions in the Bill and their implications in real-world scenarios, not the fantasy world of many Labour Back Benchers.
The Labour Government were defeated in the other place on several important amendments. There is a pattern to the Government’s defeats: time and again, Ministers accepted a principle but when it came to taking action to deal with the principle, they fell short. I will give some examples from amendments on Report in the other place. Amendments 87 and 88 in the name of Lord Keen would raise the standard of proof for financial penalties to “beyond reasonable doubt”. The principle is clear: setting serious penalties requires having serious evidence. The noble Lord Keen made the case powerfully in the other place, yet the Government still refuse to act. In doing so they are introducing a huge degree of uncertainty for both landlords and councils, and uncertainty is toxic to the provision of homes in the sector. Making these changes will reduce the housing supply.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the shadow Secretary of State said that my hon. Friend did not need to pay any attention to the people in his inbox who had contacted him. Was he not advocating exactly that—we should not listen because it is a small number of people, and we should accept these amendments so that this legislation can be watered down? Is he not arguing both sides of the same coin on this?
Sir James Cleverly
If the hon. Gentleman was going to criticise what I say, he should have at least listened to what I said. What I said was that extrapolating—
Sir James Cleverly
No, no, get it right first time. What I said was that extrapolating from a Member of Parliament’s inbox is not a good way of gauging the full spectrum of opinion within a cohort of people. At no point did I say—and I would never say—that we should ignore the people who write to us, and no one should assume that we do. I am pretty certain that the hon. Gentleman would not, and I certainly do not. That is absolutely not what I said.
The point I am making is that the Government’s argument was, “There aren’t that many people, and frankly they’re all posh, so we can ignore them.” That was basically the framing of their argument, but tell that to the extended families of people, typically of ethnic minority origin, who often live in close proximity to each other. There will be communities all across the country where the elders of the family have rented properties that have tenants in them, but because those properties are near where they live, they envisage at some point in the future members of their extended family moving into the properties in order to provide care for them. Disregarding and diminishing this as an idea just because it is something that the Government Front Bench accuse only the posh Members of the other place of doing is rather distasteful.
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Secretary of State failed to address the second concern the Government have about amendment 21, which is the substantial risk of abuse that will flow from the definition of a “carer”. The definition under the amendment could be anyone providing any form of voluntary care. It could be someone who provides the weekly shop. Does he not see the risk of abuse that comes with a ground that is so broadly drawn? That was our other concern, and he has not addressed it.
Sir James Cleverly
There are always opportunities for abuse, but we cannot be closing off a provision that would be really valuable to many families around the country because there is a risk of abuse. If we were to do that, there would be loads of areas where Government would not legislate. We do not disregard an opportunity just because of the potential for abuse; we manage that potential for abuse.
I will move on a bit more quickly as I want to ensure that all Labour Back Benchers get their opportunity to speak. [Interruption.] It is their legislation.
Lords amendment 58 in the name of Lord Cromwell would reduce the ban on re-letting from 12 months to six months. That is a wholly pragmatic point. There is the idea in the Bill that a landlord would have to wait for 12 months, but if it is clear after six months that, despite genuine efforts—there is provision to ensure that efforts are genuine—there is no chance of selling, it is entirely reasonable that a landlord should seek to re-let. That is not as quickly as Members on the Labour Benches would do so; nevertheless, it is an entirely fair provision.
The largest Government defeat in the other place came on amendment 59 in the name of Lord Young of Cookham, which is about the exemption for shared owners from the 12-month ban on re-letting. The Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he recognised that this area created challenges, but I urge the Government not to dig in their heels on the issue. The cohort of people envisaged by the amendment are often those most in need of flexibility—people who are not of significant financial means—and limiting their options when it comes to, perhaps, a distressed asset would be entirely wrong. I have no doubt that he recognises that. I urge him to move quickly to a resolution on this matter to reassure the Chamber and the other place that those people will not be disadvantaged by the Bill.
The Lords amendments are well thought through. They attempt to take this mishmash of a Bill and knock it into some credible shape, providing protection for tenants and a bit of reassurance for landlords so that they can continue to provide a supply of private-rented accommodation to help people get on the housing ladder and to live in homes they love and value in communities that they cherish. If the Government choose to blindly ignore those amendments, I have no doubt that the Bill will have the effect of reducing the number of landlords, reducing the number of homes and increasing rents, which is the opposite of what any of us in the Chamber should want. That is why the Opposition will support the amendments.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Once again, I stand here proud to speak in favour of this groundbreaking legislation that finally brings some balance back between the landlord’s right to profit from an asset and the renter’s right to a home. I oppose in particular Lords amendments 26, 27 and 18 proposed by the landlord lobby in the other place. Amendments 26 and 27 would increase the evidence bar for all civil penalty offences to the criminal standard of proof—beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the balance of probabilities. That would gut the ban on discrimination against housing benefit recipients, the ban on refusing to let to families and the ban on bidding wars. Those measures would be almost unenforceable if the amendment stood.
Discrimination is notoriously hard to prove, and we all know that early interactions between a renter and a prospective landlord are often not in writing, so proving beyond reasonable doubt that a prospective renter was prevented from letting a property because they might be a benefits claimant or have kids would be extremely challenging; it is the same for proving bidding wars. Councils already struggle to pursue civil penalty cases because of the staff time and resource involved in gathering evidence to support those cases. Introducing that new, higher bar of evidence for already challenging cases would make them almost unenforceable. It would also be out of line with other legislation, such as the Equality Act 2010, which require only the civil standard of proof. If we do not oppose those Lords amendments, such unlawful practices will continue unchecked, and renters will continue to face homelessness as a result.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for presenting the Government’s position on the Lords amendments, as indeed he presented their position on the 92 amendments we tabled in Committee. I only regret that, in doing so, he rejected all 92 of them. I was going to congratulate the Secretary of State on his new position, but he has escaped just in time. I will come to our amendments—the other place took a different view on some of them—but I will first declare my interest in a registered provider of social housing.
A generation have been cut off from the dream of home ownership. After half a century of flogging off council houses—over 4.5 million have been sold off since 1980 by successive Conservative Governments—there are now, in effect, none left for the thousands of families who now need them. That is why the Liberal Democrats have a vision to restore hope to millions who aspire to a decent home by building our target of 150,000 social and council rent homes per year, backed up with a commitment of an extra £6 billion on top of the affordable housing programme budget, funded by fairly reforming capital gains tax so that more people benefit from relief but those who make bigger gains pay more. Alongside that, the Liberal Democrats want a new generation of rent-to-own homes so that people can get on to the ownership ladder. It is the biggest and most ambitious programme since council housing was invented by Lloyd George and Addison back at the beginning of the 20th century.
We have also long campaigned for an end to no-fault evictions and for longer and more stable tenancies for tenants. The Government have put both those key measures in the Bill, and that is why we support it and want to see it enacted. Tenants have lived for far too long with insecurity and the fear that, if they speak up, they might lose their home.
Some of the Lords amendments before us would improve the Bill, while others would weaken it. Lords amendment 11 would require tenants to pay pet deposits, which would pile on new financial burdens, putting the right to own pets out of reach for those already struggling. It is not in the spirit of the Bill, so we cannot support it.
Similarly, Lords amendment 18 would cut the prohibition on re-letting unsold properties from 12 months to six. That might sound like a neat compromise, but in practice it would give cover to any rogue landlord looking for an excuse to evict. A six-month ban would be far too short to give tenants the protection from abuse that they deserve. Lords amendment 26 seeks to raise the bar for enforcement by moving the burden of proof from civil to criminal.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
In Torbay, we have almost 50% more people who rent in the private sector than the national average. While the vast majority of landlords are good landlords, sadly there are some rotten apples out there. Pushing against Lords amendment 26 is essential, because we need to ensure that local authorities have the powers to hold these landlords to account. I hope my hon. Friend agrees.
Gideon Amos
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the sterling work he does in Torbay, and has done in the past as leader of the council, on these issues.
That change in the burden of proof may sound technical, but in fact it would gut the powers of local authorities to hold bad landlords to account, as my hon. Friend has just said. At a stroke, it would make justice for tenants far harder to achieve.
Lords amendment 53 points in the same wrong direction. It seeks to introduce fixed-term tenancies, but the whole point of the Bill is to shift to periodic tenancies—arrangements that give renters both flexibility and more security. Dragging us back to fixed terms, which would become standard across that particular element of student housing, would undermine those core principles.
On the other hand, there are amendments that make the Bill fairer and more workable, which we support. Lords amendment 19 recognises the reality faced by shared ownership leaseholders, who can be can be, and are, hit disproportionately hard when sales fall through, through no fault of their own. Without that exemption, they could face financial ruin. This is a simple matter of justice and we support it.
Lords amendment 64, which would create a new possession ground where a landlord needs to house a carer, is in keeping with the Liberal Democrats’ belief in the importance of supporting the millions of carers out there who are so often overlooked. It is right that the law should recognise the vital role they play, and if there are risks of abuse, it is open to the Government to table their own amendments to set out how they would make the same provision for accommodation needed by carers.
Lords amendment 39, which would legislate for a decent home standard for our military, goes to the heart of who we are as a society and our obligations to those who serve. I pushed for this amendment at earlier stages in the Commons, and indeed this has long been the Liberal Democrats’ position, having been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) in the previous Parliament. It is therefore disappointing that, while the Government have come forward with their own amendments on other matters, they have not come up with any such amendments on decent homes for our military, although that has been agreed across the parties in the other place.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Ministry of Defence itself says that the MOD housing standard is already higher than the decent homes standard, the Government should do the decent thing and accept Lords amendment 39 and put it on the face of the Bill?
Gideon Amos
Indeed, our military deserve no less than this being on the face of the Bill, in whichever way the Government wish to do it. If it is so easy and, as my hon. Friend points out, it is the Government’s position, surely it can hold no fear for them.
It would be disappointing not to have those amendments. We are told that 90% of service accommodation meets the decent homes standard—my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) had clearly already read this part of my speech—but those figures come from contractors who are responsible for managing those properties and have an interest in saying that they already meet the standards. There is no independent assessment.
The Defence Committee painted a very different picture, when families reported to it. The Committee stated:
“It is disingenuous for DIO to present glossy brochures about being ‘decent homes plus’ when they are anything but. It is clear that the DIO’s property frequently does not meet the standards.”
Crucially, it added:
“Moreover, there is no local authority”—
or anyone else—
“to hold them to account as would be the case for private and other local landlords.”
We are also told that it would be impractical to extend the decent homes standard to military housing because of access “behind the wire”, yet former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Stirrup, reminded colleagues in the other place that civilian officials already go into far more sensitive areas of military bases, so that is not a serious objection.
Matthew Pennycook
Do those on the Lib Dem Benches have any concerns about one of the issues that I raised: applying the decent homes standard to the defence estate in England when a different standard will apply to Scotland and Wales—to other parts of the United Kingdom? Fracturing the defence estate in that way is problematic.
Gideon Amos
Any opportunity to give our service people decent homes, beginning with England, should be taken. I am surprised that the Minister has not grasped it with both hands. The Minister and the Government are in the position, with a large majority, to legislate for this in whichever way they choose, but it needs to be on the face of the legislation. That is what our military deserve. Warm words about things improving are not enough; we have heard them before. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire gained a categoric assurance from the last Government’s Housing Minister at the Dispatch Box that that Government would legislate. They did not.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman says nothing has changed, yet again, but does he not welcome—as I do, as a constituency MP with a significant amount of military housing around RAF Northolt—the significant £1 billion-plus investment into military housing and the insourcing back into public ownership of thousands of MOD homes, after the previous Government’s botched privatisation deal, which cost taxpayers huge amounts of public money?
Gideon Amos
I welcome the moves to which the hon. Gentleman refers, including the insourcing, but the responsibility for determining whether the homes meet the “decent homes plus” standard is down to contractors, who have a commercial interest in reporting that. The difference with the decent homes standard generally is that it is subject to independent inspection. That is a crucial difference. Surely there should be a robust and accountable regime set out in primary legislation to ensure that that investment continues and those standards are reached. That is the least that our service people should be able to expect.
As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire was given categoric assurances that the Government would legislate in this regard, but they did not and neither have this Government. Lord Stirrup, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, reminded the Lords, speaking from experience, that this is not a new problem but one that Governments had failed to tackle for decades. He said:
“For decades now, I have seen at close hand the deficiencies in service families’ accommodation…For years, I have listened to successive Governments undertake to get to grips with the issue. For decades, I have seen them fail to do so…So why should I, or anybody who comes after me, put any faith in any Government’s promises that are not backed up by enforceable measures?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2025; Vol. 847, c. 1759.]
That is the nub of the issue. Service families have heard promises for decades. Now, surely, is the time for action. Our military deserve the gold standard, and that means they deserve legislative provision for decent homes, however the Government wish to do it.
Matthew Pennycook
I urge the hon. Gentleman to engage with the clear concession I made from the Dispatch Box: the confirmation that the Ministry of Defence will lay before Parliament—and publish on gov.uk—an annual report on the standard of service family accommodation in the UK, giving transparency, accountability, and reassurance that the standards we all want to see improve and be met will be.
Gideon Amos
I welcome any report that will deal with this issue, but the fact is that unless the Government accept an amendment or table their own amendment to provide this protection for service families in primary legislation, our service people will be the only category of renters who are not guaranteed the decent homes standard in primary legislation. Private renters will be, social renters will be, but our military service families will not be. That cannot be right. The balance is wrong and the Government need to do more; they need to legislate.
The Government’s final objection is that they want to do it differently. So be it. I will wait with bated breath, as I am sure the whole House will, for the Government’s amendment giving servicemen and servicewomen the gold standard they deserve. Since the Government have tabled no amendment of their own, however, we shall continue to press ours, both here and in the other place. Our armed forces should not be the only group in Britain excluded from the right to a decent home in legislative terms. That is what Lords amendment 39 delivers, and it must stand part of the Bill.
This Bill is about a vision for better homes and for dignity, security and fairness for renters. That must include the families of our armed forces, such as those of the 40 Commando Royal Marines in Norton Fitzwarren and elsewhere in Taunton. I was proud to start a petition to save Norton Manor camp following its proposed closure by the previous Conservative Government. That commitment must sit alongside our national mission to build more social and council homes—150,000 per year—to restore hope for a whole generation. That is what Liberal Democrats are fighting for, and that is the change the country desperately needs.
Danny Beales
The Bill before us is one of the most important and impactful Bills currently before Parliament. I say that not as someone who has seen a few emails in my inbox, but as someone who has felt the impact of the sector, having experienced homelessness twice in my teenage years and having been evicted through a section 21 eviction. As a renter as an adult for many years in London, I know the worry that many go through when pushing for simple repairs to be made or for mould to be addressed, fearing that ultimately their reward for asserting their legal rights will be a section 21 eviction.
The private rented sector in this country is unbalanced and insecure, and the rights of tenants are far outweighed by the powers of the landlord in our legal system. Like many in this place, I am aware of countless cases of constituents who have experienced section 21 evictions and poor treatment right across the sector—treatment that the Bill will go a significant way to remedying. That is why I hope Members will support the Government in opposing the Lords amendments, which seek to weaken, neuter and undermine key provisions of the Bill. Specifically, I want to mention Lords amendments 26, 27, 11 and 18; I am pleased that the Minister has outlined that the Government will oppose them.
Lords amendments 26 and 27 would require local authorities to meet a criminal standard of proof to impose financial penalties for discrimination and rental bidding. That seems completely inappropriate for the offences, with a relatively small maximum penalty of £7,000. That is also completely out of kilter with other provisions that local authorities would enforce to a similar civil standard. It would be incredibly hard to meet that burden of proof for many of those offences. How would a tenant prove beyond reasonable doubt that, for instance, they had been discriminated against for being on benefits? Anyone in that situation would know quite clearly that that is incredibly difficult—if not impossible—to do. Clearly, the amendment would neuter the provisions of the Bill. Local authorities have incredibly limited resources, particularly for enforcement action, and such a high bar would be likely to deter them from pursuing those offences further.
Lords amendment 11, which would allow a landlord to require a pet deposit of up to three weeks’ rent as a condition of consenting to a tenant keeping a pet in their property, is again disproportionate. First, it would hit the poorest hardest. I am pleased that the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), has pets and has no problem with such a provision, but many people not on a parliamentary salary would struggle to pay three weeks’ extra deposit on top of the five weeks’ deposit already in place. The Minister mentioned an average cost of £900. In a constituency like mine in London, the cost would be even more than £900; for a rented three or four-bed family home, it would probably be several thousand pounds. That is a completely disproportionate charge for simply having a cat or dog at home.
Secondly, there is no evidence that such a pet deposit is required to protect a property. Recent research by the University of Hull found that three quarters of pet-owning tenancies result in absolutely no claim against the existing deposit levels, so I would argue that the five-week deposit is more than adequate to support pet-owning households. In fact, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home found that owning a pet increased the length of time someone stayed in a tenancy and reduced tenant turnover, benefiting the landlord financially, not harming them.
I am also significantly opposed to Lords amendment 18, which would reduce the period for which landlords could not re-let their property from 12 months to six months after they had evicted a tenant on the basis that they intended to sell their property. My concern is that this six-month reduction is not sufficient time to meaningfully disincentivise landlords from gaming the system and would reintroduce section 21 through the back door.
Take the London market, for instance, where average rents have increased by 32% over the last five years—the successful sector that Opposition Members have highlighted. Six months is not long enough to dissuade a landlord from benefiting from that sort of rental increase over short periods of time. The inconvenience that a 12-month time period would cause to a well-meaning landlord who is struggling to sell is relatively minor compared with the potential harm caused to the many tenants who would be affected by such a loophole.
In conclusion, houses are homes, not just investments. This Bill was written to rebalance the relationship between the landlord and the tenant in the tenant’s favour, fixing a decades-long power imbalance that has deprioritised the rights of tenants to a safe, stable and affordable home. All the amendments have in common a shared motive to shift the balance back towards landlords to weaken this landmark legislation. That would save some good landlords a small inconvenience, but it would be at the expense of the rights and protections afforded to each and every tenant. That is not reasonable or justifiable, and that is why I will vote against the amendments. I hope that others will do the same and give renters the rights and security they deserve.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Renters have waited long enough: this Bill is overdue, and it is time to deliver. The Conservatives had their chance. They promised reform, then watered it down. The Renters (Reform) Bill gathered dust while tenants were left to suffer, so Liberal Democrats absolutely welcome this Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill. But let us be clear: this Bill must hold firm in protecting the rights of tenants. My inbox is overflowing with experiences that should shame us all: families sleeping on the floor, windows that whistle in the wind, homes riddled with damp and mould, and tenants harassed by landlords to intimidate them out of their homes. This is not just about comfort and health; it is about dignity, justice and fairness.
Energy efficiency must be front and centre. Too many renters are living in homes that make them sick and are paying through the nose to heat them. Fuel poverty is a national scandal, and the Bill has a role to play in ending that. While the spotlight is on private renters, we must not forget those in social housing or in homes owned by institutions. They deserve the same rights, protections and standards.
I want to talk to Lords amendment 39 and Ministry of Defence housing. It is outrageous that the families of those who serve and who risk their lives for us are denied the legal protection that others will enjoy. These families are often uprooted, isolated and left behind while loved ones serve abroad or at sea. Yet they are told that they do not qualify for the same decent housing standards as everyone else. I have met families and service personnel around the country and even around the world through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and one of the issues most frequently cited by those thinking of leaving the armed forces is their housing. Too many of their homes are below par.
The Government say that most MOD homes already meet the standard—fine, then what is the harm in giving these families the legal right to decent housing? If the homes are good, the law will confirm it. If they are not, that is why we need the law. Let us be honest: many tenants, whether in military housing, Church estates or country manors, are afraid to speak out. They are afraid to challenge their landlord and lose their home. Rights must be for everyone, accessible without fear or favour.
The Government claim that councils cannot access the homes for security reasons, but I am sure the Minister will know, as do those of us who have military homes in our areas, that most family homes are not behind the wire. For those that are, there are solutions. We must find a solution and ensure that these families have the same rights. No one should be denied decent housing because of who they work for. I want to address the attempts to water down the Bill.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
We in this House all know that some landlords use the excuse of selling up to evict tenants only to re-let at a higher price. Does the hon. Member agree that Lords amendment 18, which would shorten that re-let period from 12 months to six months, would severely undermine one of the main aims of the Bill—to end no-fault evictions—by making it disappointingly easy for landlords to evict on just that basis?
Vikki Slade
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and saving me the trouble of doing so. Absolutely, landlords give excuses that are perhaps not all they seem to be.
I have heard from tenants who are terrified of being evicted under section 21, with landlords rushing to act before the law changes and evicting with absolutely no excuses. I have heard from renters who feel like they are in a David and Goliath battle.
Lords amendment 11 is an attempt to treat pets more harshly. The proposers of the amendment have it wrong. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, tenants with pets are good news for landlords: research shows that their landlords are better off by £3,800 over 12 years thanks to lower vacancy rates and marketing costs for their properties. I would be a landlord who happily took pets.
Amendment 26 requires a criminal standard of proof for a civil matter. In my mind, that is not justice but obstruction. Last week, I met the housing ombudsman service. It told me that one in five calls that it deals with are from people it cannot help: private renters, people in new builds and people in conversions. The system is broken and the scales are tipped too far from our tenants. The Bill must fix that. We need one ombudsman, one law, one standard, one rule: wherever someone lives, if their home is owned by someone else and it is not up to scratch, they should be able to challenge it, get it fixed and live in a decent home. Housing is not just bricks and mortar; it is the foundation of everything else—health, education, family and work. Every renter deserves a home that is safe, warm, and fair.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats.
As an animal owner myself—I have two cats—I rise to give voice to the many concerns expressed to me by pet owners across the country. Their concerns relate specifically to Lords amendment 11, which would allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to three weeks’ rent. The amendment was narrowly agreed to on Report in the House of Lords in July, in response to the Government’s decision to remove the right for landlords to require tenants to take out pet damage insurance. Cats Protection has argued that the Government’s decision to remove the provision allowing landlords to request pet-related damage insurance was the right one, as the insurance sector was not ready to meet demand competitively.
The Minister in the Lords outlined many arguments against the pet deposit amendment, including that an extra three weeks’ deposit is unaffordable for many tenants. She also referred to a report commissioned by Battersea Cats & Dogs Home and the University of Huddersfield, which found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. She noted that the Government were
“content that landlords would be suitably protected against the cost of pet damage through existing tenancy deposits”,
and I wholly agree.
Cats Protection is also strongly of the view that charging an additional pet deposit is neither necessary nor proportionate. Measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant in the very rare circumstances in which damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit. The amendment could see tenants forced to find up to £1,500 extra for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas. That would mean that those without additional ready funds are priced out of having a pet.
Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency in landlord decisions on what constitutes pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Some landlords may just see the extra fund as an option to withhold more money for standard wear and tear. Damage can be avoided with the use of throws and rugs, for example. I know that Cats Protection and Dogs Trust adopters are always given information on how to provide enrichment activities to keep pets happy. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) would like to take advantage of those to ensure that his terriers do not tear up his carpet.
I am concerned that the amendment will reintroduce the very inequity that the pet provision was designed to remove, putting the price of pet ownership out of reach for many tenants and entrenching geographical inequality. We all know how beneficial pet ownership is not just for the welfare of the animals, but for our wellbeing. “Cats and their stats”, a 2024 Cats Protection report, found that over half a million households who would like a cat do not have one simply because their rental agreement forbids it. I strongly believe that the additional pet deposit should be withdrawn from the Bill; the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet. I will oppose Lords amendment 11, and I encourage colleagues from across the House to do likewise.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I rise to speak to Lords amendment 11 and on the wider issue of pet ownership, which many other Members have spoken about. Pet ownership in rented accommodation is an issue on which I have campaigned for many years in this House. Some Members will remember the Dogs and Domestic Animals (Accommodation and Protection) Bill, otherwise known as Jasmine’s law, that I introduced to the House in 2020. It supported the principle of a pet in every home.
The British people care deeply for the welfare of animals, especially in my Romford constituency. We all understand how important animals are to the lives of human beings. As the owner of two Staffordshire bull terriers, Buster and Spike, who are sadly no longer with us, I know just how important the companionship of pets is to so many people, especially those who live on their own. Owning a dog or cat, or any kind of household pet, improves both physical and mental health, provides vital companionship and helps to tackle loneliness. In fact, pet ownership is estimated to save our NHS around £2.5 billion a year by reducing the number of GP and hospital visits.
Despite those clear benefits, housing issues remain the second most common reason for animals to be relinquished to animal shelters and sanctuaries such as Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which I was privileged to visit only a few weeks ago. I have had many links to that charitable organisation over the years, particularly during my time as shadow Minister for animal welfare some years ago. With growing numbers of people renting, it is absolutely essential that the Bill works in support of responsible pet ownership in rented homes, rather than putting further barriers in the way. That is why I must express my opposition to amendment 11, and any clause that makes it harder for tenants to keep pets.
The introduction of large up-front deposits will only serve to price many people out from owning pets, especially in the ongoing cost of living crisis. It is absolutely wrong that someone should be prevented from owning an animal that they love and want to be with because of this situation. The law needs changing, as I have argued for many years, including with Ministers in the previous Government, whom I had to go and see before they eventually agreed that this policy was the right one. I hope that my shadow Front-Bench colleagues will reconsider their stance. I commend the hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for all their comments on this issue.
What should have been a Bill to unlock pet ownership for those in millions of homes now risks excluding them altogether, entrenching the idea that pet ownership is a privilege for homeowners only—that cannot be right. I do not believe that is what the Government intended.
Earlier proposals on pet insurance—I know issues to do with that have been raised today, but they can be overcome—provided a fairer balance between the concerns of landlords and the ability of tenants to meet the costs. Insurance spreads the expense more evenly across the year, and avoids the burden of large, one-off deposits. It is disappointing that that approach appears to have been set aside by the Lords amendment.
Finally, I urge His Majesty’s Government to work closely with animal welfare charities, and the animal welfare sector in general, when developing the guidance that will accompany the Bill. I speak as an honorary member of the Kennel Club—perhaps I should have declared that at the start—and a supporter of the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs and Cats home, and of course Cats Protection; it is important always to remember our cats. We need a clear definition of what constitutes unreasonable grounds for a landlord to refuse a tenant’s request for a pet. That clarity will help landlords and tenants alike, and avoid unnecessary disputes ending up before the ombudsman or courts. Jasmine’s law has always been about the simple belief that people should not have to choose between a home and a beloved companion. We must not let the Bill, through the Lords amendments, and particularly Lords amendment 11, undermine that vital principle.
Rachel Blake
I wish to speak against Lords amendments 58 to 62, which expand eviction grounds, and Lords amendment 27. I also wish briefly to revisit the core principles of the Bill, which are: ending no-fault eviction, and providing stability, not just for individuals but for the private rented sector; introducing a private renters’ database and an ombudsman, to restore rights to private renters, as well as transparency, so that they understand their tenancy in more detail; and to establish Awaab’s law in the sector. Those are vital interventions in the private rented sector, which we know is diverse, and it is important that the Bill becomes law as soon as possible. All of us, on both sides of the Chamber, will recognise the impact that uncertainty on the issue has had on the private rented sector for a number of years.
I have to say that it was pretty unedifying to listen to the Opposition reneging on their previous commitments to ending no-fault eviction. The first commitment from the Conservatives to ending no-fault evictions was in 2019—I think that was about four Conservative Prime Ministers ago, but I have given up counting. I understand that the shadow Housing Secretary might not remember the position that the previous Prime Minister took on the issue, but this provision cannot come into law soon enough. The number of private rented sector no-fault eviction notices that my constituents receive, and the instability that they cause in the sector, are causing real harm and distress to those who live in it.
Lords amendments 58 to 62 would expand possession ground 5C, and those completely unnecessary expansions provide yet more uncertainty in the sector. They open up the risk of further additional claims, and of introducing other grounds for eviction, which undermines the overall principles of the Bill. I support my colleagues who have spoken against Lords amendment 27, which would raise the evidence bar. It is completely unrealistic to think that it would be possible to do that, not only because bidding wars and contests often take place through verbal dialogue, but because of the lack of resources available to local authorities to investigate such cases. I do not believe that the amendment is practical, or was tabled in particularly good faith. We want renters’ rights restored, and a balance between renters and landlords. I cannot stress enough the urgent need to bring forward the Bill, to give confidence to renters, all those who rely on people living in private rented accommodation, and those living and working across the UK who need the sector to be successful. I urge Members to vote against the Lords amendments, and to support the Government in getting the Bill into statute.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s move to empower tenants. For too long in this country, owning property has been seen as a way to create additional wealth, rather than the intention being to provide a safe, secure and warm home for tenants. Not all landlords are bad, but there are some bad apples out there, and all those who are unable to get on to the housing ladder, or who actively choose to rent, deserve security of tenure, and confidence that they will not be evicted at the whim of a landlord, which often means being forced to move out of the area, and uprooting children from schools.
I declare an interest, because my younger daughter has spent four years renting in London, and for the last two, she has been living in horrific, mould-covered flats. She had to move out of the last one early, because the mould crawling up the walls was so bad that it was affecting the health, and ruining the belongings, of her and her flatmates. In 2025, that is simply not acceptable. For the thousands of people living in unsuitable accommodation, we must ensure that local authorities can take action against negligent landlords. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats do not support Lords amendment 26.
I support Lords amendment 39, which would extend the decent homes standard to accommodation provided by the Ministry of Defence for use as service family accommodation. In my constituency of South Devon, the prestigious Britainnia royal naval college brings a large number of military families to the town of Dartmouth, some of whom live in MOD housing. Those families, who commit to a life of service—the whole family is involved when one member serves our country—deserve, at the very least, a home that is safe, comfortable, warm, energy efficient and decent. I am not sure that I agree with the security argument offered by the Minister, given that much MOD housing is located outside military bases. It is not beyond possibility to find a way to ensure that local authorities can access that housing. Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for decent homes for military families, who deserve exactly the same standards and legal protection as other renters, and I urge the House to support Lords amendment 39.
Turning to pets, a friend of mine recently failed to move back to Devon because she simply could not find rented accommodation in her price bracket, and her search was severely hampered by the fact that she has a much-loved family dog. Being told that she was not eligible even to look at properties because of the dog was discriminatory, and it made a difficult search impossible. We are in an area that is short of houses available to rent. If we take the average rent in the south-west of £1,181 per month, the proposal to allow landlords to request pet damage deposits of up to three weeks’ rent equates to an additional £817 up front, which is simply out of reach for most tenants. The current rental deposit cap of five weeks’ rent is sufficient to cover any potential pet-related damage, and nobody should be priced out of pet ownership simply because they do not own their own home. I therefore do not support Lords amendment 11.
Finally, I turn to agricultural workers. Agriculture is one of the largest industries and employers in South Devon, which is a predominantly rural constituency. Many of those working on farms as dairy workers, relief milkers and tractor drivers are required to live on site, as they have to work incredibly unsocial hours, and living on site makes the job slightly more manageable. I support measures in the Bill that allow repossession when a property is required to house agricultural workers, whether they are employed or self-employed. Farmers regularly tell me how difficult it is to find housing for farm workers, with many having to rely on caravans and cabins that are not suitable for long-term living. As it is increasingly common in farming for workers to be self-employed, we must ensure that they, too, are covered by the grounds for repossession, so I support Lords amendment 55.
Dave Robertson
I am glad that I managed to sneak in this speech, and I hope I will finish it. There have been many speeches made by Members on both sides of the Chamber, many of which have focused on the many things that the Bill will hopefully achieve. I confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) does have two very cute cats.
Matthew Pennycook
With the leave of the House, I will close what has been a brief but good-natured and considered debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. In opening the debate, I set out in some detail the reasons the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place, but in the time remaining, I will further substantiate some of the Government’s arguments and respond to a number of the issues that have been raised in the debate.
Several hon. Members questioned the Government’s logic in resisting Lords amendment 75 related to ground 4A. They argued that it is too narrow. As I made clear, ground 4A exists precisely because we recognise the unique nature of the rental market. We think that the ground as it exists covers the majority of the market, but the truth is that no one-size-fits-all solution covers all circumstances. We have been clear: we do not want to deny to non-typical students the benefits of the new tenancy system under the Bill. Removing the restriction could lead to students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with children or postgraduate couples living together who have put down roots in an area being evicted more regularly. The possession ground as originally drafted strikes the right balance and we will resist the amendment on that basis.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of pet insurance and questioned why the Government have changed their position. Debate in the other place was extensive. Furthermore, alongside that, drawing on the expertise of peers such as the Earl of Kinnoull, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees, the Government consulted the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following such engagement, we concluded that we are no longer confident—as we once were, and as the previous Government were—that the insurance and underwriting sector will have sufficient or suitable products available at the scale and speed required for either landlords or tenants to purchase.
We do not want to leave tenants in a position where they cannot comply with conditions set out as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean—as several hon. Members have made clear—that they simply would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having the pet provisions in the Bill. The Government’s position, I am pleased to say, is supported by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and other organisations. I hope that hon. Members note that.
A report produced by the University of Huddersfield, which was commissioned by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, found that 76% of landlords reported that they did not encounter any damage caused by dogs or cats in their rental properties. When damage was caused by pets, that was an average additional cost of £300 per property, compared with £775 for non-pet-related damage. The report also shows that renters with pets tend to stay longer in their properties than those without pets, indicating financial and social advantages for landlords in fostering longer and more stable tenancies.
In the rare cases where the insurance and deposit do not cover the cost of the damage caused by a pet, a landlord could take the tenant to a small claims court by bringing a money claim to recoup any outstanding funds. On that basis, and having reflected, we are satisfied that the existing requirement for five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of increased damage by pet ownership. As I noted in my opening speech, however, the Government will continue to keep that under review. We already have powers available to allow for higher deposits for pets if needed.
The very topical and pertinent issue of shared owners affected by the building safety crisis was raised by a number of Members. The Government are absolutely clear: we recognise their plight. As I made clear, we have already taken a number of measures to better support shared owners in that position. We recognise more can be done outside this Bill. We are more than happy to continue conversations with peers, hon. Members and organisations such as the Shared Owners’ Network about what more we can do in this space on issues such as valuations, sub-letting requests and repurchases.
We remain of the view, however, that the amendment in question could undermine protections for that cohort of tenants who happen to rent a sub-let home from a shared owner. Carefully considering arguments made by the peers and their validity, we will have further conversations. I will carry on those conversations to ensure that we are satisfied whether a solution that does not undermine the core principles of the Bill would allow us to provide that greater support to shared owners.
Carers and the carers ground were raised by a number of hon. Members. We have all recognised the contribution that carers make, but we believe that not only is there not sufficient evidence that the scenario in question is extensive—that it is common—but that there are real risks of the ground being abused. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), mentioned the example of families across the country who own properties and who may wish to move a family member back in as a carer. I gently point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, if the carer is a family member as set out in ground 1, a landlord can already use that ground to gain possession, enabling them to accommodate a carer. We think that Lords amendment 64 is drawn too widely and is open to abuse. We will resist it on that basis.
Finally, I come to the last couple of issues that were raised. Several hon. Members made a powerful case for not accepting Lords amendments 26 and 27, related to the criminal standard of proof. We are absolutely clear that the civil—not criminal—standard of proof is the appropriate one. The standard of proof is lower for the breaches in question—breaches of the rental discrimination and rental bidding clauses in the Bill—precisely because they are purely civil, rather than criminal matters. Raising that standard of proof to align with other criminal offences would logically result in repeated instances of those breaches on rental discrimination and rental bidding, attracting the higher fine of £40,000, rather than £7,000. I do not understand the logic of the Opposition’s position, but we very much think that those breaches should remain subject to the civil standard of proof, with the penalty of £7,000 and without the impact on local authorities across the country.
I will briefly address the arguments made by Liberal Democrat Members about service family accommodation. We have had extensive debates about the subject and I know that they are coming from an honourable place when they make those arguments, but I gently point out that the Ministry of Defence has made it clear that in its view, subjecting secure defence sites to local authority inspections, as proposed in the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender, is unworkable because of access and security arrangements. As several hon. Members have said, let us find a solution to that. The MOD does not think there is a workable solution and is worried about fracturing how standards are applied across the defence estate, as this legislation applies only to England. As I have said, in the coming months, the Government will bring forward a defence housing strategy, setting out clear renewal standards and further steps to improve accommodation. I have offered a very clear concession from the Dispatch Box that we will provide for annual reporting to give the transparency and accountability that those standards will be met.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his engagement in the issue of service family accommodation. Will he consider bringing forward primary legislation, on the face of this Bill or another Bill, so that service families are given the same legislative protection that private and social tenants are given?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to continue the conversation with the hon. Gentleman and with Liberal Democrat peers in the other place, but our argument today is that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by Baroness Grender. We think that the concessions that I have offered today from the Dispatch Box should be sufficient to satisfy the concerns that have been raised.
I will briefly address the incredibly important issue of implementation, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance). This Bill must receive Royal Assent as soon as possible. The time that it has taken for the legislation to make its progress through the House is not cost-free. Families across the country have been subject to no-fault section 21 evictions, which we know are a leading cause of homelessness, and renters across the country need the Bill on the statute book.
Following Royal Assent, we will allow for a smooth transition to the new system, and we will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. We want to make that change as smoothly and efficiently as possible, and to introduce the new tenancies for the private rented sector in one stage. On that date, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies: existing tenancies will convert to the new system and any new tenancies signed on or after the date will be governed by the new rules. We will work closely with all parts of the sector to ensure a smooth transition and we will provide sufficient notice ahead of implementation.
To conclude, this Labour Government are going to succeed where their Conservative predecessor failed. We will level decisively the playing field between landlord and tenant, and transform the experience of private renting in England. While we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to concerns raised, we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing the constructive conversations that I have had with peers over recent weeks, with a view to securing agreements across both Houses in the near future, and I commend the Government’s position to the House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.
PETITION
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I rise to present a petition on disabled bus passes and their use during peak hours. At the moment, across England, there is a 9.30 am barrier, as before that time people are not guaranteed to be able to use their disabled bus pass. This varies wildly across England, depending on whether different local authorities subsidise and enhance that concession. I believe, as do the petitioners and others, that people live with their disabilities 24/7 and that those disabilities do not know the bounds of such arbitrary time limits.
I thank Jackie Snape of Disability Action Yorkshire, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Waterside Changemakers and all the other campaign groups who have helped with the campaign and the petition. We know that disabled people already face unfair and additional barriers when participating in society. These structural and societal inequalities include higher living costs and limited transport options.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to allow disabled people to use their bus passes at all times of day, including during peak hours, to promote fairness, independence and equal access to public transport.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of North Yorkshire,
Declares that restricting the use of disabled persons’ bus passes during peak hours is unfair and places additional barriers on disabled people, who already face significant structural and societal inequalities, including higher living costs and limited transport options.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to allow disabled people to use their bus passes at all times of day, including during peak hours, to promote fairness, independence, and equal access to public transport.]
[P003099]
Remote Coastal Communities
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to have secured this debate on Government support for remote coastal communities. My constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle is one such area, and there is growing evidence that such constituencies face distinct and underestimated challenges. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), to her new position.
According to the Office for National Statistics, around 8.7 million people—15% of the population—lived in coastal settlements in England and Wales in 2021. These communities deserve strong representation in Parliament because, just as the human body often shuts down extremities at times of extreme shock, our remote coastal communities tend to feel the chill of economic neglect first, experiencing public service withdrawal, under-investment and eroded socioeconomic opportunities. To illustrate, a report by Onward found that coastal neighbourhoods are 42% more likely to be in the lowest decile for income deprivation than inland areas, and half as likely to be in the best.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s fair funding review is right to take into account the sparsity and rurality of coastal areas and visitor numbers into the new calculations? For example, a hotel in Cornwall in the winter can cost £53, but in the summer it can cost £100, and county councils spend twice as much on home-to-school transport as London boroughs, proving how much more it costs to provide those services in rural areas.
Perran Moon
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, although I think the Government should go further in relation to visitor numbers, because the current proposals look only at day trippers. I will come on to that issue a little later in my speech.
We know that place matters. A recent report from the Resolution Foundation found that one third of pay differences between labour markets stem from the places themselves, not the people who live there. That should be a wake-up call for all of us. There are several interrelated pressures driving this deprivation that are not adequately currently reflected in Government assessments of need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. As I said when I spoke to him earlier, there have been many debates on coastal erosion and remote coastal communities. In my constituency of Strangford, as in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the problem of coastal erosion was financed from Westminster some years ago, but that has now fallen by the wayside. The issues are not just about coastal erosion, but about social erosion—the closure of the pub, the post office and the shop, and reduced public transport, if it even exists. Ever mindful that the drive to change that must come from Westminster, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there must be more money put into community budgets to address greater social isolation?
Perran Moon
I agree. That is why, on the back of this debate, I am calling on the Government to develop a specific remote coastal strategy.
First, there are the pressures of geographical remoteness itself. Physical isolation and sparse populations drive up the cost and complexity of delivering public services. In Cornwall, our landscape of small, scattered settlements and constrained transport links means that service provision is inherently far more expensive; those costs are not captured by labour and property indices alone.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
On transport links, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the final repair in phase 5 of the Dawlish rail resilience programme is vital to remote coastal communities in both Devon and Cornwall?
Perran Moon
I agree. The Dawlish line is very important in relation to Cornwall, and it needs to be a consideration for relevant Ministers.
Members may not realise that, sitting here, we are closer to Middlesbrough than to Camborne in my constituency, but remoteness is not just about distance; it is a barrier to access, opportunity and resilience.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
When I visit teachers in Torbay secondary schools, I reflect on how there is often a bay mentality and a lack of aspiration for youngsters. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that often in our local coastal communities there is a lack of aspiration compared with many metropolitan areas, where there is greater richness of culture and opportunity for our young people?
Perran Moon
I entirely agree, and I will address that later in my speech.
The second pressure is seasonal demand from tourism. While the visitor economy has long held strategic value for coastal communities, the seasonal influx of tourists places immense strain on already creaking public services, such as waste collection, highways, beach safety and emergency response, which face significant seasonal surges. Those fluctuations are not captured in standard funding models, yet they have real budgetary impact. Tourism can bring prosperity, but also pressure. In Cornwall, summer means more traffic, more waste and more emergency calls, and significantly higher costs than those associated with the resident population alone.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
My constituency is a lot closer to here than the constituency of my hon. Friend—it is just a bit further down the Thames. We have a strong tourist economy, but due to the housing pressures across the country these days, the housing and accommodation on the Isle of Sheppey hides a masked community living in holiday accommodation all year round, particularly in caravans. That is not picked up in the Government data at either a national or local level. I am interested to hear from my hon. Friend whether that is a problem for him as well; in my community, it means that we have high levels of deprivation that simply are not being accounted for in the current Government spending plans or formulae. I welcome the Government’s revision to the spending formulae, which will help my constituency, but we could go further.
Perran Moon
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Again, I will come on to that a little later in my speech.
On higher costs, the pressure that is felt most acutely by residents of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, as I hear on the doorstep or in constituency surgeries, is housing. Coastal housing markets, shaped by seasonal appeal, have a high proportion of second homes and short-term holiday lets, which significantly reduces supply and drives prices beyond the means of local people, while many of those homes sit empty for months. I appreciate the decisions that this Government have made on stamp duty to dampen demand for second homes, but I was horrified to hear last week that the Reform party suggests that the excessive purchase of second homes in Cornwall is not a problem. I am disappointed that Reform Members are not here now.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
In my constituency, high levels of second home ownership, short-term holiday lets and holiday homes reduce the housing supply for local families and force them away from their important support systems. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need stronger support for generally affordable housing delivery in coastal areas such as ours, backed by sufficient infrastructure?
Perran Moon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is something I will talk about in a moment. There is a particular pressure in Cornwall, but there is also pressure in other remote coastal areas relating to second home ownership and Airbnbs—sorry, I should say short-term lets. According to 2024 data from Lighthouse, Cornwall had the largest supply of short-term lets in the country. The figure was around 24,000 properties, which is up by 30% since 2019. I have long supported a compulsory registration scheme for short-term lets—one that includes fire safety regulations—and I look forward to the Government’s forthcoming housing strategy.
Cornwall suffers from a chronic lack of affordable homes—I appreciate that it shares that problem with other remote coastal locations. With the second highest housing target in the country and over 23,000 people on the housing waiting list, the scale of need is clear, but our remote geography, infrastructure limitations and construction skills shortages make conventional housing delivery extremely challenging.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for securing this important debate. He is focusing on tourism and housing, but in my coastal constituency, there are many businesses—particularly in the fishing industry—that could benefit from investment to deliver economic growth. In May, the Government launched the fishing and coastal growth fund, worth £360 million over 12 years. Does the hon. Member agree that in her response to this debate, the Minister should update the House on the progress of that funding, and that those funds should be allocated proportionately to reflect the size of Scotland’s fishing industry?
Perran Moon
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am sure that in the fullness of time, we will receive more details on that funding, which will be very important for the fishing industry—we are certainly very keen to ensure we see the benefit of it within Cornwall. It has to be practical, and it has to be applied where it is most appropriate.
The issue of homes is an important one. When homes become investments rather than homes for local people, communities lose their heart and young people lose their future. As such, the next pressure I want to highlight is educational isolation and the lack of opportunity facing young people in remote coastal locations, which has been mentioned. Research from Plymouth Marjon University shows that schools in such locations struggle in vital areas, including school staff recruitment and retention, support and external investment. Poor transport links, rural roads and seasonal traffic make travel difficult, limiting opportunities for both pupils and teachers and deterring potential recruits.
Our young people are presented with Hobson’s choice: move inland to find work opportunities, or face an uncertain future with limited prospects of a home of their own. That migration reinforces geographic inequality. In a recent report on the issue, the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted:
“Reducing economic disparities…requires bringing opportunity to people—not just raising skills, but building places where skills are rewarded.”
Its report specifically highlights that coastal areas tend to lose out, with migration reducing average earnings by over 5% in parts of Cornwall. Young people face the “half-compass effect”, with the sea on one side, poor transport on the other, and limited access to employers.
A direct consequence of that lack of youth opportunity can be seen in the age profile of remote coastal communities. According to the Office for National Statistics, the median age in coastal built-up areas is 42—three years older than in non-coastal areas—and 25% of residents over 16 are retired, compared with 20.6% inland.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He is Labour’s south by south-west to my north by north-west. It is good to have our communities connected to a Government who make change for rural areas and coastal communities. My constituency has much in common with his; it faces the same challenges of connectivity, demographics and housing, and it also has the same potential with fisheries, the people themselves, the culture, the language and the renewables resource, which all of the community should have a share in. Does he agree that we need not only more central Government support, but more devolution? My constituency has been badly treated by devolution: we faced the ferry fiasco that has cost half a billion pounds; we have faced the farce of highly protected marine areas being imposed on us by devolved Government that would have closed down our entire fishery; and because of depopulation, we face the fiasco of reduced funding—being punished for people moving away. Does he agree that we need not only more central Government support, but more power in these peripheral areas so that we can run our own affairs?
Perran Moon
I thank my hon. Friend for his pertinent points about remote coastal areas and the challenges we face. Obviously, he faces a particular challenge that we do not face in Cornwall, as he also has to put up with an SNP Government.
Since many residents live outside built-up areas, the true figure on age might be even higher. Cornwall has seen sustained population growth, largely driven by the migration of older people drawn to its geographical appeal as a place to retire. This older migration population means increased health and care needs. Data from the Institute of Cornish Studies shows that 43% of households moving to Cornwall from elsewhere are economically inactive, placing huge further strains on public services. Funding formulas rarely account for that reality. We have more demand for carers, more long-term health conditions, and more demand on health and social care systems. In remote areas like Cornwall, care is harder to reach and far more expensive to deliver.
With our ageing population come the health inequalities that deeply affect remote coastal communities. The chief medical officer’s 2021 report on health and wellbeing in coastal communities identifies a coastal excess of disease driven by deprivation, age profile and behaviours such as obesity, smoking and alcohol use. Life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy were all lower in coastal areas. The report made it clear that in coastal communities, these factors converge to the detriment of local people, who face income insecurity, low-paid seasonal work and limited educational capital. The 10-year health plan does acknowledge the challenges faced by coastal communities, particularly in its shift from hospital to community care, but more needs to be done.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. Does he agree with me about the extra pressures on people living in remote rural coastal communities, such as Ilfracombe in Devon? The life expectancy there is 10 years lower than in other parts of Devon. The integrated care board needs to be funded for the costs of supporting the local minor injuries unit at Ilfracombe hospital, especially during tourist times, when the population of my area doubles.
Perran Moon
I am just glad that we have a Labour Government who are taking the national health service far more seriously than the previous Government did.
My deepest concern is that deprivation is not adequately reflected in standardised measurements, particularly the indices of multiple deprivation, as the Government’s primary tool for assessing need. Research from Plymouth Marjon University due to be published on 26 September introduces the concept of “pretty poverty”—deprivation masked by Cornwall’s postcard beauty. The six key findings of the report show that the indices of multiple deprivation do not give enough weight to transport dependency, housing displacement, employment precarity, healthcare withdrawal, educational isolation and community resilience. Although the measurement has strengths, without reforming it we risk missing the deep structural issues facing remote coastal communities.
In June, as was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), the Government launched the fair funding review, acknowledging that outdated models have short-changed places like Cornwall. It includes a long overdue remoteness adjustment, previously dropped in 2018, and recognition of some of the costs associated with tourism. However, in Cornwall, the ending of the shared prosperity fund, which had been used to develop economic prosperity— announced on the same day that millions of pounds were made available for mayoral combined authorities in the north and midlands—was a bitter pill to swallow. The indices of multiple deprivation do not see the full picture, and when measurement fails, funding fails. I am pleased to see that a new iteration of the indices will be released later this year, and that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been brought into the process to consider rural affairs, but the specific needs of remote coastal communities must be considered as well.
Time and again, evidence shows that remote coastal communities are often conflated with rural areas, overlooked in key metrics and treated as peripheral. Decisions about these communities must be based on accurate, meaningful assessments of deprivation. I urge Ministers to commit themselves to reviewing the forthcoming research from Plymouth Marjon University, because although it focuses on Cornwall, the issues that it raises are likely to apply across most other remote coastal areas. I also ask this Minister to commit herself to a dedicated remote coastal strategy to deal with these issues holistically. Our remote coastal areas have so much economic potential, but up until now Government policy has seemed to favour investment in urban mayoral authority areas in London, Birmingham and Manchester.
Martin Wrigley
Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to go further, and appoint a Minister for coastal communities?
Perran Moon
I am not sure that such a Minister is what we need. What we need is absolute focus and a cross-departmental Government strategy for remote coastal areas. In these areas, we feel acutely the focus on urban areas and, in particular, mayoral combined authorities. Without sustained investment in remote coastal areas, in housing, transport, skills and economic development, our collective economic potential will remain untapped.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), not only on securing the debate but on the way in which he covered the issues and made such a strong case for the very special needs of remote and coastal areas. We hope that the new group of Ministers will attend to those needs, although the previous Ministers were doing good work in this regard, and I am not in any way dismissing or disapproving of that work.
As the hon. Gentleman said, only 8% of the population of England, Wales and Cornwall is coastal. In my constituency, which covers west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, 95% of the population live in coastal communities—and, being in the far south-west of the country, we are in that sense remote. Most people in our area actually see London as remote; indeed, remoteness is a concept that depends on which end of the telescope we are looking through. The big difficulty for people living in coastal areas is the remoteness of where the decisions are taken, and for them the remoteness is the other way around: people in the centre are often not listening to, or not hearing, the words and the needs of people in rural areas and, in particular, people in coastal areas such as the hon. Gentleman’s, mine and those of all the other Members who have spoken this evening.
I welcome the Minister, who needs time to absorb the magnificence of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am using my speech as a buffer during which she can absorb that magnificence, but I want to add a few points, which I hope she will take on board, in addition to those that the hon. Gentleman made. I particularly want to embellish a little further his points about housing. It is not an accident that coastal areas often contain a lot of highly desirable housing markets, where a lot of people with wealth are very keen to invest their money—that is very much an investment, although sometimes they also buy houses for personal recreational use.
What we have found in Cornwall in recent years, especially since the small business rate relief was introduced in 2012, is that there has been an almost industrial level of shifting of second homes—from council tax to business rates—that are purported to be or actually have become holiday lets for business rating purposes. Owners apply for small business rate relief, and then pay nothing. We are talking about wealthy people, who can afford more than one home, simply flipping their property, with the benefit of their tax lawyers and others, depending on what is to their advantage in terms of tax. Frankly, one must take into account the obscenity of the fact that all those who had done that and were entitled to small business rate relief also benefited from covid aid—so they received four levels of payment amounting to £20,000 apiece. In the case of Cornwall, most of those people have their primary addresses outside Cornwall, and one might argue that they did not need a penny piece of that money, but they still claimed it.
By the end of the last decade half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money had gone towards subsidising the wealthy having holiday homes in Cornwall. I have made this point to Treasury Ministers and Housing Ministers before, and I am somewhat surprised that Ministers have not yet been prepared to look at this policy and to consider at least reviewing it. Surely it is far better to spend half a billion pounds on first homes for the thousands of families in desperate need, rather than simply shovelling that money into the pockets of wealthy second home owners. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to look at that.
My next point is perhaps rather unique to the Isles of Scilly. Some of the big pressures that Scillonians face relate to transport, given that they are 30 miles off the mainland. Not a lot of people appreciate that from east to west, my constituency is about 70 miles when one takes into account all that wet stuff between Land’s End and the Isles of Scilly. It is a very expensive area to cover, either by air or by ferry. What we are seeking for the Isles of Scilly is something approaching parity with the Scottish islands. People on the Isles of Scilly pay four, five or sometimes six times the amount that people in Scottish islands would normally expect to pay to get on a ferry or to fly to and from the islands. That also has an impact on freight and on build costs on the islands, meaning that although we desperately need affordable homes, it is very difficult to get them off the ground within the viability thresholds of Homes England. It is a very significant challenge.
There is no parity in relation to older people’s bus passes, because there is not a bus and those subsidies therefore do not exist. People who live in the off-islands have to pay significant amounts—£20 or £30—for a ferry just to get from an off-island to St Mary’s to do some shopping. There is no such thing as subsidised transport, and the £3 fares, as for the buses, would be really nice between the islands if we could possibly get it. The Isles of Scilly do not have parity with the mainland on that.
The Isles of Scilly also do not have parity on post-16 education. There is not sufficient capacity in the islands to provide it there, so all the 16 or 17-year-olds—under the mandatory rules that apply for post-16 education—need to go to the mainland, but there are insufficient funds available to be able to do that. I am talking to Baroness Smith at the moment to try to make sure that the Isles of Scilly get the full support, so that students get the backing not only for transport costs, but for accommodation and support. There are a lot of costs in relation to the Isles of Scilly that are simply not met, and I hope the Minister is seized of that.
The final point, which the hon. Gentleman, who represents Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, emphasised—and I know he will be serving on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee—is that it is absolutely important to get devolution right. In some coastal areas such as Cornwall it is really important not simply to apply the same bland uniformity that we might be able to get away with for other locations. Places such as Cornwall need a unique settlement. We were making good progress on that with the Minister’s predecessors, who were certainly understanding, and the conversations were going well. I hope that the Minister will be listening to the voice of Cornwall on the devolution settlement. The only region for Cornwall clearly has to be Cornwall, and there are very strong arguments for it. I do not have the opportunity to make them this evening, but I know the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, all six Members from Cornwall—and the Isles of Scilly—are very keen to make sure that the message gets to this new group of Ministers that Cornwall deserves a special settlement on devolution.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
If the speech of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) was nothing more than a buffer, I dread to think what mine will be. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing this important debate.
Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland is an odd constituency, and my hon. Friend mentioned the Middlesbrough part of it. East Cleveland is a rural and coastal community defined by its proximity to the North sea. From the cliffs of Huntcliff and Boulby, which are some of the highest in England, to the hidden gem of Skinningrove beach, it is a place of great natural beauty. It is also a place of great talent, yet too often that talent is lost. I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the brain-drain migration of young people inland to find opportunities elsewhere. Time and again, employers in my constituency have met me and told me of their frustrations at seeing their talent pool displaced to nearby urban centres or even further into Leeds, York, Newcastle and so on. I hear the same from young people themselves, who feel they have to get out to get on, and that is holding our communities back in so many ways.
There has been a lot of discussion about devolution, quite rightly, and I completely agree that it has to be done in the right way. We have a devolved combined authority in our region, and I feel quite strongly that our coastal communities and our rural communities are not fully acknowledged in some of the strategies brought forward by the regional government. Skills are a great example. I think insufficient work is put in to make sure that young people can access opportunity in some of the new industries coming into Teesside. As my hon. Friend mentioned, public transport is another example; getting from the furthest part of my constituency to urban centres is extremely difficult and very challenging for young people, and that is exacerbating some of these divides and the deprivation that we see.
Coastal communities are often described as left behind. I really want to get across the point that we are not a problem to be resolved, as I think my hon. Friend said, but an opportunity. It is a decade since IPPR North published a report, “Northern Prosperity is National Prosperity”. That can be extended to many communities across the country. By unlocking economic growth in remote areas, we can benefit the whole country and the whole economy. We are untapped in our potential.
Martin Wrigley
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if coastal communities had just a fraction of the investment in public transport that is made in places such as London and other big metropolitan areas, they would flourish beyond belief?
Luke Myer
I do agree. That is part of the problem in our part of the world. By investing in infrastructure, whether that is public transport or grid connectivity for our manufacturers, the entire economy across the country can benefit. I have one village, Aysdalegate, which does not have a clean water supply; these are the basics of modern-day life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth mentioned, towards the start of his speech, that the economic divides among our regions have led to a kind of fraying of the social fabric. There is a danger that we become more vulnerable to the anger, resentment and radicalisation that we often see in our politics. It is a mistake to assume that radicalisation can only happen to a very small number of people who are particularly vulnerable. It can happen to anyone when the economic conditions are ripe, particularly at a time when social media giants have built algorithms designed to keep us angry and afraid, and to make us think that our country has never been so bad.
It is important to remember that that is not real. When we visit our coastal communities, we see that England is alive and well. It is there in fishing villages, farmsteads, the stained glass of church windows, dry stone walls and rolling fields. It is there in marketplaces, allotments and so much else. We must not lose sight of that. That England is alive and kicking. That unpixellated England is waiting for us all to come home.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) for securing this important debate for my first day in this job, and for his tireless advocacy on behalf of coastal communities. I completely agree: coastal communities are a vital part of our national identity, serving as postcards of national pride, and a reminder of our heritage and shared maritime history. But behind those postcards lies another story, as my hon. Friend has rightly alluded to, for the beauty of our coasts can mask the everyday reality of the people who live there all year round.
These communities face a unique set of circumstances. We know, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that coastal communities tend to have older populations and lower rates of employment, which often mean fewer opportunities for young people. We know that the Social Mobility Commission found that coastal communities have some of the least favourable conditions for childhood in the country; a disproportionately high number of children are eligible for free school meals and their parents have relatively low qualification levels. We know that these communities tend to suffer from a lack of connectivity—a point that hon. Members have made—geographically, economically and digitally, with worse 4G coverage and fewer business opportunities than in high-growth sectors.
Let me assure the House that this Government understand the challenges faced by coastal communities. The Government’s mission is to reverse inequalities and unlock the full potential of all our communities, including our coastal communities, to ensure that they play a vital role in our economy and our future.
Martin Wrigley
I appreciate the Minister listing the disadvantages that we have in our coastal communities, although she did not mention the fact that our health services are overwhelmed in the summer. The Dawlish minor injuries unit not being open due to lack of staffing, for example, does not help when numbers in our towns double in the few weeks of summer. It really is very disadvantageous for the local residents.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for making that important point about the pressures faced by our coastal communities, particularly at peak tourist points. It is important that we acknowledge that.
What we are trying to do as a Government, through long-overdue reforms to the local government finance system, is redirect around £2 billion of existing funding to the places and communities that need it the most, which will enable councils—including in our coastal areas—to deliver reliably for their residents. We also acknowledge and recognise that delivery costs vary across the country. Deprivation, remoteness, varying abilities to raise taxes locally and the impact of commuters and tourists, as the hon. Member pointed out, can all affect how hard it can be to deliver services in coastal communities. That is why we are committed to ensuring that those factors are accounted for in future funding allocations—an important move that will have an impact on our communities.
Steve Darling
I am concerned about the Getting It Right First Time NHS template that the health service applies to our health services in Devon and Cornwall. It is a system that is very much drawn from the metropolitan experience of health provision and does not account for sparsity and the fact that we have seas either side of us. Can the Minister assure us that Getting It Right First Time will take account of places where there is rurality and coastal impact on our health services?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Whether it is our NHS or our public services, there is a challenge for us to ensure that we are designing services that work for different communities and that recognise the diversity of those communities, and that is what we are committed to as a Department. We are committed to working with our colleagues across Government to ensure we are providing the services that people need, tailored to the needs of local communities. That is a big thrust of the devolution agenda, which I am very committed to and passionate about, on which we have made big progress as a Government, and will continue to do so.
Luke Myer
I have submitted proposals to the Tees Valley combined authority to get East Cleveland’s economy moving—the focus of my Invest in East Cleveland event on Friday. Will the Minister commit to working with me to bring investment into our rural and coastal communities so that we can unlock jobs and growth for the whole country?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for championing his area and for the work he is doing locally, and I will absolutely commit to working with him. The opportunities to unlock the potential of our areas are huge, and I am very committed to playing my part to help us to deliver that.
Alongside that, we are clear that we want to deliver a wide range of programmes to address economic, social and health disparities across the country, including in our coastal areas; in Camborne and Redruth, for example, we are already investing £24.7 million via the Camborne town deal through to March 2027, as well as £12 million via the UK shared prosperity fund until the end of this financial year.
In addition, our £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade into 75 communities across the country. One in three of those communities is coastal, meaning that up to £500 million will directly support regeneration in coastal towns and neighbourhoods. At the spending review, the Chancellor announced an expansion of this programme to as many as 350 places, including 25 new trailblazer areas, such as Barrow and Bootle South, with these areas receiving early support to tackle local challenges and drive growth. The programme will help communities to improve cultural venues, health and wellbeing services and, critically, local infrastructure. It will champion local leadership, foster community engagement and strengthen social cohesion.
Members raised challenges around flooding, which the Department recognises. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking action to improve resilience in coastal areas, particularly on the key issue of flooding. We are conscious that we need to take action as we respond to climate change. The flood resilience taskforce is improving the co-ordination between national and local agencies, which we need to get right. We have invested a record £2.65 billion over this year and last year for the construction and maintenance of flood schemes, supporting 1,000 projects and protecting 52,000 properties by March 2026. Over the next three years, a further £4.2 billion will be invested in flood and coastal defences.
Critically, we recognise the strategic importance of coastal communities such as Barrow, which play a vital role in our national security. This Government have committed to providing £200 million over 10 years to improve education, employment, skills and health and wellbeing, alongside investment in the town centre. There are significant opportunities for us to capitalise on the natural assets and strengths of our coastline, including by supporting clean energy industries.
Finally, on the key question of fair funding, we recognise that we need to take better account of the drivers of deprivation when we allocate funding. We are consulting on the proposal and taking in all the representations we have been given, and we will respond in due course. Members should be assured that we recognise the specific challenges in coastal areas, such as connectivity, and their impact on deprivation. We are trying to factor that into the approach we are taking with the fair funding formula.
As a proud coastal nation, there are many opportunities available to us, and this Government are already taking steps to make sure that we capitalise on them. We are committed to working with Members across the House to unlock the full potential of our coastal communities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth for bringing forward this important debate and for being a tireless champion of coastal communities. I look forward to working with him and colleagues from across Cornwall and across the House.
Andrew George
I am so sorry to interrupt the Minister’s peroration, but she covered without detail the funding formula for local authorities and whether it will properly address the poverty and deprivation in rural areas. Cornwall is the poorest region in the country and achieved European objective 1 status—one of the highest levels of regional development aid—but it is not seen in Government eyes as the poorest region, certainly as far as the criteria is concerned. Will the Minister ensure that the criteria the Government use properly assesses the levels of deprivation in rural areas?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are very exercised about ensuring that we support areas of deprivation, and we always keep all indices and metrics under review. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth talked about the research, which I look forward to reading in detail. Ultimately, my objective is the objective of hon. Members. We know that there are areas that face huge challenges, and we need to get the right support to them. In order to do that, we must ensure that we understand the issues and are targeting them. Obviously the metrics that are used have a critical role, and the House has my commitment that we will keep this area under review.
I am committed to working with Members across the House on this issue. We recognise the importance of our coastal communities and we see huge opportunities. The Government are putting in place a large number of programmes and support schemes, and we are keen to work together to make sure that we unlock those opportunities.
Draft Markets in Financial Instruments (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Markets in Financial Instruments (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
James Murray
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
These two technical statutory instruments make practical changes that allow the Government to complete reforms to banking and wholesale markets regulation. Collectively, they ensure that our legislation for financial services remains effective and bring those areas of regulation in line with the model set by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. They do not introduce new burdens for firms and the changes have been widely supported by industry.
I will first address the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025. Hon. Members will be aware that banks must hold capital buffers over and above minimum requirements to ensure that they can absorb losses yet keep lending, even in times of stress. This technical statutory instrument merely updates cross-references now that the buffer regulations have been restated under powers in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.
The process of bringing the buffers regulations in line with the FSMA model does three things. First, it revokes the 2014 capital buffers regulations, replacing necessary provisions with rules designed and maintained by the Prudential Regulation Authority and restating only limited elements that must stay in legislation, with minor operational tweaks. Secondly, it gives the PRA additional flexibility in setting the Basel-derived capital conservation buffer and the global systemically important institutions, or G-SII, buffer. Those buffers will now be set through PRA rule making rather than legislation, keeping to international standards while allowing flexibility. Thirdly, it keeps in statute the frameworks for the Financial Policy Committee’s countercyclical and other systemically important institutions, or O-SII, buffers, which will ensure that the FPC has a clear statutory basis on which to deploy these tools. It also tweaks the framework to improve its overall effectiveness. For example, the FPC may now adjust the countercyclical buffer off-cycle in an emergency.
I will now turn to the Markets in Financial Instruments (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025. The markets in financial instruments directive, also known as MiFID, is an EU-inherited framework that governs the regulation of financial markets and the trading that happens on them. One part of the framework is the MiFID organisational regulation, which specifies how investment firms must organise themselves and operate their business.
At Mansion House 2024, the Chancellor committed to revoke the firm-facing regulatory requirements in the MiFID organisational regulation for the financial services regulators to replace in their rules. By delegating responsibility for setting the regulatory requirements to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, the regulators will be able to use their day-to-day experience of supervising financial services firms to ensure the rules are tailored to the UK and proportionate for UK firms.
The MiFID organisational regulation also includes key definitions that investment firms rely on to interpret the regulatory perimeter. As such, it is essential to maintain those definitions in legislation. That is what the draft regulations do: they ensure that key definitions from the MiFID organisational regulation are maintained in legislation. That ensures that there will be no gaps in regulation when the MiFID organisational regulation is revoked and the regulators replace firm-facing provisions in their rules.
To conclude, the statutory instruments are a necessary step to complete reforms to our banking and wholesale markets regulation and to ensure that our regulatory framework remains coherent, effective and tailored to the needs of the UK’s financial sector. I welcome any questions and commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this incredibly dry debate about incredibly technical aspects of regulation. I am only disappointed not to see the new Economic Secretary to the Treasury make her debut today, although it is always nice to see the Chief Secretary.
Mark Garnier
Quite right. The hon. Gentleman’s leader is with the parliamentary Labour party right now, I think, which will be very exciting.
The regulations are technical, dry but welcome changes to the detailed firm-facing regulations and definitions in the MiFID organisational regulations and capital buffers regime. They follow the comprehensive changes to regulation and tax that the last Government introduced through the Edinburgh reforms, while helping to implement the announcements the Chancellor set out in her 2024 Mansion House speech.
We on the Conservative Benches will always support reforms that aim to make the UK financial market more competitive and growth-oriented. Our financial services are our biggest export and it is vital that we do everything we can to ensure we keep them competitive with their counterparts in Europe and the rest of the world, while at the same time ensuring the UK is a principal destination for international capital. Let me be clear that we support the considered approach being presented, which will allow us to embrace the regulatory autonomy that Brexit provides while keeping us relatively aligned to EU frameworks such as MiFID. That is important because although we need to innovate to maintain our competitive advantage, we must equally avoid trying to reinvent the wheel on financial services regulation.
I push the Minister to look at the wider regulatory burden that MiFID II has placed on UK financial firms. Many in the sector think the reporting obligations, investor protection rules and governance standards have imposed significant compliance costs and operational complexity. Although the intention is noble, we can over-regulate and we must remember that risk will always be something that we cannot remove completely. That was highlighted in a submission by UK Finance to a recent House of Lords Committee inquiry that showed that the rules have constrained the City’s ability to innovate and grow capital markets.
Although we welcome the regulations, the Government now have the freedom to go further and simplify the onerous rules MiFID II introduced. Doing so would unlock growth in our financial services sector and help us to regain ground lost to competing hubs such as New York and to emerging financial centres in the EU. Nevertheless, we have to accept that the EU is our largest trading partner, so it is right that the changes do not significantly deviate from what was in place before. As I said, the UK deviating to a new regulatory regime would not necessarily help our cause.
We also welcome the fact that the changes will help to make the UK more responsive to emerging trends and risks. That is crucial as we seek to be competitive in an ever more volatile world and it would be remiss of me not to mention that many stakeholders feel the regulatory burden placed on them by the FCA and PRA is already too high and, in some instances, unnecessary. Although the changes should not increase that burden significantly, I hope the Minister and Treasury officials will be mindful of that when making changes in the future.
All together, we broadly welcome the technical changes that the regulations introduce as they will help to streamline capital market regulation and ensure legal coherence. I was going to ask some questions, but I think in the interests of time we can probably pass on that—we do not want to keep anybody waiting. I will leave it at that.
James Murray
I thank the shadow Minister for his speech, for his broad support for what we are seeking to achieve and for the brevity of his contribution this evening. I welcome his support and note the points that he raised. He asked what the Government are prioritising in considering which parts of MiFID to reform. The Leeds reforms announced that the Government are committed to continuing to review and reform the MiFID framework in partnership with the FCA and I can reassure him that, obviously, the Government will make changes where there are clear opportunities to remove burdensome requirements and cut costs for investment firms.
I think we all agree that the regulations support the UK’s transition to a modern, proportionate regulatory regime that upholds high standards while supporting the competitiveness of our financial services sector, which the shadow Minister spoke about. I thank him and other hon. Members for attending the Committee tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025. —(James Murray.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Indefinite Leave to Remain
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 727360 and 727356 relating to the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The excellent staff on the Petitions Committee have been as diligent as ever; thanks to their hard work, I have had some very informative meetings with experts and campaign groups. I want to quickly thank the Migration Observatory, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Hong Kong Watch and the Centre for Policy Studies for taking the time to discuss the policy with me. I also want to thank Darwin, the creator of the petition entitled “Keep the 5-Year ILR pathway for existing Skilled Worker visa holders”, for the fascinating and moving conversation that we had last week.
Before I turn to the detail, I want to say why today’s debate matters. It is timely because the public discourse on immigration grows louder, fuelled by the algorithms of X and Facebook. We also see those who peddle the idea that you can have your cake and eat it: lower migration, but without the consequences to our economy, our NHS, our diplomacy or our culture. They are charlatans trying to hoodwink the public with slogans on the sides of buses. They want to divide us and set the tone that all immigration is bad and, by extension, that all migrants are unwelcome.
But that is not our country. That is not who we are. The moral compass of the vast majority of Britons points firmly in the other direction. This debate is our chance to show that careful deliberation is needed. Managed migration, done well, strengthens us. It grows our economy, it enriches our culture and it gives us the diplomatic heft to punch above our weight on the world stage.
First, I want to address one specific point. Experts have raised with me multiple times the need for a clear and honest conversation about what these changes mean, and the need for a clear distinction between immigration pathways and the different types of immigration. Let us be clear at the start about what we have and have not been asked to discuss today. We are not here to debate asylum claims, the graduate route, small boats or ancestry visas. The 164,000 and 108,000 people who signed the two petitions are asking us to consider two precise things: the five-year pathway for existing skilled worker visa holders and the five-year pathway for Hong Kong British national overseas visas.
Let me turn first to skilled workers. There are three issues to get to grips with, the first of which is fairness to those who are already here. The skilled worker visa pathway was introduced only in December 2020, and many people are now close to completing their five years. Some are just months away.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I have been contacted by many constituents across Beckenham and Penge, including Lachlan from Australia, who were en route to qualifying for indefinite leave to remain but now feel uncertain about their future. Does my hon. Friend agree that clarity on the Government’s earned settlement scheme and the retrospective effect of changes to indefinite leave to remain would be warmly welcomed by hard-working constituents like Lachlan and others in Beckenham and Penge and across the country who want to make Britain their permanent home?
Ben Goldsborough
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which shows not only that he has probably seen my speech and knows what is coming next, but that it is a uniform measure that has been raised by those who have spoken to me, as the Member introducing the debate, and by those who have reached out to their MPs.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am really pleased with the way my hon. Friend is presenting the debate. Many of us agree with what he says about how the immigration debate is being utilised and weaponised, but also believe that the level of legal migration is too high and support the Government in getting a grip on it. We want to ensure that those who come here are delivering, but we also recognise that some people who are already delivering will be affected and that they need to be properly considered.
Ben Goldsborough
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. As I said at the start, migration managed well benefits us all. That is what I understand the Government are trying to achieve, and that is one thing that we need to support.
The prospect of applying changes retrospectively has caused huge anxiety. For people who have uprooted their family, made financial sacrifices and planned their future on the basis of clear rules, it feels—as one person put it to me—like
“running a marathon and halfway through realising the rules have changed”.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. Because this debate is so popular, Members have received many emails from constituents, as I have from my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate. They are highly skilled and are worried about the transitional arrangements, because they are existing visa holders and have spent a lot of money investing in trying to stay here. That includes those who have emailed me saying that they have already passed their “Life in the UK” test. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are changing the ILR qualifying period retrospectively, it would make sense, because of the financial hardship and distress that it is causing our constituents, to have a clear exemption for those who are already on a qualifying visa route?
Ben Goldsborough
That is another issue that I know the Minister, who is new to his place, will address in his remarks.
The second issue that I want to raise is exploitation. A longer route to settlement may embolden bad employers. We already know that there are 40,000 people in limbo in the social care sector because of exploitative bosses and visa sponsorship pressures. Extending the pathway risks increasing the vulnerability of workers who are already contributing to our society. I therefore ask the Minister: has any assessment been carried out of the workplace impact of these proposals?
The third issue is contribution. These are skilled workers; we invited them here because we need their skills. They are in work, paying tax, helping our economy, staffing our hospitals, caring for our elderly and carrying out world-leading research. In my constituency of South Norfolk, skilled workers at the Norwich research park are engaged in science that could revolutionise food security and tackle the climate crisis. At Norfolk and Norwich University hospital, I saw a board listing dozens of nationalities represented in the workforce—it looked like a roll-call of the United Nations—and yet these staff, who are giving so much, have no access to public funds. They pay the immigration health surcharge of £1,000 a year and support our economy, but carry their own costs. That is the reality that we must recognise. My question to the Minister is whether the Government have conducted an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes to the skilled worker pathway.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his speech, and I thank those who secured the debate. Many of my constituents are highly skilled. They often work in IT. Some do not intend to stay and may well go home, but those who have written to me have told me what it means for them. It is not just about their current job; they see themselves contributing in the long term through their skilled jobs and perhaps making a career, climbing up the career ladder and becoming managers and leaders in their field. This decision appears to make that possibility very uncertain. How do HR managers feel about this decision when they are recruiting skilled people from overseas?
Ben Goldsborough
I thank my hon. Friend. The important thing is not just the here and now, but the future. We always need to legislate for the future, not just for now.
I turn to the second petition, which is about the Hong Kong BNOs. The moral case is overwhelming. We must remember why this scheme exists: it was created in response to Beijing’s national security law, when freedoms and rights of Hongkongers were crushed. People fled oppression. They came here trusting Britain to keep its word. Some of those who are now living in our country have spoken out against the Chinese Government. Going back to Hong Kong is unthinkable for them.
Colleagues should be under no illusion about what people are fleeing. In mainland China, repression is systematic. We have seen the incarceration of over 1 million Uyghur Muslims, the silencing of dissent and the routine use of mass surveillance against ordinary citizens. In Hong Kong, which was once one of Asia’s freest societies, we have seen the steady erosion of rights that were guaranteed by international treaty. We have seen freedom of the press strangled, freedom of assembly banned, civil society dismantled piece by piece, journalists jailed, students arrested and opposition politicians barred from office or driven into exile—all this in a place where people used to enjoy liberties similar to our own.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that the Ukrainian situation is similar to the Hong Kong situation? People on Homes for Ukraine visas have now been here for more than four years. We should be considering including them in the five-year period for leave to remain in this country.
Ben Goldsborough
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I know that the Minister will have been listening to his point.
When Hongkongers tell us that they are worried about the direction of travel, we must listen, because they have already lived it. They know what it means when promises are broken; they know what it means when the state decides to rewrite the rules halfway through the journey. That is why this debate is not just about visa terms. It is about trust and about whether Britain will stand by its word.
We in this country have always had a proud tradition of standing up to international bullies. When others looked away, Britain was often prepared to say, “No, this is not right. We will not let you trample over your people.” That tradition is written into our history, from our stance against fascism in Europe to our support for democratic movements across the world. The BNO scheme is part of that tradition. It told the people of Hong Kong, “You are not alone. Britain will stand with you.”
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way and is making excellent remarks. At the weekend, I met Sid, who is in the Gallery today, and he made many of the excellent points that my hon. Friend is making. On the issue of the BNO route, the extension from five to 10 years makes it look as though we are shifting the goalposts. Does my hon. Friend agree that that risks handing Beijing a propaganda victory and that it would deny young Hongkongers access to home fee status at our universities for a decade?
Ben Goldsborough
My hon. Friend’s point is extremely well made. I would say that I could not have put it better myself, but I hope I can, in the bit that is coming up.
I urge the Minister to clarify today whether BNOs will be included in the changes. What conversations has the Home Office had with the Foreign Office about the diplomatic consequences of this decision? Do the Government regard the BNO scheme as a humanitarian scheme or an economic scheme? To my mind, it is clear: it is a humanitarian scheme rooted in our duty to protect those who share our values, but whose freedoms have been taken away.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Ben Goldsborough
I am just about to make my concluding remarks.
Both petitions speak to a single principle: fairness. People who came here on a clear set of rules deserve to know what those rules are and that they will not change halfway through. Whether those people are skilled workers staffing our hospitals or Hongkongers seeking refuge from oppression, they are already contributing enormously to our country. In all the discussions about immigration, we must start with honesty about the different types of migration and what they mean for Britain. In recent years, there has been too much heat and not enough light. Today’s debate is a chance for us to change that. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to provide that clarity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I do not need to point out that this is a very popular debate. I remind hon. Members that if they wish to be called to speak, they should please stand. To give you an indication, something like four minutes each should allow us to get everybody in, given the numbers who wish to speak, so please bear that in mind.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
I am very grateful to be called to speak in this important debate, not least because my constituents make up one of the highest proportions of signatories to the first petition, which calls on the Government to keep the five-year ILR pathway for existing skilled worker visa holders, so many of whom live with uncertainty—that is a daily reality in my constituency.
The Government’s immigration White Paper proposes several measures that will make settlement significantly harder to reach for many people, including increasing the standard qualifying period for settlement from five years to 10 years—although the visa routes to which that will apply are not explicitly specified—and introducing the so-called earned settlement and citizenship model, whereby a set of contributions to society and the economy would serve as eligibility criteria for being able to settle more quickly.
I understand that there are explicit exemptions for partners of British citizens, who will continue to qualify after five years, and quite rightly also for victims of domestic abuse. However, having met and spoken to many of my constituents, I seek urgent clarity from the Minister. Precisely who will be affected by the ILR proposals in the White Paper? Will they be applied retrospectively to people already in the UK, including those approaching the end of a five-year pathway to settlement? If a consultation is to take place in the autumn, who will it be with? Will the Government meet with Praxis, an organisation that has collated numerous pieces of evidence and undertaken research, and with which I share a long-standing relationship in my borough on immigration casework? It submitted a letter, along with 100 other civil liberties organisations, requesting a meeting with the Government in May this year. When will the Government conduct an equalities and human rights impact assessment of their proposals to extend the qualifying period to 10 years and introduce the so-called earned settlement model? Under that model, how will the points be calculated or earned, and how much of a reduction in the 10-year qualifying period will be available?
Those are incredibly important questions, to which my constituents and many people in our country need answers. My constituents were already living in limbo before the White Paper was published, but given that applicants for the ILR route have primarily based their claims on the right to a family or private life, and given last week’s announcement of the suspension of the family reunification scheme for refugees, which we understand to be temporary—that is, of course, separate—they are feeling more anxious about these matters than ever before.
I am worried about the widening scope and overall direction of immigration legislation and frameworks. There is already a strenuous process in place. Given that people on the existing 10-year routes have to apply every two and a half years until they complete 10 years of leave and are eligible for ILR, the new proposals beg the question what the intention really is.
A survey undertaken in 2023 by the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, the Institute for Public Policy Research and Praxis found that 40% of those in work on the 10-year route were employed in health and social care settings, including as carers, nurses and cleaners. That will be no surprise to many of us given the history of migration to the UK, from the Windrush generation to the skilled workforces who arrived in waves, including in the 1970s, in areas like mine. According to the Migration Observatory’s analysis of Home Office data, the top five nationalities of applicants on these routes between 2016 and 2020 were Nigerian, Pakistani, Indian, Ghanaian and Bangladeshi.
I am afraid to say that it is no surprise, and it is not a coincidence, that in recent years, during the pandemic, black, Asian and minority ethnic people and women disproportionately suffered in terms of deaths, workplace rights and hardship. They of course include workers in health and social care settings. The pandemic laid bare the structures of inequality and discrimination. We have to be very careful about the proposed changes to the ILR route for those reasons as well. The petitions rightly point out that the skilled worker route is the main UK work visa route, and that includes the health and care worker sub-category for NHS staff.
From what we know of the proposed measures in the immigration White Paper, they appear to be punitive. Wide-ranging evidence suggests that long pathways are detrimental to individuals and communities. No one should be subject to them. Rather than exemptions for some and not for others, we need a thorough overhaul of settlement and citizenship pathways so that people can settle in the UK in a timely and affordable way. People need to feel a sense of belonging and to be able to fulfil their potential. I fear that the proposals will undermine the resilience of our communities. Putting more people on extended routes will multiply the effects already being felt in our communities.
In the east end of London, we have a proud history of welcoming people from all parts of the world and all walks of life, whether they are from Europe, Bangladesh, Somalia or even Hong Kong, because we know we are better for it. As to the proposals in the immigration White Paper, we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves and change our direction.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the Petitions Committee for scheduling this important debate, and I welcome the spirit in which it has been conducted so far: the original purpose of debating indefinite leave to remain has been respected and we have risen above the appalling and divisive rhetoric that we have heard recently in relation to the role of migration and the lives of asylum seekers.
My constituency has a long track record of welcoming migrants and refugees. The historic neighbourhoods of the City of London, Soho, Fitzrovia and Pimlico are just some of the villages in the very centre of London that have a long track record of welcoming people. They continue to be proud of their diverse heritage. Indeed, our country prides itself on fairness and stability in our approach to the law and to migration and asylum policy. We are a place where people come to build and rebuild their lives, and to invest in their futures. I think we are all richer for that.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank the hon. Member for her thanks. Far away from London in the highlands of Scotland, the same is true: we have refugees who have fitted in and been greatly welcomed. May I make the point to the Minister that involving the devolved institutions, such as the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, will be hugely important if we are going to make all this work?
Rachel Blake
I thank the hon. Member for that contribution.
I want to focus my remarks on those who have BNO visas and particularly on the importance of stability in that system. I first became particularly interested in the lives of people living in Hong Kong because of my constituent, Jimmy Lai, who is currently interred in Hong Kong because he stood up for freedom and democracy. That brought me to be profoundly concerned about the importance of BNO visas.
While it is absolutely right that we should be discussing how we appropriately balance the many benefits of migration with the concerns that some people have about the current system, I do think it important that we have stability in the system and recognise that the bar to securing indefinite leave to remain is already high. I will be focusing very closely on the Home Office proposals to ensure that we are standing by those principles and the values of fairness and stability.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I wonder whether she will allow me to register a concern on behalf of those from Hong Kong who live in Harrow, many of whom are making a very significant contribution to our community and are genuinely worried about these proposals.
Rachel Blake
I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks about the concerns of his constituents in Harrow.
In any forthcoming consultation, I will focus on ensuring that we stick to those values of fairness and stability. There is already a high bar for those seeking indefinite leave to remain, who came to this country expecting to comply with particular rules and will be going forward with their applications in the very near future.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on his excellent opening remarks and welcome the Minister to his role. I hope he is enjoying his first day in the job.
Like many Members, I have heard from constituents who have grave concerns about what the immigration White Paper will mean for them. In particular, they are worried about the intention to reform the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain without any specific details surrounding the changes and exemptions. The lack of detail on such an important issue has led to great uncertainty and distress for many UK residents, including many of my constituents in Richmond Park, where we have been pleased to welcome over the last few years many new residents from Hong Kong, in particular.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My hon. Friend rightly said that the lack of clarity is harmful. It is cruel to people who thought they were on one path and now are not, but it is also counterproductive, because we may end up losing really talented people working our patches. It also undermines employers, who do not quite know what game they are playing. All of this is hugely counterproductive to our economy as well as simply not being fair.
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is exactly right. This is not just about the residents themselves; it is also about their employers, the places that they work and the wider economy.
My residents in Richmond Park are rightly concerned about how these changes could affect their lives, the lives of their children and their employment in the UK. The BNO visa is not a transactional visa; it is a moral commitment, which the UK offered in response to the national security law and the dismantling of promised freedoms in Hong Kong, so I am deeply concerned about the Government’s decision to extend the route to indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10 years.
The lack of clarity over the BNO visa, in the midst of increasing evidence of transnational repression from China and the looming planning decision on the Chinese mega-embassy, is concerning to me and to many of my constituents who could be affected by the change. The Government must do better to provide assurance for the hundreds of thousands of BNO visa holders across the country, starting by giving them clarity about their immigration status and how the White Paper will affect them.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about this being part of a promise that we made to the people of Hong Kong. When the route was introduced, the Chinese Communist party warned BNO applicants that they should not trust Britain. If we move the goalposts in the way we are now proposing, we may hand a huge propaganda victory to that Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be a big mistake?
Sarah Olney
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that he has many residents from Hong Kong in Carshalton and Wallington, and I really hope that the Minister will take on board the point we are making about the moral duty that we owe those people, particularly in the light of increased oppression from China.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) pointed out, the skilled worker visa route has offered a secure pathway for world-leading talent to join the UK’s workforce. In coming to the UK, those skilled workers have brought value to the economy, to key sectors such as care, and to their communities. That is why the Government’s failure to give detail on changes to the indefinite leave to remain qualifying period is so concerning. Not only do they risk up-ending the lives of so many residents and families, but they risk damaging our businesses and the economy.
A skilled, stable workforce is a key part of any growing business, and recent Government policy has already begun eroding the availability of that workforce in the UK. National insurance contributions have disincentivised hiring; red tape with the EU has made it more difficult to hire skilled workers from abroad; the newly created Skills England risks failing in its aim to upskill the British labour force if it is not given the independence it needs; and now, on top of all of that, the Government’s White Paper has added uncertainty for businesses looking to hire employees—yet another barrier to growth. The Government must provide clarity on the skilled worker visa as a matter of urgency.
Many BNO visa holders have built their life here in the UK and have made huge contributions to our economies and local communities, especially in my constituency; they have bought homes, started businesses and enrolled their children in schools. I therefore urge the Government to offer more clarity on their plans for the five-year qualifying period for those already on specific visa routes, and ask the Minister whether the Government will confirm and honour their original commitment to protect those agreements.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I join colleagues in thanking the Petitions Committee for securing this debate, and I thank Mr Li for instigating the BNO petition.
I am here to speak about the BNO visa. Our debate today should have two starting points: first, an acknowledgment of the historic commitment that the UK made to the people of Hong Kong in the form of the BNO scheme, which is something that we should be intensely proud of, and secondly a recognition of the massive repression that we have seen in Hong Kong, particularly since the enactment of the national security law.
Rights that were guaranteed to the people of Hong Kong by the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration have been cast aside. Hong Kong’s democracy has been replaced by a dictatorship, and its free press has been crushed. That is the context that has left many Hongkongers feeling that they have little choice but to leave, to seek freedom and a new life here in the UK.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree we should be clear that when we say BNO, it stands for British national overseas? We are not talking about Hongkongers or Chinese people; we are talking about people we literally recognise as British nationals overseas, because of our historical relationship. Does he think we should be much clearer about that when it comes to how we treat them in our immigration system?
David Pinto-Duschinsky
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. She is of course right, and I am proud to have welcomed many people with BNO status to my constituency of Hendon, particularly in Colindale. That growing and vibrant community adds immeasurably to the life of the area.
I have talked to many BNO holders who have come to the UK to start a new life. They are absolutely committed to our country for the long term. They are keen to put down roots. They are planning their working lives, their children’s educations and their retirements here. That is why the five-year ILR timeframe is so important to them. Without ILR, BNO holders cannot get home fee arrangements at university for their children or access their pension savings from their mandatory provident fund accounts. I have talked to many families who are directly and profoundly affected by that, leaving them in great financial difficulty. Without ILR, people cannot begin the path to full UK citizenship. When they applied for BNO status starting in 2021, they did so on the basis of a five-year ILR period. Extending the ILR period for them will potentially create great uncertainty and hardship.
The Government are absolutely right to tighten the rules on migration to address the appalling failures of the previous Government. The measures laid out in the recent migration White Paper will make an important and welcome difference, and I fully support them. However, it is still worth considering the obligation we have to certain groups when making that important change.
Mr Rand
My hon. Friend sets out with characteristic eloquence some of the major uncertainties that are currently facing BNO holders. Considering that BNO applicants now make up less than 2% of visa applications, does he agree that the immense contribution that they make to communities such as mine in Altrincham and Sale West, as well as in his own constituency, means that the policy has big costs and, in reality, minimal rewards as the Government seek to cut migration?
David Pinto-Duschinsky
My hon. Friend is right that the policy is a source of great concern to many people. That is why I welcome the willingness of the Government and the Minister to listen and their decision to consult on the measures in the White Paper, including this one.
Retaining the five-year ILR period for BNO holders who have already settled here would be a strong reaffirmation of the solemn compact we have made with the people of Hong Kong. I believe it need not have huge ramifications for the broader migration system, exactly as my hon. Friend says, especially as I believe BNO holders constitute a unique case because of their special status. It would give certainty to almost 200,000 BNO passport holders who have made the UK their home. It would be a beacon of British leadership, and I hope we can find a way to support it.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and all who have successfully brought this petition forward. I rise today, as many others have, in support of the petition calling for Hong Kong British national overseas visa holders to retain their indefinite leave to remain settlement.
As we have heard, such visas are a lifeline; they are a moral commitment created in response to Beijing’s crackdown on human rights and democracies. Families made life-changing decisions, leaving their homes, relatives and friends on the understanding that if they worked hard, paid their way, built their lives here and contributed, they could settle permanently after five years. To move the goalposts retrospectively would not only cause distress, but be a betrayal of everything that they think we stand for and that we hope we stand for, namely that we keep our word.
I have so many wonderful examples of Hongkongers in my constituency. For example, a constituent wrote to me about two people who had become invaluable to their community in Cherry Hinton. They help to run toddler groups and holiday clubs for more than 180 children, supporting families who speak little English. They are law-abiding, hard-working and deeply committed to their community, and yet they now live in fear that the rules will change midway, leaving their futures here uncertain.
I see no reason why those who are already here and contributing should be thrown into that level of anxiety. To delay their right to settlement would upend carefully prepared plans, heap financial pressure on families who are already struggling with the cost of living, and deny children who have grown up here their right to home fee tuition at university.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
As well as those financial and educational anxieties, many Hongkongers, some of whom do not have permanent status here, are under threat from transnational repression, as the recent report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights shows. That includes having a bounty on their head. Is it not the case that we are putting anxiety on people who may be at risk of harm if they can no longer stay here?
Pippa Heylings
The hon. Member makes a really important point. Delaying their settled status would leave many of these people unprotected when travelling abroad and raise the stakes in terms of their own and their families’ security. Many families are already financially stretched and, as we have heard, that is often exacerbated by the fact that BNO visa holders are blocked from accessing their pension savings with the mandatory provident fund. With settled status, that would no longer be the case. They have told me that that would be best for everyone because they would then be contributing—they do not want to be a burden on the public purse.
We must never forget what is at stake, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) has said. In Hong Kong, nearly 1,000 political prisoners remain behind bars for daring to exercise their democratic right. It is neither safe nor realistic for Hongkongers to return. The petition before us is clear and just. It calls on us to stand by the word we gave and allow those on BNO visas to settle after five years, not 10. I urge the Government and the Minister to provide clarity and reassurance, and to exempt from these reforms all who are already here on BNO visas.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The vast majority of us want a more balanced and managed migration system built on the principles of contribution and fairness. That is what I hear from constituents in all walks of life in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. However, the question is: how do we get there? How do we get to a more managed level in a fair and just way? My constituents are concerned that the two matters we are debating today do not meet that fairness test.
I have heard from many constituents who are deeply concerned about what these proposals—the extension of the indefinite leave to remain to 10 years and, in particular, the retrospective nature of the application—might mean for them. Many who came to this country in good faith under the current system have planned their lives on the assumption that it will be in force.
Many skilled people from right across the world have the choice of where to come and be a nurse or start a business and contribute. I am concerned that applying the 10-year qualifying period retrospectively to people who already live in the UK, and who made the decision to do so a long time ago, would not be fair and would be deeply disruptive to their lives. I am also not convinced that the proposals, with their retrospective nature, would have any effect on our current migration levels.
This blanket policy, regardless of circumstance, contribution and needs, may also have significant and adverse equalities impacts, which I hope the Government will consider. I encourage them to think carefully and deeply about the implications of the decision in a variety of contexts, particularly for vulnerable migrants such as children or the elderly.
A constituent wrote to me today about the impact on child migrants and the accessibility of university education. Without ILR, prospective students would have to pay full international fees, which are extortionate. If this change comes into force, a child who moves to this country at 10 years old and completes secondary education in the UK would not qualify for UK-based higher education fees. They would potentially have to delay their education for a number of years or put it off indefinitely.
Last week, I happened to meet an individual who contacted me along with her mother, who is a neonatal care nurse at Hillingdon hospital. Her mother and father have always worked and paid taxes in the UK. They have contributed and been active in the community, as have so many of my constituents who now call the UK home and keep our public services running. As we seek to grow our economy, do we really want to restrict those who want to study engineering, maths or law, to work or study in the NHS or to set up a business? Do we want to deny them opportunities to get educated, put down longer-term roots and contribute further to our nation’s future?
I implore the Government to reflect deeply on the ILR changes and not to adopt a blanket approach, but to create a system that encourages contribution and community activity, that encourages people to work in our public services, and that supports education and skills being added to our communities, not taken away from them.
I also concur with colleagues who talked today about our responsibilities to BNO visa holders. I am very proud to represent the many BNO visa holders in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, the seat that I represent, particularly in Hillingdon. One told me recently that this was a key pathway, “crucial” for their safety, and that it provided hope for many in their community
“following the implementation of the Hong Kong National Security Law, which has severely undermined fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, protest, and press.”
Many BNO visa holders have made the UK their home, not through an easy choice but because of life-changing circumstances and decisions. They hoped that after five years of residence and meeting the quite strenuous conditions—including the English requirements and the “Life in the UK” test—they would have the chance to apply for indefinite leave to remain and, one year later, for citizenship. I encourage the Minister to carefully consider the cases of those with BNO visas.
We can and must reduce migration to a sustainable level. We can restore public confidence and ensure that the system is managed well. However, we can also ensure that it is fair and just, that it encourages migration that works for our country, and that it works for people who come here and call our country home.
Many of my constituents are deeply worried about the narrative in Hillingdon and nationally, which seeks to divide communities and to other members of our community. At this time, we must stand together, celebrate our diversity and encourage people to reflect on the importance of difference to a successful and sustainable economy, society and country. I hope that we will not forget that as we reform our migration system, and that we will design reforms that work not only for our country, but for those who call it home.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and to stand alongside other hon. Members in defence of a promise that we made to the people of Hong Kong. Carshalton and Wallington is home to many Hongkongers. It is situated in the London borough of Sutton, which has become a bit of a go-to location for new arrivals, with more than 5,000 now living in our area. It is no surprise that many of those local residents signed this petition. They know, at first hand, what is at stake. They took risks to be here, they have built their lives here, they have contributed to our community and they have trusted the UK to be a safe haven. We owe it to them to secure their future.
The BNO visa scheme was introduced in response to the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong—a law that essentially criminalised dissent against the Chinese Communist party. The visa is a lifeline rooted in the special and enduring ties between our two nations. It offered a clear pathway: five years to indefinite leave to remain and then citizenship.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Like the hon. Gentleman, I have a significant Hongkonger population in my constituency of Solihull West and Shirley—there are about 4,500 across the borough. Does he agree that they had a legitimate expectation that the rules of the game would not be changed part way through, and that to do so would damage the social contract that we, as a state, have with these people?
Bobby Dean
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. It is a moral duty for our country to maintain its promise to those people.
To extend the pathway to 10 years would be a betrayal of trust. The change would have damaging consequences: young Hongkongers would face a decade-long wait to access university at home fee rates, and families would be locked out of £3 billion-worth of retirement savings that they cannot access at the moment because of the restrictions imposed in Hong Kong. Many would be immobilised, unable to travel safely without risking contact with Chinese consulates. Children born here would have to wait until the age of 11 to gain a passport. All of that would play directly into the hands of the Chinese Government, who have long claimed that BNO holders misplaced their trust in Britain. Changing the rules now would hand the Chinese Government a huge propaganda victory.
Constituents on BNO visas have written to me to describe how the limbo of waiting for indefinite leave to remain makes it difficult to continue their education or apply for the jobs that they want. Others have shared how they are harassed or subjected to surveillance, even here in the UK, simply for speaking out or being politically active.
This is about safety. The Hong Kong diaspora in the UK faces transnational repression, a term that is no longer abstract. In recent months, we have seen surveillance and intimidation of activists, bounties placed on UK residents, physical attacks including the assault of a protester at the Manchester consulate, and attempts to break into the homes of exiled Hongkongers. Those are no longer isolated incidents. They are part of a systemic campaign, and the UK must respond with clarity and courage.
In our borough of Sutton, I have heard personal stories of fear, resilience and hope. Hongkongers have opened businesses, joined our schools and enriched our community. We must not let bureaucracy or short-term politics undermine the commitment that was made in good faith. We must stand by Hongkongers, guarantee their rights and secure their futures in the way we promised.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and to speak as the Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, which is proudly home to more than 2,000 Hongkongers who have arrived under the BNO visa scheme. That is what I would like to focus on today.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening the debate. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) to his place as Minister of State at the Home Office, and thank him for joining us on his first working day in office.
I am here this afternoon to make a simple, principled case. The five-year pathway to settlement for BNO Hongkongers must be retained. This is about trust as much as law—about keeping our promises and the faith of the people who place their future in our hands.
The BNO visa route was created as a humanitarian lifeline in response to Beijing’s horrific national security law. The route is grounded in our legal, moral and historical responsibilities under the Sino-British joint declaration. It is not an economic channel, but a bespoke, safe and legal route for British nationals and their relatives fleeing repression in a former British territory where the rule of law and human rights have been ruthlessly eroded. That is why there has been rare, enduring cross-party support for the scheme since day one, and why any attempt to move the goalposts now would cut against the very reason the route exists.
Hongkongers uprooted their families on the explicit promise of a five-year pathway to indefinite leave to remain, plus one year to citizenship. To lengthen the timeline mid-journey would be seen as a breach of trust and would shake confidence in the UK’s credibility far beyond the BNO community. The numbers tell their own story, with almost 200,000 BNO Hongkongers now living in the UK. Crucially, the overwhelming majority came in the first two years after launch, and BNO grants now account for about 1% of total visas. We must appreciate that today’s debate is not about headline immigration numbers but about the welfare of a community that is already here. In Rushcliffe, as I mentioned, more than 2,000 Hongkongers are already on their five-year pathway to ILR. The impact will be on them.
Shifting the rules would hand Beijing and its regime in Hong Kong a propaganda gift: “You trusted Britain, yet Britain broke the deal.” We cannot allow that narrative to stand, which is why the Government must keep their promises. Extending settlement to 10 years would force a decade-long wait for home fee status for BNO students, pricing out the vast majority of BNOs currently studying for their A-levels at schools in my constituency from starting university until their mid-20s. It would also delay access to an estimated £3 billion in Hong Kong pension savings that can be released only once ILR is granted.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case on what those with BNO visas are being put through by this White Paper and the proposed legislation. In Dartford, I have been contacted by a large number of people on skilled visas who are in a very similar situation. Does he agree that, whatever the situation—whether people are on BNO or skilled visas—and whatever may happen with this legislation, they have come to the UK to contribute to our economy and society, and that the least we should offer is clarity on what they can expect from us, as well as fairness in not changing the terms on which they were accepted here in the first place?
James Naish
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The consensus here is that we need to determine whether we as a country support the uncertainty of moving the goalposts, and I sincerely hope the Minister is listening to the sentiment in the room.
Because many BNOs lack consular protection and cannot safely renew travel documents, a longer route would also trap families. People would be separated, unable to travel for study, work or to see relatives abroad. To extend the pathway to 10 years would not be an act of administrative tidying; it would be a material downgrading of hundreds of thousands of British Hongkongers’ lives across the UK.
Meanwhile, the community is contributing civically and economically. Hongkongers are working, studying, volunteering, starting businesses and even serving in local government as councillors. They are precisely the neighbours and colleagues that we and my constituents in Rushcliffe want to keep. Many of them are also concerned about some of the broader immigration issues that have been referenced.
The five-year route was designed so that Hongkongers could put down roots quickly and securely. Extending the clock would defer integration, depress opportunity and waste potential. I therefore close by echoing the words of the tens of thousands of UK Hongkongers who will be watching this debate at home. I want to keep standing with Hong Kong. I want to keep our promise to Hongkongers. I want to keep the five-year route. That is how we honour our word: we support a thriving community that has so much to offer our nation. That is how we can show the world that, when Britain gives its word, it keeps it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. This is just a gentle reminder that we are aiming for four minutes. I will not impose a formal time limit unless I have to, but it would help if we could keep close to four minutes.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I will not speak for too long, given that most of the debate’s key points have already been made, so hopefully that will help with the average speaking time that you are aiming for.
I, too, thank the Petitions Committee for this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his opening speech. I think it is important to add my voice to the many voices that we have heard expressing concern about the changes to BNO visas, particularly when it comes to the timelines for indefinite leave to remain.
I have received emails from many constituents across Milton Keynes, and I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who I know has received many more. I recently met Yvonne from 852 CIC, a fantastic organisation that represents and looks to integrate Hongkongers into the community in Milton Keynes. It has shared its concerns with me about the changes that it fears may be coming under the immigration White Paper.
Emily Darlington
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Hong Kong community’s contribution to Milton Keynes, to our diversity and strength as an economic powerhouse in the UK, should not go unseen by the Minister and this Government? The reality is that we made the Hongkongers a promise, and we should keep it.
Chris Curtis
I completely agree. Diversity is at the heart of Milton Keynes. We are a proud city that shows how people from many backgrounds can come together to enrich and strengthen our community. We have seen at first hand how the many people who have come to our city from Hong Kong have added to our local economy. The previous Government and this Government made a deal, a commitment, that was in keeping with our human rights commitments and our commitment to doing the right thing. It is important that we keep to that commitment.
Like most people, I welcome the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to ensure that those who come to Britain are able to integrate and contribute to our society, rather than simply filling gaps left by uncertainty and under-investment in skills and training—changing the deal for BNO visa holders is not the way to do that.
I do not think the Government intentionally aim to create uncertainty for the people who came here, but unfortunately that uncertainty has now been created, and everybody in this room sees it in our inboxes. I hope that today the Minister will be able to clarify the situation and provide certainty, so that those who came here seeking safety, freedom and opportunity know that this Government still stand with them and will not change the rules, and that the five-year journey committed to by the previous Government will remain in place even after the immigration White Paper goes through.
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
The hon. Gentleman is as good as his word.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.
In recent years, many Hong Kong families have made the brave decision to uproot their lives and move halfway around the world to Britain. They came here on the strength of our word—a clear promise that if they held BNO status, they would have a route to settle here and be able to build a future.
More than 2,400 residents in Warrington South have signed this petition. That is the highest number anywhere in the country, which tells me just how deeply this issue matters to the people I represent. It matters because those arriving from Hong Kong are no longer just headlines or statistics; they are our neighbours. They are parents at the school gate, new business owners on our high streets, and young people starting out in education and work.
I think of Rose and Wilson, who moved to Great Sankey to give their children a simpler and less pressured life; Renata, who set up a play café near Bridge Foot; Cheryl, who started a bakery on Buttermarket Street; Taki and the wonderful team at Warrington Hongkongers, who have created a supportive resource for Hongkongers arriving locally; and, finally, Oscar, a young man who spent time in my office on work experience, showing that this new generation are already part of the fabric of Warrington.
They are here because Britain offered sanctuary when freedoms in Hong Kong were stripped away. We responded with the BNO visa route, because that was the right thing to do. To row back now, or to create uncertainty about people’s status, would not only harm families who have already sold their homes, invested their savings and enrolled their children in British schools; it would also damage Britain’s credibility. Our word must mean something. Trust, once broken, is hard to rebuild.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend’s stories remind me of stories that I hear in Reading, in my Earley and Woodley constituency. Angie is a nursing associate in the NHS, and her daughter wishes to study paramedic science and also work in the NHS. However, for that to happen, Angie’s daughter needs a route to settlement in order to be eligible to pay home student fees. Does my hon. Friend agree that families like Angie’s need certainty and stability from the Minister and our Government?
Sarah Hall
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for that intervention.
Fairness and the rule of law cut both ways. These families played by the rules, paid the fees and came here legally. They have every right to expect that the path to settlement and citizenship remains exactly as was set out. Every day in Warrington, I see how Hongkongers contribute to our economy, our schools and our community life. They came because they believe in the same values of fairness, freedom, dignity and democracy that we do.
I know that colleagues across the House share a cross-party pride in the BNO scheme; it said something good about who we are and what we are willing to stand up for. Let us not unpick it. Instead, let us fix what needs fixing in our border system without unravelling a promise that families have bet their lives on.
Every day, I see the contribution that Hongkongers make to Warrington South. What they need now is reassurance, not uncertainty. We must keep the five-plus-one route intact for Hongkongers, and in doing so show that Britain is a country whose promises can be trusted and whose Government stand by those who put their faith in us.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy.
When the Government’s immigration White Paper was published with the proposal to increase the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain, I received numerous emails from constituents in Truro and Falmouth who could be affected. My constituency is home to Cornwall’s only large acute hospital, so many of the constituents concerned work in the health service as doctors, nurses or dentists.
In 2022, according to the British Medical Association, the NHS in England had a shortage of 12,000 hospital doctors and more than 50,000 nurses and midwives. Cornwall has a super-ageing population with complex health needs, and we struggle to attract medical professionals. As a result of our housing crisis, they sometimes cannot find anywhere to live. We do not want to lose any of those highly skilled medical professionals who are trying to make Cornwall their home.
These people stressed their commitment to their jobs in the way they worked tirelessly on the frontline during covid, the way they have served and contributed to their communities, and the taxes they have paid. Many have children attending school in Cornwall, and they are very concerned about disruption to their children’s education. Some have partners who are Cornish.
Dr Mohamed Abdelazim, who works at the Royal Cornwall hospital in Treliske, has said:
“Ten years is an extraordinarily long time to live on a visa—without the security of citizenship, the right to vote, or the ability to fully settle and plan our futures in the UK.”
The Government have not yet confirmed whether people already on the affected immigration routes will have to wait longer for settlement, as opposed to the change applying only to those arriving after the implementation date, although the White Paper’s annexe suggests that the change will affect those already here.
Many MPs, including me, have been asking questions about this issue, but the responses to written parliamentary questions so far have stated that it will be addressed as part of the consultation process, but without giving a timeline. An idea of that timeline and the parameters of the consultation would be extremely helpful in giving my worried constituents some idea of how long they have to plan for their future, and what representations they can make. For now, they are, as one constituent wrote,
“trusting the UK’s commitment to fairness and stability for migrants who invest their lives here”.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the Petitions Committee for securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his opening remarks.
I rise to speak in support of retaining the five-year pathway to indefinite leave to remain for BNO visa holders. My constituency of Broxtowe is home to more than 2,500 BNO visa holders, many of whom have written to me to raise their concerns. Our community is being culturally and socially enriched by our Hongkonger residents, who continue to make a valuable contribution to society. Research shows that 59% of BNO visa holders have a degree or postgraduate degree, but despite their skills and eagerness to settle in the UK, they face challenges to fully integrating, settling and feeling secure here.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that, as employers have told me, increasing the qualifying period will make the UK less attractive to international talent. That is particularly important for science and research in our universities.
Juliet Campbell
I absolutely agree that that will impact how we can employ people in our communities.
A report by British Future found that only about half of BNO visa holders of working age are currently employed, and 47% of those working say that their current job status does not match their skills or qualifications. This creates barriers to individuals achieving their full potential and impacts their self-esteem. On top of those challenges, BNO visa holders face heightened anxiety and uncertainty because of the changes proposed in the immigration White Paper.
Although the Government’s proposals to regulate the immigration system are a good step forward, some of the proposed changes have led to a reduction in the trust placed in the Government by those from Hong Kong. My residents in Broxtowe acted in good faith and took the Government at their word when they said, as part of their commitment to Hongkongers who wanted to come to the UK, that they would have indefinite leave to remain after five years. Extending the pathway for indefinite leave to remain from five to 10 years means that many will be unable to access retirement saving funds, creating financial insecurity for many.
Without ILR, my Hongkonger residents in Broxtowe cannot qualify for home fee status at UK universities, delaying academic opportunities. Delaying ILR will also lead to delays in acquiring citizenship, which will impact eligibility for consular protection and emergency foreign assistance, and could leave those affected at risk of transnational repression. I urge the Government to retain the five-year pathway for BNO visa holders, who moved to the UK on that promise. That is fair, and it is the right thing to do.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his position. I hope that he is enjoying the debate.
I understand why the Government are proposing to extend the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain. I think we all recognise that the immigration numbers are high. This is a complex challenge, not least, let us remember, because of Boris Johnson’s failed Brexit deal—a deal for which the leader of the Reform party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), also bears great responsibility: it opened the door to historically high levels of unskilled net migration. In my view, the leader of the Reform party is as much to blame as the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
The leader of Kent county council has asked the Government to increase the number of visas for healthcare workers, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is a double standard? One minute they are asking to stop the immigration, and the next one they are asking for more health workers to be brought from abroad?
Ben Coleman
It will come as no surprise to anybody who has ever dealt with any member of the Reform political party for more than five minutes that double standards are involved. We only have to read what its leader says from one week to the next to realise that its association and commitment to maintaining a close relationship with the truth is very weak.
I go back to what I was saying. When we talk about the high levels of net immigration, we must not lose sight of the human impact of the proposals that the Government have brought forward, especially—as many people have recognised—on those who have already built their lives here and are net contributors to our economy and communities.
Since the publication of the White Paper in May, many residents in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham have got in touch with me. These are skilled workers, and their overwhelming feeling is simply of being blindsided. They came to the UK in good faith and followed the rules, and now they are being told that these rules might change just before they become eligible to settle. They also find it destabilising that, almost four months since the publication of the White Paper, the Government have still not given clear guidance on when the rules will come into effect, who will be affected and how it will work.
One couple told me how they moved from the United States in 2020. They both work for global firms and pay the top rate of tax, and they rightly believed that in April 2026—just down the road—they could apply for settlement. Now they write to me:
“The rug has been pulled from beneath us.”
Their plans are suddenly on indefinite pause. Similarly, I have a young scientist in my constituency who studied in the UK and works in clinical research. She has paid her international student fees and taxes, and she has invested her savings here, but now she still has no certainty about her future. In my constituency there is also a local NHS speech therapist and her husband, who is a data scientist, and they are expecting their first child. They told me that even if they are not caught out by the changes now, they have no faith that, given the way in which this has been handled, the system will not be changed again in the future.
People cannot plan their lives without basic certainty. I am hoping that the Minister today will be able to provide my residents with the clarity they need and tell us when the Government plan to launch the consultation they promised. The previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), said:
“There will be plenty of opportunity for people to comment on and consider the detail”—[Official Report, 12 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 53]
of the proposals. I hope that that will still be the case, and perhaps the Minister can reassure us of that. I would also like to understand whether the consultation will contain a clear and detailed definition of what the White Paper refers to as
“Points-Based contributions to the UK economy and society”.
Who exactly will be eligible for a shorter pathway to indefinite leave to remain?
So many of my residents are literally counting the days until they become eligible for settlement. They deserve decent treatment, not five more years of waiting. I look forward to the Minister’s responses, and to being able to offer my residents the much-needed reassurance to which I think we all agree they are entitled.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the support that my office receives from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I want to make a couple of points today, but I also want to pick up on the point that all Members have made about the enormous contribution that both these groups of migrants have made to British society. Nowhere is that more true than in my constituency of Edinburgh East and Musselburgh.
As we are talking about indefinite leave to remain, I think it is important that we recognise that the British immigration system in this country does not really draw a distinction between indefinite leave to remain and citizenship. Almost all the main rights of migrants are accessed at the stage of indefinite leave to remain, but citizenship is important. Madeleine Albright was first a refugee in the UK before she was a refugee in America. She commented that when she came to Britain, people said, “You’re a refugee. You’re welcome here. How long until you leave?”, but in America they said, “You’re a refugee. You’re welcome here. How long until you become a citizen?” It is important that we reflect on whether the Government should be agnostic about someone actually taking that step and becoming a citizen—or is it something that we should incentivise and make meaningful?
My second point is that not only are the Government agnostic on whether migrants gain citizenship or stay with indefinite leave to remain, but they are impassive and uninterested—this is an inherited system—in the path that migrants take to get there. Some migrants make enormous contributions to our countries. They volunteer, stand up for their communities, pay taxes, work hard and follow the rules. However, let us be honest: some do not, and the system is not very strenuous in distinguishing between them. As long as they wait long enough, pay a fee and pass the “Life in the UK” test, which is ridiculously bad, then they get ILR.
We have precious few levers to influence behaviour and precious few opportunities to foster social cohesion and integration. Shouldn’t we be thinking more creatively about that? If we are going to have a distinction between indefinite leave to remain and citizenship, and if the pathway is going to extend from five to 10 years, can the Government not think more creatively about how we build a migration system that works for migrants and for the communities where they settle?
My third point is that the immigration system has to be realistic. About a couple of years ago, under the Conservative Government, net migration came up to almost a million a year. That means that a big group of people will soon become eligible for indefinite leave to remain, and that means they become eligible for benefits and for social housing. In her remarks at the end of the debate, I hope the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), will accept responsibility and apologise for the complete lack of grip that the Conservatives left on the immigration system. We have to be realistic that there is a large group of people who will become eligible for benefits and for social housing that is currently unavailable because we have not built it yet.
We have to address public concerns about immigration; people who support immigration understand that. We need to think more creatively about how the immigration system works. If we do not give people indefinite leave to remain, that means they do not become eligible for benefits. If we extend that period, that happens too. Can we think more creatively, and will the Minister look at taking steps to address some of the points that have been made in the debate? For example, access to pensions, home fee status and difficulty travelling are things that can be addressed with those two groups while still taking account of the reality of the system that we inherited from the Conservatives.
My argument is this: if there is no substantive distinction between citizenship and indefinite leave to remain; if the challenge is that a large number of immigrants will become eligible for benefits and housing when they get indefinite leave to remain; if there is no mechanism to account for the contribution that people make or to incentivise their integration into our communities; if the system is blunt, uncreative, impassive and rigid; and if we want people to take the step of becoming one of us and a British citizen, then surely reform of both indefinite leave to remain and citizenship is needed.
I recognise the enormous contributions of both those on skilled worker visas and British national overseas visas, but I have a contention with the premise of the petition: the proposals have implications for fairness and the perceptions of fairness because they suggest that some groups should get a carve-out based on the route through which they entered, not what they have done while they are here.
My view is that the system should look at the contributions that migrants have made in the UK and not the visa that they came in on. I ask the Minister to look with clarity, a proper consultation, creativity and a view to a migrant’s contribution to the UK as these proposals are rolled out.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his poignant opening remarks. The White Paper has caused huge fear among many of my constituents who work here, have built lives here and have families and friendships here. They pay tax towards our public services, they volunteer and they play a huge part in our local communities. Many of those workers came here to support our economy. They were invited by UK businesses to fill key skills gaps in defence, manufacturing, transport, aerospace, health, prisons and social care, to name just a few sectors.
The White Paper introduces preferential immigration routes for what it calls high-value contributors, including a shorter qualifying period for ILR and citizenship, but it fails to define what sectors or roles actually qualify and there has not been an impact assessment on the loss of these workers to each sector. Oxford Economics found that in defence alone, in just one north-west manufacturer—BAE Systems—each skilled migrant employee contributes over £84,000 per year to the UK economy. Moreover, as well as being economically valuable, they are integral to our national security and sovereign capability.
Will the Minister provide reassurance today and outline the sectors whose workers will qualify as high-value contributors, and which sectors will be provided with an exemption? The White Paper also fails to provide any transitional protections for current skilled migrants already working here on the five-year skilled worker visa pathway to ILR. That is causing anxiety to workers and businesses alike. Again, will the Minister reassure these workers today and confirm that there will be no attempt to make retrospective changes?
Social care is another sector that would collapse without the support of skilled migrant labour, but it has endemic low pay and exploitation. I have heard at first hand harrowing stories from workers who were brought here on skilled worker visas, and have been threatened, exploited and frequently underpaid—or not paid at all—but because they are reliant on visa support from their employer, they are often forced to keep silent about these abuses or face having their visa removed.
To protect those migrant workers, in addition to the retention of the five-year route to ILR and a commitment not to apply retrospective changes, I also ask the Minister to consider sector-wide visa schemes in social care, enabling them to challenge bad employers without the threat of dismissal and removal. This extends beyond social care; there must also be greater protection for migrant workers in all sectors from exploitation and the strengthening of access to trade union rights.
Finally, the second group of constituents who are most affected in Salford—and have contacted me in great fear—are those within the Hong Kong community. Salford is home to one of the largest Hongkonger communities in the UK, and I was proud to attend their community awards recently, which awarded members of the community for their efforts in doing good for the city of Salford, from litter picks to supporting those most in need. It was clear that all these people were dedicated to giving back to the society and economy that embraced them. Many came as part of the BNO visa scheme set up in recognition of the UK’s historic and moral commitments to the people of Hong Kong. Many were British citizens prior to 1997, and they maintain British nationality via the BNO passport.
I am sure the Minister will agree that the fear that is caused within this community is unnecessary. I hope that today he can finally provide reassurance that the BNO visa scheme will be exempt from the changes proposed, and provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on the other points that I have raised. I welcome him to his new position; I am sure he will do fantastically.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Indefinite leave to remain marks a defining moment for individuals seeking to make Wales and the UK their permanent home. It grants the right to work, access to NHS healthcare and eligibility for the benefits system, enabling people to plan for their future, fully integrate and contribute meaningfully to our communities.
The Government’s recent proposal to double the standard qualifying period from five to 10 years would have devastating consequences. A person on the route to settlement is already required to pay thousands of pounds every 30 months to renew their visa in addition to the healthcare surcharge of over £1,000 per year. Doubling the qualifying period doubles those already extortionate costs, pushing individuals and families further into financial insecurity. The extension also prolongs the time families are forced to live with no recourse to public funds. Children in such households are at significantly greater risk of poverty and deep poverty, impacting their health and educational outcomes and creating long-term effects that will harm our society and economy for years to come.
We recently witnessed a rise in anti-migrant rhetoric and assaults on asylum accommodation, home to many families and children. At a time when far-right groups are exploiting fear, weaponising misinformation and stoking division, our Government should be pushing back firmly and proudly, not forcing some of the most vulnerable in our society to live in limbo for a decade. What we need are shorter, more affordable routes to settlement, not simply because it is the right thing to do but because it strengthens our communities, supports our economy and ensures that children can grow up safe, secure and with hope for the future.
The proposals outlined in the White Paper directly undermine the Government’s own aims of tackling child poverty, raising living standards and growing the economy. I urge the Minister to consult directly with those already on the 10-year route and to undertake a full equality impact assessment before proceeding any further with such damaging proposals. Diolch yn fawr.
[Mark Pritchard in the Chair]
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We have heard some brilliant points. I want to concentrate on our universities. Imperial College’s White City campus and the University of West London in my seat in Ealing are genuinely world-beating UK universities that generate billions of exports. They are central to UK soft power and global relationships, but almost everyone faces financial challenges, so they have had to diversify income streams to cross-subsidise their work. Attracting globally excellent researchers and international student fee income has helped them to just about manage. Ex-colleagues of mine are closing down degrees reluctantly. Whole institutions face going bust. With competitiveness and growth at the heart of the Government’s missions, if the UK makes it too onerous, our universities will lose talent and market share to Canada, Australia and the US. Settled status is five years in most of the rest of Europe, so unwittingly we are advantaging our rivals.
At Imperial College’s White City innovation incubator, I saw many international postgrads pioneering scientific and technological advances, some on the two-year post-study work visa, which is also being cut. The UK higher education sector’s teaching, research and innovation activities benefit our economy to the tune of £265 billion, but after 14 years of chronic underfunding there is now potentially another blow impacting our constituents, students, staff and those from lower-income backgrounds, who are typically more debt averse and will be put off entering HE at all. PwC found that UK universities expect to increasingly rely on international student fees, and they are vulnerable to reductions in numbers. That is pre White Paper. In fact, this is not just hypothetical; in many cases we are already seeing the UK’s declining attractiveness.
In 2024, Home Office figures showed a 19% decline in student visas from the year before, because of the rules to stop students bringing family. Universities have a vital part to play in growth and productivity across the UK, but we could be sleepwalking into a perfect storm, with straitened circumstances, decreasing international competitiveness and increasing expenditure putting universities under more and more pressure. We need to be honest about the trade-offs involved in reducing immigration, and about culture wars. What I am talking about is a million miles away from illegal boat migrants living it up in hotels and sapping resources from locals.
A skilled talent pathway Hong Kong BNO person from Ealing who contacted me says of her circle:
“We have paid Visa application…fees…Health Surcharge…Income Tax”—
and national insurance roughly amounting to—
“£60,000 per person over five years. Additional spending in the UK economy…rent, council tax, consumer purchases, education and childcare…payments…made in good faith—under a policy we trusted would remain consistent for those already on the pathway.”
Much of what is proposed in the White Paper is welcome and sensible, but we should not move the goalposts for those already in the system and trash solemn promises that we made to them. Along with considerations of immigration and universities, we must consider work, vocational education, further education provision, what universities are for and their role in levelling up, and all those sorts of things. We need a realistic strategy for their long-term financial sustainability, and their role in regeneration and growth. It is a graphic equaliser.
This was only a White Paper, so I hope that Ministers can take our points into account. Let us keep to our word, and let us keep the British higher education sector the envy of the world.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under you today, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing the petition, and I thank all my constituents who signed it. I make my comments in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I acknowledge the need to fix our broken immigration system—the one we inherited from the previous Government—but we have to do that in a way that focuses on measures that work, not ones that make life difficult for all of us. Whether the changes to indefinite leave to remain apply retrospectively is unclear, and that is at the core of what we are discussing today. The Government have indicated that it may be retrospective, but legal precedent suggests that retrospective application could be unlawful, and that may well be challenged in court.
Before I entered politics, I worked in higher education. Since the proposals regarding indefinite leave to remain were announced, former colleagues across our universities in Edinburgh have been in touch with me, concerned about the impact on both their current staff and the ability to recruit new staff in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) made clear, if we are serious about growing our economy, we have to support our universities as much as possible, and ensure that they are able to attract the best minds from around the world. I gently ask the Minister—he is sitting right next to me, so I can say it very gently—are any other western nations making it harder for their universities to attract the best minds from around the world? Of course they are not.
It is not just about academics: I have also heard from many constituents, all of whom contribute to Edinburgh, who are deeply worried about these changes, and what they would mean for them, their families, and their futures. I will share two stories to illustrate what I have heard. The first is from Sarah, who came to Scotland from Canada in 2018 to study physiotherapy. She graduated during the pandemic, when she worked in hospital placements at the height of the crisis, facing, let us be honest, unknown risks. Since then, she has stayed and worked in our NHS, one of more than a quarter of a million immigrants working in the NHS across the UK. She has treated patients in some of the toughest circumstances imaginable. She talked about how she supported patients fighting for their lives in intensive care. Physiotherapy is on the shortage occupation list.
I feel grateful that Sarah has chosen to live in Edinburgh South West, but if these changes were to go ahead, her route to settlement would be pushed back until 2033. That means that she would be faced with another five years of expensive visa renewals, which we have heard about, and of insecurity and uncertainty. Sarah was clear that, if that happens, she may well think about leaving the UK and settling elsewhere. That would be to the detriment of us all, particularly the people waiting for physiotherapy.
Sarah’s is not an isolated case; right across many industries in the UK, workers are facing that uncertainty. I was going to give a second example, relating to Calvin, who is here on a BNO visa, but I think that others have spoken better than I can about the impact on that group of residents in the UK. However, I will say that I am proud that so many people came from Hong Kong to live in my constituency, and I am always humbled by the contributions that they make, but I am ashamed by what they are facing in these proposals.
Whether it is a Hong Kong family or a physiotherapist from Canada, we have to be serious about supporting people who contribute to our economy and our communities. Settlement is about trust, stability and fairness. Extending the pathway does not just damage individual lives; it damages our international credibility, our economy and our ability to recruit the best staff. I will end by saying that I welcome the Minister to his place—I know that lots of Ministers are at new desks today, and I welcome that—but this is his chance to start his career with a big bang, grab the headlines and really make a difference, so I look forward to hearing his response.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the Minister to his new Department. I worked with him when he was in the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government; he listened, and I got £20 million for the regeneration of Farnworth in my constituency. I hope he is in a listening mood today and will do what we are asking him to do.
It is an absolute privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of many families who have come to the United Kingdom either under the British national overseas visa scheme or on work permits to work in our country, often in areas that are difficult to recruit for—for example, the social care sector. With an ageing population, such jobs are unfilled, as are roles in the IT sector and many other industries.
On Friday, I met the Salford Hongkongers group. They explained to us why many of them left Hong Kong, fleeing from persecution. They have been working hard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned, and they make a great contribution to our economy, as, of course, have others who have come to work in the social care sector, where the jobs are not the nicest and the pay is often not great either. They are all working very hard.
What they have in common is that when they made the decision to come to the United Kingdom, they believed in certain fundamental rules, one of which was that after five years they would be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Of course, it was not guaranteed that they would get leave, because there are other criteria to satisfy—such as having worked for five years, meeting a certain level of pay and being of good character—but at least they knew what they were working towards.
I urge the Government and the Minister to reconsider the proposed changes—we do not yet know exactly what those changes are—for two reasons. It is manifestly unfair to change the rules for people who came on the basis of what they understood the rules to be. Retrospective legislation is always bad legislation. It has been done occasionally, but normally only in a state of immediate national emergency. I do not think this situation falls into that category, by any description,. For me, being British is about knowing the laws, knowing the rules and abiding by them. That is exactly what these people have done.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Lady mentions, quite correctly, the role of these wonderful people caring for the elderly. Let me give one example. I have cases in my constituency in the far north of Scotland where the care package has fallen through for lack of care workers, and those poor old people have been readmitted to hospital. That is a disgrace, and it is precisely one of the reasons why I completely back what she is saying.
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the Chair of the Petitions Committee for that helpful intervention. In all honesty, what people are asking for is fairness. That is it—simple fairness.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on his excellent speech introducing this petition. I am grateful to the 292 constituents of mine who signed the petition urging that any changes to indefinite leave to remain should not apply to those already in the UK or on a skilled worker visa.
As we all know, the NHS is reliant on overseas workers. As of September 2023, around 20% of NHS England roles were filled by non-UK nationals. That includes one in three doctors and three in 10 nurses. In both the NHS and the social care sector, recruitment of overseas staff increased after the pandemic, with campaigns run in places such as Kerala in India. In 2022, 73,000 skilled worker visa applicants were sponsored in the health and care sector.
While I support efforts to end the long-term reliance on recruiting internationally to fill such roles, it is important to acknowledge the invaluable role that skilled overseas workers play in our health and social care sector. As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adult social care, and as someone who came to this House from working in the NHS, I understand how important it is that we do not lose the skills of those who are already working in our health and social care sector.
My constituents who work in the NHS have made the point that the cost of recruiting and training an overseas nurse is anywhere between £50,000 and £60,000, and roughly £250,000 for a doctor. They argue that this country has made that investment so that people can train, learn and work in our healthcare sector. However, the certainty they had about their lives in the UK has been thrown into doubt, and now they cannot plan for the future.
I am grateful to the 168 constituents who signed the e-petition calling for Hong Kong British national overseas visa holders to be exempted from any change to the indefinite leave to remain. I am particularly grateful to one constituent who came to a recent surgery with a letter signed by 80 Hong Kong BNO visa holders living in Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages. Those who live in my constituency are making a positive contribution to our community. Many of them have joined the workforce, finding employment in healthcare, education and trade, with some opening their own businesses. They have enriched local towns and villages by volunteering and becoming actively involved with local groups. As most of them have young families, their children have joined and become settled in local schools. They left Hong Kong due to the suppression of freedoms, and came to the UK to rebuild their lives.
In their letter to me, my constituents spoke about the current uncertainty in their lives, especially for those with school-age children. They hope that the Minister’s response to this debate might go some way towards giving them clarity about their status. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that I and others have made.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to support from trade unions.
I welcome the expression of concerns by the Trades Union Congress this week, as well as migrant rights campaigners. I add my support to what they have said about the Government’s plan to double the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain for work visas, as well as to end to overseas recruitment in the NHS and social care for any role below degree level. I raise that matter because I have been made aware that health staff in my constituency at the James Cook University hospital have faced acts of racist abuse in recent weeks. I offer them my support, and I am reaching out to the hospital CEO, Stacey Hunter, and staff unions.
Unison has documented case after case of exploitation of migrant workers. Over 320,000 NHS staff are overseas workers—20% of the workforce. In adult social care, around 20% of workers nationwide, and up to 50% in London, are migrants. There are care workers, tied to exploitative contracts, trapped in overcrowded housing and threatened with deportation if they dare to speak out. Some have even been forced to pay huge sums to take up jobs in this country, only to be told that they must repay those fees if they challenge poor conditions. By binding visas to a single employer, the system hands unscrupulous bosses extraordinary power. Doubling the settlement period will only extend that power.
On migration we have been following a dangerous script, rather than setting out our own agenda. That is a mistake. It concedes the terrain of debate to malign political actors and their ilk, and distracts from the real crises shaping people’s lives.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on. We are entering dangerous territory with some of this debate, but I am immensely encouraged that so many Labour MPs have turned up today to say something positive about immigration and the positive impacts and effects it has on our society. Will he join me in encouraging them to go further? Say good things about asylum seekers. Stop stripping people of their human rights. Let us make sure that a positive case for immigration and asylum is given in this House.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his contribution. We have heard speaker after speaker extolling the virtues of and making a positive case for immigration. Of course it is not the immigrant minority who hold our social care services together who are the problem; it is the minority of those with extreme wealth who go to huge lengths to avoid paying their proper taxes. They attend overseas conferences addressed by the leader of the Reform party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), to learn how to collect multiple citizenships and avoid taxes through webs of multinational corporate arrangements. The question is: who are the patriots? The tax avoiders or the health workers?
Being thousands of workers short, the care sector is unable to provide care packages for all those who need support, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned a few moments ago. The Government must get on with making their fair pay agreement in the health sector a reality, and ensure that social care is funded properly. That element of the Employment Rights Bill will be a great boon, fillip, support and protection for those workers.
I urge retention of the five-year route to ILR, a commitment not to apply any change retrospectively, and a sector-wide visa scheme in social care that enables migrant workers to challenge bad employers without the threat of dismissal and removal. I am particularly concerned about reports that the Government intend to apply the new policy on settlement retroactively to those already in the UK who applied and continue to reside under old settlement rules. I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government’s position, because behind these rules are human lives. We owe these workers a debt of gratitude, not new barriers, insecurity and betrayal.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening the debate. I will focus on the issue of BNO visas; I declare an interest as a member of Labour Friends of Hong Kong. I have 403 constituents in Bolton West who signed the petition to keep five-year ILR terms for Hong Kong British national overseas visa holders. Those 403 people are asking us to keep faith with Hongkongers who came here under certain promises, and they are right to make that demand.
To be clear, I back the Government’s immigration plan. We must reduce irregular migration, stop the dangerous small boats crossings and build a fair system that works for the law-abiding majority. Bolton West backs secure borders, but my constituents also know that the BNO visa issue is different. This is a safe and legal route, rooted in our history and our reputation as a global leader in human rights and democracy. When Beijing ripped up its promises to Hong Kong, this country stepped up. We told Hong Kong families, “If you come here legally, play your part, integrate into your community and contribute for five years, you can make Britain your permanent home.” That seems like a fair deal to me.
I would like to take a moment to share a personal story from a constituent who wishes to remain anonymous. My constituent was a teacher in Hong Kong for more than 20 years, but new laws designed to crack down on criticism of the regime meant that the genuine critical thinking that my constituent was trying to impart to their students was no longer possible. They took up the BNO visa in 2021 to start a new life. It restored their freedom of speech, which is no longer possible in Hong Kong without fear of repercussion.
I am proud that my constituent, like many other Hongkongers, chose Bolton West as their home. Many of my Hongkonger constituents have bought homes, sent their children to our schools, set up businesses and taken up jobs in the constituency. They are not here to take; they are here to give, to build and to belong. But when I speak to many of these families, it is clear to me that they live under a shadow.
We have all read about activists in Britain, such as Carmen Lau, who now has a $1 million bounty on her head from the Hong Kong authorities. Imagine trying to rebuild a life in Horwich, Lostock or Westhoughton while being hunted by an authoritarian regime on the other side of the world. That is the reality of transnational repression.
Transnational repression takes other forms with which we have to get to grips. The journalist Calum Muirhead has reported in This is Money on how Hong Kong exiles here are being denied access to more than £1 billion of their own pensions, as other hon. Members have mentioned. In total, up to £3 billion of retirement savings cannot be accessed until families secure indefinite leave to remain. That is money that could be spent in local shops, backing Bolton businesses, or be put towards children’s futures. The banks responsible for holding these pensions need to step up, do the right thing and release hard-earned pensions back to those who have earned them.
For people to have to deal with all that while their very right to stay in their home, at school or in work is thrown into jeopardy is not fair in any way whatever. I am particularly concerned about the impact that these proposals would have on the lives of young Hongkongers. Currently, under the five-year pathway, students can qualify for home fee status at university after settlement. Stretching that to 10 years would mean a whole generation facing prohibitively high international fees that they simply have not planned for. Families who have already sacrificed so much would see their dreams simply vanish.
Several Members today have used the analogy of moving the goalposts. If you will indulge me, Mr Pritchard, I will mention it as well. I recently had the pleasure of hosting a number of my constituents from Hong Kong at a Bolton Wanderers match. For the record, the mighty Wanderers crushed Bristol Rovers 1-0. Even colleagues with limited knowledge of football will know that if someone had moved the goalposts at half time, it would have caused chaos. The same principle applies here. Hongkongers quite rightly expect us to keep our word. When we made this promise, we said to Hongkongers, “This is your lifeline. This is your chance.” To change the rules at half time would betray not just them, but the trust that underpins all immigration policy.
In conclusion, let us get immigration under control, let us smash the gangs, let us back the Government’s plan to reduce irregular migration, but let us also keep faith with those who came here this way. On behalf of my 403 constituents in Bolton West who signed the petition, I join colleagues in urging the Government to exempt BNO Hongkongers from any extension of the settlement period in their forthcoming immigration plan, to keep our promise and to keep Britain’s word.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on sitting through such eloquent speeches on his first day in the job. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for securing the debate.
I am proud that people from all over the world have put down roots in Stratford and Bow. Some of them came bringing skills and experience, while others came seeking safe haven, but wherever they are from, they are welcome in Stratford and Bow. The story of Stratford and Bow is a story that can be found in every corner of Britain. It is about the very best of Britain—our humanity, our compassion, our fairness. It is a story that my own family know well. Fleeing pogroms in search of safety, my parents were given refuge in the UK, and they made east London their first home. That was nearly 50 years ago, and now they are proud British citizens.
I hear that story echoed by my BNO and Hongkonger constituents who came to the UK fleeing persecution. Since the publication of the Government’s immigration White Paper, dozens of my constituents who are currently already on the pathway to settlement have written to me to share their stories and concerns, specifically those about transnational arrangements for those who are already in the UK and on the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain. This is one of my constituent’s messages to me:
“Changing settlement requirements for those who are already in the UK risks a harmful message: that even those who play by the rules are not guaranteed fairness.”
I was struck by how so many of those who wrote to me introduced themselves and described their families as hard-working and law-abiding. They wanted to tell me about their incredible professions, from caring for our most vulnerable to driving innovation in the UK’s tech sector, and about how much tax they are paying, about how they contribute to the UK economy, about how they have made Britain their home and about the community groups they volunteer with.
Although it was nice to read their emails, it saddened me that we have reached a place in Britain where our neighbours and constituents—those who came here legally—feel the need to defend the fact that they belong here. Their stories also show me something else: pride—pride in participating in British life, pride in British values and pride in contributing to and playing their part in our national story. My constituent Chelsea wrote to share her pride in her own efforts to, in her words, uphold British values and integrate in British society. It is a pride that so many of us in this place know and share: a pride in contributing to our communities and playing an active role in shaping local and national life.
Another constituent wrote to me about bringing years of experience to work here in a highly specialised tech job. He told me that he declined offers in other countries and chose to come here,
“following the rules in good faith, trusting the commitments made when I arrived would be honoured.”
In a nation obsessed with queuing and fair play, what could be more British than a respect for the rules, standing in line and asking for one thing in return—fairness? Changing settlement requirements for those who are already in the UK risks sending a harmful message that undermines trust in legal routes: that even those who play by the rules are not guaranteed fairness in Britain.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Over the summer, I held a drop-in surgery for the Hong Kong community in Epsom and Ewell—there are over 1,000 of them—and I heard from many residents who were concerned about the proposal to extend the qualifying period from five to 10 years. They told me that this could have a profound impact, including disrupting their financial planning and causing increased stress and uncertainty for those individuals and their families. Does the hon. Member feel that it is imperative that this Government provide urgent clarity and reassurance to those affected?
Uma Kumaran
The hon. Lady makes an important point. That is what so many of us in this room, across the parties, are asking for at the moment. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point.
My BNO constituent put it best:
“British nationality is a privilege not a right.”
I am sure that all in this room agree. However, it is also our right, as Members, to ensure that our system is fair. That means that we cannot treat migration like a sticking plaster on deep-rooted domestic issues such as skills shortages. It also means honouring the settlement expectations that people had when we welcomed them here legally, and honouring our historical obligation to Hongkongers who are claiming humanitarian protection and fleeing political repression.
As the Government prepare to set out their plans this autumn, I urge the Minister to consider the cause of constituents in Stratford and Bow and ensure that those who arrived under the five-year rule are allowed to complete the route to settlement without changes being applied retroactively. Allowing them to do so would reflect the British values that my constituents of all nationalities cherish. It would reflect the story of our fair, outward-looking and compassionate country, which we all hold so dear.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
It is a honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I welcome the Minister to his place. By way of ingratiating myself on behalf of my constituents, may I also say how much I like his socks, which I have been admiring?
The immigration White Paper rightly recognises that we need an immigration system that is fair, firm and clear. Those who have come to this country to work hard, contribute and play by the rules should be able to see a well-defined route to citizenship. That pathway must be bound by rules that are consistent, transparent and well understood.
That said, I have heard from Bracknell constituents who will potentially be affected by a shift from a five-plus-one year route to a 10-plus-one year route to citizenship. Many of those residents are almost at the five-year point today, and have already built lives and careers here. Understandably, they are worried that just as they reach that threshold, the rules will change beneath their feet. My firm view is that when people come to this country on the basis of a clear settlement route, we should respect that understanding, and that, at the very least, any change should be introduced in a staggered way. That is the fair and right thing to do.
Importantly, this moment provides us with the opportunity to properly re-examine the individual components of our immigration system, including the BNO visa scheme. When the Conservatives launched it, the scheme was billed as a bespoke pathway that honoured our historical obligations to the people of Hong Kong. In reality, however, far too many BNO holders have found themselves bound by the same rules as other visa holders. That is not what was promised, and it does not reflect our historic commitment and the unique circumstances that brought Hongkongers to our country. Here I am afraid I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray): the route by which people come to this country does matter.
The Hong Kong community is making a remarkable contribution to Britain. A 2023 survey found that 99% of BNO visa holders intend to settle permanently and become British citizens, and they are highly skilled. Almost six in 10 hold a degree or postgraduate qualification, compared with a third of the UK population. Despite that, only about half are currently in work, compared with three quarters of the UK as a whole. That gap reflects the barriers that people still face—barriers that we should be helping to dismantle.
I have seen at first hand the contributions of Hong Kong families in Bracknell. I recently met members of our local Hong Kong community, and while I was inspired by their resilience and the way they have enriched our town, I also heard about the barriers and uncertainty that they now face. I thank the 487 Bracknell constituents who signed the petition on BNO visas that we are here today to discuss.
One young woman at my meeting told me about how ready she is to continue her studies, but that she has been priced out of university because she does not yet qualify for home fees. Extending the length of time BNO visa holders must wait to secure settled status also means extending the length of time they are liable to pay international fees, despite living in this country, achieving their A-levels at UK schools and looking to build their adult lives and careers in, and lend their considerable talents to, the UK.
Another constituent is a talented professional dancer who teaches local students. She is unable to dance for Britain in international competitions because of her visa status, despite being exactly the kind of role model we should be championing. I also met a young married couple who have bought a home and started a life in Bracknell, but feel they cannot yet start a family because of uncertainty over their future status. These stories are not abstract policy points; they are the lived experiences of people who are already making an incredible contribution to our country and our community.
It was precisely because of these concerns that I, together with Labour colleagues, wrote earlier this summer to the then Home Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary. We urged her to ensure that BNO visa holders are not unfairly disadvantaged by retrospective changes to the settlement route, and that the promises made to Hongkongers when this scheme was created are properly upheld.
At my public meeting, I was saddened but not shocked to hear that some members of the Bracknell Forest Hong Kong community had chosen not to come because of the fear of transnational repression. They were concerned that by engaging in the democratic process and speaking to their local Member of Parliament—a right that must be available to every man, woman and child living in this country—they would make themselves a target for the long reach of the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments. That is a powerful reminder of why the previous UK Government, with the Labour party’s full support, brought in the BNO visa route in the first place: the Hong Kong national security law. We owe it to the Hongkongers rebuilding their lives in the UK to ensure that the BNO visa scheme is properly bespoke, so that we can live up to our historic obligations.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
May I just say to the Minister that his socks are in order? The Clerks are excellent, because I now know that the first reference to socks in the House of Commons was in 1842, in a manufacturing debate. To reassure him, there is no mention whatever of socks in the “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” or in “Erskine May”, which of course was first published in 1844. Members can therefore all be reassured, and certainly the Minister can be: his socks are in order. There is a ruling.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, thank the Petitions Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for bringing forward this debate.
When the Government introduced their immigration White Paper, they proposed increasing the standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10. The intent was to dissuade people from coming to settle in the UK and to convince those who are here to leave. Welcoming the Minister—and his socks—to his place, I ask him who it is that they are hoping to dissuade from coming here and who they are hoping will leave. Is it the doctors, nurses, teachers, transport workers and cleaners who kept this country moving during the pandemic and for whom many of us clapped as they put their lives at risk while we stayed safely at home? I ask because it is those sectors, which are reliant on international workers, that will be hit the hardest by this policy.
The Government have suggested that
“high-skilled, high-contributing individuals…such as nurses, doctors, engineers and AI leaders”
could be fast-tracked for settlement, but it remains unclear what that means in practice. For example, it is clear that changing the ILR period from five years to 10 will have a negative impact on the NHS workforce specifically; it risks an exodus of international healthcare staff, which would undermine the Government’s 10-year plan for the NHS.
We are talking about the one in five NHS staff who are non-UK nationals and the 45% of licensed doctors in the NHS who are international medical graduates, a large number of whom are leaving the UK, mostly due to low pay, the high cost of living and the declining quality of life. Many also cite visa requirements as a reason for leaving. We are talking about the 43.7% of international nurses who left the Nursing and Midwifery Council register in the last year who had been on the register for less than five years. Some 40% of them said that immigration policy was an important factor in that. Those departures will have a profound impact on the NHS workforce, which is already depleted and struggling. Instead of taking steps to make it harder for international medical staff to come and stay in the UK, we should be taking steps to encourage them and, for the sake of our NHS, making it easier for them to stay.
I am also deeply concerned that the Government have not yet indicated whether the change would apply to those already in the UK. International doctors and healthcare professionals need reassurance now that their status will not be affected. That means Hongkongers and all other migrants, too. It would be simply unfair and frankly cruel to apply an extension to the ILR pathway retrospectively, and it would significantly impact those already on the pathway, as well as their families, employers and communities. We have to start being frank that the pursuit of net migration targets has undermined our economy and our public services and created a hostile environment in our communities. Changing immigration rules in this way will undo the work that has been done so far to repair our NHS. I urge the Government to reconsider.
I want to end by saying two things. First, although the topic of this debate is the changes to indefinite leave to remain for skilled worker visa holders in particular, it should go without saying that a person should not have to belong to a critical sector just to deserve compassion in our immigration system. Secondly, I want to remind Members of something my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) said. She mentioned the top five nationalities in applications to be in this country over the past five years: Nigerian, Pakistani, Indian, Ghanaian and Bangladeshi—all Commonwealth nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) pointed out the rights that they are afforded: in this country, Commonwealth nationals on any length of visa can register to vote in both local and national elections, and I expect that they and their British national family members and friends will have views on these issues. We should take note of that.
The UK has always boasted a diverse workforce in every single sector, and those who come to establish their lives in the UK are a benefit to our society. We should bear in mind that they vote here. Our immigration policy should reflect the fact that we value them.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. Some months ago, I led a debate in this Chamber on the merits of a certificate of common sponsorship in relation to the social care sector. In that debate, I highlighted the unfair and precarious nature of having an employment visa linked to a single employer, rather than to the sector as a whole. I mention that because that campaign, which is ongoing, is of course linked to today’s debate on indefinite leave to remain.
Overseas workers have made, and continue to make, a massive contribution to the UK’s health and social care sector. Because of those dedicated staff, we have been able to provide much-needed care for some of our most vulnerable individuals, but the proposed changes to the ILR rules could put all that at risk. The adult social care sector is already experiencing a crisis in recruitment. In England, for example, 7% of roles are unfilled; that represented about 111,000 vacancies in March this year. These proposals will make filling those vacancies even more difficult.
I have raised before with the Government how the current sponsorship arrangements leave migrant workers open to abuse. Some are locked into unfair contracts; when they raise concerns about their working conditions, they can be threatened with deportation. Employers already have undue power over migrant care workers, because their work visa is tied to their employment status.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
That is an important point, which is related to one made earlier by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and it is about the stability that people have in their life if they know that they have indefinite leave to remain. The industry that I have the most to do with is the fishing industry, and we have seen an increasing presence of transient workers in recent years, outwith immigration rules a lot of the time. In a handful of cases—I stress that it is just a handful—there has been egregious abuse, and that can happen because these people are forced to live in the shadows. Giving them stability allows them to have the same rights and security that we all take for granted.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Any employment status that traps workers in those conditions has to be addressed, and the proposed extension of the ILR period from five years to 10 will potentially trap those workers in what we can only describe as long-term exploitation.
The immigration White Paper also suggests sweeping changes to the skilled worker visa system. A constituent of mine, Olabanjo, wrote to me:
“If implemented, this proposed change would create unnecessary instability for thousands of families, including mine. It would prolong uncertainty, increase financial and emotional strain, and discourage people who are already working hard, paying taxes, and contributing positively to the UK. Migrants are not just statistics; we are carers, professionals, volunteers, and parents raising children who already call this country home. We want to belong, to integrate fully, and to continue giving our best to the UK. This proposal would make that harder, not easier.”
Olabanjo is right to point out that the plans to retrospectively change the settlement rules feel like a betrayal. The suggestion that we can change the rules halfway through is grossly unfair. Behind the debate about immigration are real people, and the proposed changes have caused considerable upheaval for many overseas workers who are already here. In fact, virtually all migrant workers will in some way be affected by the changes to salary thresholds and new visa conditions.
The Government have described settlement as a privilege to be earned, but that ignores the valuable contribution that these workers have already made to our country, the economy and their local communities. That is why I urge the Government to reject the negative rhetoric around immigration, retain the five-year route for ILR, scrap plans to apply extended qualifying periods retrospectively, and reform the visa system to ensure that sponsorship is sector-wide, rather than linked to an individual employer.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for opening this important debate. As we know, over 100,000 people signed each of these petitions, including a number from my constituency of Chesterfield. I will also take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his new post and wish him well.
Members have expressed strongly in this debate the sentiment that many migrants have made a huge contribution in our constituencies and the country. I think there is nothing inconsistent in saying that, on the one hand, we absolutely recognise that contribution but, on the other, we recognise the Government’s desire to reduce net migration and that the number of people coming into our country is unsustainable. We can absolutely recognise the huge contribution that migrants make without in any way undermining the positive steps the Government are trying to take to get the system under control.
I agree entirely that Britain is a country that keeps its word, and we should continue to keep our word to the Hongkongers who have come here. I echo the comment that many others have made that it will be a huge propaganda victory for the Chinese Government if they are able to say that we are undermining that commitment. I also support what has been said about those who have already started down a path. We should not be changing the rules that we have made for those people.
It is important to recognise that many people now have real uncertainty. We are in a competitive environment for many of these skilled migrants. There are many other countries that would like to attract them, and if we start pushing them away and making them believe that their commitment to this country will not be honoured, we risk losing people who are crucial to our public services and economy. We should consider that very seriously indeed.
My constituent Erinda came to see me. Her family are from Albania and have been in the UK for several years. She came here on the skilled worker visa, and her husband and son were brought here as dependants. They have made their life here; they have joined the local church and have made a huge contribution to the local community. There is real concern among her church community that they now might not have the stability that they believed they should. We should offer that certainty to people who have come here on the five-year route.
I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) about the danger of exploitation of some people on the skilled visa route. I have seen appalling situations, including people working in the care industry who are being forced into doing, in effect, 70 or 75-hour shifts over the course of a week, and being told, “If you’re not willing to do it, we’ll scrap the basis on which you’ve come here and you’ll lose your right to be in the UK.” We need to make sure that those people, who are making an important contribution, are properly protected.
I support what the Government are doing in trying to tighten up our immigration rules, but I also hope that at the end of the consultation they will support what the people who signed the petitions have asked for.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing the debate and thank my great friend the Minister for taking his position today.
When the Hong Kong UK welcome programme was established in 2021, Long Eaton in my constituency was chosen as one of the preferred resettlement locations for Hongkongers. Local people in Long Eaton have very much welcomed our new neighbours to our community. I have spoken to teachers at local schools about how new students from Hong Kong are getting on and doing well, and I have been very pleased to see Hongkongers establishing new businesses in our town centre. Since being elected as the Member of Parliament for Erewash a little over a year ago, I have sought to engage with Long Eaton’s already very active Hongkonger community. I was very pleased recently to host an event in Long Eaton town hall with the Nottingham branch of the Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation.
We must all have watched on with admiration in 2019 and 2020 as the people of Hong Kong took to the streets of their city in their millions to defend their civil rights and liberties, their democracy and their fundamental freedoms. Over the past decade, the situation across China has only worsened. Modest gains for the rule of law have been quashed, there has been renewed aggression towards Taiwan and its people, and the appalling persecution of the Uyghur minority has continued. Sadly, terribly, those scenes of heroic bravery on the streets of Hong Kong ended in heartbreak. The national security law was imposed, granting Beijing unprecedented powers to police the speech and actions of Hongkongers. Elections were delayed, democracy functionally ended and harsh laws against protesters enacted.
The crackdown saw horrendous scenes of police brutality and human rights abuses. As a result, over 500,000 people fled Hong Kong. Hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers came here to the United Kingdom to seek sanctuary. I happily say, and I know that many hon. Members from across the House will agree, that Hong Kong and China’s loss has been very much our gain. I am very glad to have welcomed these Hongkongers, who are fleeing oppression, violence and injustice, to my constituency.
Sadly, the Government in Beijing are not content with forcing these people from their homes; they still wish to terrorise them here in the United Kingdom. We cannot allow that to happen to people to whom we have promised safety and security in our country and who want to feel comfortable here.
It is important that we remember those points as we consider any alterations to visa regulations in the coming months. Clearly, arrest warrants issued in Hong Kong against Hongkongers living in Britain are unacceptable. The operation of illegal and unsanctioned police stations in British cities, which are used to intimidate and even kidnap people, are both a deep moral wrong and a grievous violation of our national sovereignty.
I was shocked and deeply saddened that when I welcomed local Hongkongers to Long Eaton town hall recently, many of them said that they were afraid to be photographed or videoed on the CCTV. They also raised serious concerns about the proposed new Chinese embassy in London, because they felt it could become a hub for spying and mass surveillance, and perhaps even house a far larger illegal prison than those that have so far operated.
I greatly commend the bravery of the people of Hong Kong. I will always speak up for and defend the rights of Hongkongers who have moved to Long Eaton and the rest of my constituency, to Greater Nottingham and indeed to anywhere in the United Kingdom. We must protect those who have sought sanctuary in our community from the Chinese Government, both now and well into the future. I look forward to many more years of being a Member of Parliament and speaking up further for our new Hongkonger neighbours and their families.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. Votes in the House are always, as we know, a moveable feast. However, it is likely that there will be eight votes later this evening, so perhaps everybody here in Westminster Hall could keep an eye on the main Chamber, unless they want to come back here later in—I don’t know—95 minutes. It is entirely up to Members, because I will not be here, but they will.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I echo the welcome that has already been extended to the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), in his new post. I know that he will bring to this position the same qualities of diligence and collegiate working that characterised his approach at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Given the level of interest in today’s debate, I will speak only about and in support of the second petition that we are considering, which is on the Hong Kong BNO visa. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for the able way in which he has led this debate, and the Petitions Committee for making it possible.
I also thank the 635 people in Birmingham Northfield who signed the petition, and the dozens of people who have made representations at constituency surgeries and in writing. I can do no better than to quote one of them:
“Since settling in Birmingham, we have purchased our own home and integrated into the community. Two of us are working in the NHS. We made this move not out of convenience but out of necessity, fleeing the erosion of human rights in Hong Kong. Incidents such as the firing of pro-democracy campaigners, prosecution of journalists and the enactment of the article 23 law have only reinforced the difficult choice we made to leave.”
Our Hongkonger constituents who are watching this debate should know that they are welcome here and are valued members of our communities.
We should also recognise that Hong Kong is clearly a special case. The statement that I have just quoted is not only a commentary on the deep links of culture and history that bind us together, as important as those links are. The practical reality is that although we might wish that the Chinese Government’s tightening repression at home and abroad might lessen within the next 10 years, such hope is contradicted by all the available evidence.
We need only look at the fate of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, the organising centre of independent labour, which was linked indelibly to the democracy movement. It was coerced into dissolving itself in 2021. Its leaders are now prosecuted and persecuted, including through abuse of the international arrest warrant system. They are people such as Christopher Siu-tat Mung. Some Members of this House will have heard him speak at the conferences of the TUC, the GMB and other UK labour organisations. He was forced into hiding here in the UK under the protection of the Home Office after a bounty was issued for his arrest.
I have spoken to a number of my constituents who share the concern that they may themselves be targeted and subjected to surveillance. They deserve to have that fear lifted—the fear of return to Hong Kong or relocation to another country that may offer lesser levels of protection.
There are other important issues that we could talk about today, such as the need for progress towards greater UK recognition of Hong Kong qualifications, but, on the substantive issue—the subject of the petition—the Government have said that they will set out their approach to particular visa routes over the coming months. While I do not necessarily expect the Minister to pre-empt that announcement today, I do ask that he acknowledges the strength of feeling shared by so many Members in this debate, that he makes sure that the arguments made today are given full attention by the Home Office, and that our constituents will be given that certainty as soon as possible.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) on his opening remarks, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his place.
Earlier this year, I held a surgery with Hongkongers living in my constituency, alongside Alison Lowe, the deputy mayor of West Yorkshire, who is responsible for policing and crime. While I was so pleased to see the room absolutely packed out—standing room only—it was clear from the questions I was being asked that the No. 1 concern was the immigration White Paper and its potential impact on Hongkongers and their families—people we invited to live here.
I need to make it very clear that we must take extremely strong action on immigration—the British people demand it—and that having functioning borders should be a basic function of the state. The level of immigration to the UK, both legal and illegal, has been too high, and the White Paper is a decent package of measures to try to bring the numbers down, which should be welcomed. However, we do not want to unfairly penalise those who we have invited here, or who make a huge contribution to the UK.
When the BNO visa scheme was introduced in 2020 by the previous Government, it was in response to the imposition of the national security law on Hongkongers, to help them escape political repression. To change the rules now, when the first BNO visa holders are just months away from qualifying for settled status, would be a devastating blow to the Hong Kong community. It would constitute a broken promise. These people have come to the UK under a set of conditions that we determined, and at our request. At the very least, even if we were to change the rules, they should never be applied retrospectively.
What would happen if we did change the rules? First, extending the indefinite leave to remain period for BNO visa holders would have very little impact on immigration figures. Government data shows that most BNO visa holders arrived in the first two years of the scheme, between 2021 and 2023, and, since then, the numbers have been falling. Currently, BNOs represent about 1.65% of total visa grants, so changing the rules in this area will do very little to change immigration trends.
More importantly, the Hong Kong community make an immense contribution to the UK, even though they are often prevented from giving their full talents to society because of the limitations they face without settled status or citizenship. Take university-age students, for example, who we have heard about today: without settled status, they will not qualify for home fees, making university unaffordable for most of them. Delaying that settled status for a total of 10 years would have a hugely detrimental impact on those young BNO visa holders. They will still go on to contribute to the UK throughout their working lives, but why would we not want to increase that contribution as much as we can?
It is also true that a huge number of Hongkongers in the UK are working far below their qualification or training levels, or are potentially unemployed entirely. There are accountants, journalists and engineers, for example, working in roles that do not necessarily match their skills. We have heard that there are some practical steps that the Government could take to alleviate some of those problems, which would be in our interests, but extending the ILR route for Hongkongers to 10 years—further delaying their access to further education, training, citizenship, Government support and integration into UK society—will obviously make the problem worse. Despite all the obstacles they face today, they are still making a huge contribution to the UK.
With one eye on the time, I will draw my remarks to a close. I urge the Minister to exempt BNO visa holders from any changes to the ILR route or other qualifications for settled status. This country made a promise to the people of Hong Kong, and we should honour it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the Front Benchers, an update from the Chamber: there are apparently more Members standing now than there were even 10 minutes ago. At the discretion of the shadow Minister and the Minister, we can run the debate for the full time to 7.30 pm, which is great.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his excellent speech in opening the debate, and hon. Members around the Chamber for their contributions. We have all made very clear our similar feelings on this, and I hope the Government Minister is ready to jump up and answer all our queries positively.
I rise to speak on behalf of more than 265,000 people who have collectively signed these two petitions. Many of the signatures will be from the very people who would be impacted by the change being considered by the Government—people who pay their taxes, keep our hospitals running, manage local businesses and serve our communities. Families who came to Britain in good faith now face extreme uncertainty about their livelihoods. The Government’s immigration White Paper, published in May, proposes to double the wait for permanent British settlement status from five years to 10, except for those who qualify under earned settlement, among other key changes.
This sudden decision has left hundreds of BNO passport holders and skilled immigrant workers in my constituency, and across the country, understandably anxious about their futures. I am in no doubt that, after years of Conservative mismanagement, the immigration system needs to change. It is completely right that the Home Office takes the necessary steps to fix a framework left in tatters. However, for months, potentially abrupt changes to qualifying for indefinite leave to remain have been shrouded in mystery for BNO and skilled worker visas. At the very least, those visa holders deserve clarity, yet since the publication of the White Paper, clarity is exactly what they have been denied. The Government cannot keep people in the dark; we need answers today.
I am proud that my constituency of Sutton and Cheam is home to such a vibrant and inspiring Hong Kong diaspora—some of the more than 160,000 Hongkongers who have come to the UK under the scheme implemented by the last Conservative Government. Where I live, I see at first hand the contributions they make to my community every day. They serve as business owners, teachers, doctors and community leaders—and since May, one is my colleague, serving on Sutton council.
Many fled repression by the CCP and put their trust in a life in Sutton. That trust was not abstract; for many, it was rooted in a promise that the BNO visa scheme would provide a safe pathway to rebuild their lives here, with settlement after five years and citizenship after six. The scheme was not an act of charity but a solemn commitment, born of Britain’s obligations under the Sino-British joint declaration and made when Beijing began to tear away Hongkongers’ freedoms in 2019. It was a recognition of more than 150 years of British control of Hong Kong, and of how our histories and futures are inextricably linked.
In a world of transnational repression orchestrated by the CCP, permanent settlement in Britain is a vital safeguard for Hongkongers on this visa route. For those who have grasped the BNO lifeline, the prospect of doubling the wait for indefinite leave to remain could be devastating. So many families I have spoken to have built their futures around the promise of a five-year route. They have made the ultimate sacrifice in uprooting their lives in Hong Kong and moving to this country, because they believed Britain would stand by its word.
To extend the pathway for BNO passport holders to 10 years for ILR would have brutal consequences for my constituents. Without ILR or a UK passport, many BNO holders are left with the Hong Kong special administrative region passport. Once that expires, they face major barriers to international mobility. For some, travel would become impossible without risking interaction with PRC authorities. Families would be cut off from loved ones, and careers requiring international travel would be closed off. Even children born here to BNO parents could be left waiting until they are 11 years old before gaining a passport.
The consequences for education are equally stark. BNO students must secure settled status before qualifying for home fee status at UK universities. Under the new proposals, a 10-year wait would result in most BNO students facing international fees that their families simply cannot afford. When the decision was made to take up the BNO route and travel to and settle in the UK, this timing would have been considered and understood—an important consideration for families fleeing persecution, yet not wanting to compromise their children’s future and their access to affordable further education. That timing and opportunity now risk being torn up by the Government. This change would see the shutting down of futures and the door closed on an entire generation of young Hongkongers who want nothing more than to study, work and contribute to this country. Hongkongers came to places like Sutton to escape censorship, surveillance and persecution. Do we really want to answer their courage with confusion?
Recent correspondence from the Home Office to a Labour MP, which I am sure many of us have seen, suggested that the existing pathway would remain unchanged for those already holding BNO visas, and that the proposed changes to the language requirements would apply to new applicants only from April 2026 onwards. However, that was contradicted by later correspondence, released in a number of letters issued to Members—including, I am sure, some around this room—so I would like assurances. I urge the Minister to reflect carefully before making any changes to ILR for BNO visa holders. Hongkongers’ lives are already clouded in so much uncertainty. They need clear guidance on how any changes to immigration policy will affect them. The impact of the White Paper on Hongkongers would be immense. Assurances must be provided when so much is at stake for so many of my constituents.
And what of skilled worker visas, the UK’s primary visa route for individuals seeking to work here? It includes the health and care worker sub-category—the very nurses, doctors and carers who keep hospitals such as St Helier in our borough running every day and who look after our constituents in their homes. Britain cannot hope to attract the best and brightest talent while leaving thousands of those on skilled worker visas in limbo. The immigration White Paper was published four months ago, but those on this immigration visa still have no clarity about what lies ahead for them here in Britain. These are people who keep institutions like our NHS afloat, who fill critical shortages across our economy and who contribute to Britain from day one of their arrival. They deserved certainty about what changes to immigration policy meant for them from the very beginning.
The Government cannot claim to fix our immigration system by pulling the rug out from under those who put their faith in it. Hongkongers and skilled workers deserve fairness and stability. I urge the Minister to stop changing the rules mid-game and play fair. As Members around this room have all made clear, the Minister should stand by his word and the word of the previous Conservative Government, who, in all fairness, brought the scheme in with foresight and compassion for the people of Hong Kong. Let us give people the certainty to build their lives as fully as they can in this country by retaining the five-plus-one time limits for BNO and skilled workers. I hope the Minister will give us that reassurance when he winds up.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I believe I am the first member of my party speaking in this place to welcome the Minister to his new place. I look forward to working across from him, socks and all.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), the Petitions Committee and the members of the public who signed the petitions before us today. The hon. Member is right to note that there are many different strands to the issue. This evening, I will speak about the proposed changes to ILR qualification for the skilled worker visa.
Over the past 30 years, millions of people have immigrated to Britain. The level of migration to this country has been too high for decades and remains so. Every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce migration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the last Government, like the Governments before them, promised to do exactly that. Like the Governments before them, they failed to deliver.
Katie Lam
I will make a little progress first.
It is particularly concerning that the vast majority who have come to Britain in the last few years, including many of those on the skilled worker route, are unlikely to contribute more in tax than they cost over their lifetimes through their use of public services and state support. As things stand, the lifetime cost of the recent wave of migration is set to be hundreds of billions of pounds. It is one of the biggest scandals in British politics and most people, including the Prime Minister, now acknowledge that the accelerated migration of the last few years was a profound mistake. When we make a mistake and have the power to reverse it, it is right that we do so. We absolutely have the power to reverse this particular mistake, and that would start by changing the rules on indefinite leave to remain.
At the moment, after just five years, most migrants can claim ILR, allowing them to stay here indefinitely, access state support and begin the path to citizenship. My shadow Home Office colleagues and I have repeatedly argued that the qualifying period should be extended from five years to 10, but that alone is not enough. No new visa should be issued to, no new ILR status should be granted to, and existing ILR status should be revoked from, those who have committed a crime, accessed state support, or are unlikely to contribute more than they cost. Those who have no legal way to stay here would then need to leave. That is how immigration works.
Many hon. Members in this debate have commented on the fairness and perceived fairness of retrospective rule changes to those who have come here. That point was made in opening by the hon. Member for South Norfolk and by too many other hon. Members to list. We can feel great personal sympathy for such people, but our primary, indeed our only, fundamental responsibility is not fairness to foreign nationals but fairness to the British people. It is our sacred duty to put them first, and to act in their interests and their interests alone.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Member is setting out a powerful argument, but she has not touched on the BNO visa route. As I mentioned earlier, that route was introduced by the previous Government with support from the Labour party. I ask her to be really clear. She talked about mistakes from the previous Government. Is she now saying that that route was a mistake, or will she take this opportunity to recommit her party to the Hong Kong community, to whom, after all, we owe that historic commitment?
Katie Lam
Our suggested reforms do not apply to Hong Kong BNO visa holders. That is a specific route set up for extraordinary purposes. We believe it should be viewed and treated differently.
Implementing our policies in full would save the British taxpayer hundreds of billions of pounds. It would relieve pressure on our already stretched public services and lay the foundations for an immigration system that genuinely works in the national interest. More than that, it would give effect to the democratic wishes of the British people by reversing a costly disaster that nobody voted for and that most people now acknowledge was a catastrophic mistake. I urge the Government in the strongest possible terms to commit to implement the changes that we have repeatedly proposed, including by applying any changes to ILR to those who are already here.
A five-year visa does not confer a right to apply to settle here indefinitely. Those who come here must make a genuine and sustained contribution to our country, and unfortunately most of those who have come on the skilled worker route in recent years are unlikely to do so. If, as the Prime Minister says, our “open borders experiment” has been a mistake, why should British taxpayers be saddled with the cost of that mistake for the rest of their lives?
Finally, although I do not agree with the argument made by the petition on skilled worker visas, I believe that that process should be subject to an open and frank public debate.
Katie Lam
I am closing; I apologise.
Will the Minister confirm that applying any changed rules to those already here will be within the scope of the Government’s planned consultation on ILR? Will he commit to ensuring that that consultation is open to responses from members of the public?
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I call the Minister, and congratulate him on his new position.
The Minister of State, Home Department (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I express my sincere gratitude for all the kind words from colleagues on this, my first day in the Home Office. What a welcoming party they have proffered me. I greatly enjoyed it.
I also express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough). Being on the Petitions Committee in this place is a very special and difficult role because, of course, he started the debate not only in the spirit of things that he knows and feels, but by giving voice to the many hundreds of thousands of people who signed that petition and earned the right to have their issue debated in Parliament by their representatives. To the British public, that is very profound connection. He made an effort not just in preparing his speech—the words on the piece of paper—but in engaging with people to ensure that they can hear their voice in this debate. They very much will have, so I commend him for the spirit in which he did that.
Both petitions relate to the earned settlement proposals set out in the immigration White Paper, which the previous Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), introduced in Parliament on 12 May, so I will keep my remarks within the spirit of those two petitions. The proposals in the White Paper more generally are important changes, and we have seen, from the strength of feeling from colleagues in Westminster Hall today, just how important they are to them and their constituents.
That is why we are taking the approach we are taking. We want to listen to what people are telling us about this issue. That is why we have committed to a consultation. I can say to colleagues that the consultation is coming later this year, and that we will make the final decisions and provide details of how the scheme will work after that consultation. I apologise in advance that, for many of the issues that have been raised, I have to say that they will be subject to consultation, but that is the right way to ensure that we get to the right position.
Mr Perkins
The Minister is absolutely right that we are all here to respond to petitions that hundreds of thousands of people have signed. Does he think, as I do, that given the huge public interest in this matter, it is absolutely extraordinary that one person has turned up to speak from the main Opposition party, and that that person, the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—barely talked about the items raised by the petitioners? Does it not say absolutely everything about the modern Conservative party that they do not think today’s debate is even worth turning up for?
Alex Norris
It was quite interesting that the Chamber was so full at the beginning of the debate; indeed, we had the very unlikely spectacle of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) crossing the floor. People can see who has shown an interest in this debate, and they may well draw their own conclusions.
Luke Taylor
I am not rising to defend the Opposition in any way, but can we just remember why we are here? We are talking about a Government who are planning to move the goalposts for people who are halfway through an application for ILR. We can point at who is at fault around the room, but let us not forget that the Government are considering moving the goalposts, so that people will now face uncertainty for further months. Let us focus on who is being challenged here. Can we remember that, Minister?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for harking back to the 2010-to-2015 period—it truly felt like we were back in other times—but I will address his points as I go along.
My intention is to set out our stall as a Government and address the points that colleagues have raised—there have been some clear themes, and I certainly should be able to do so in the time available. As we set out in the White Paper, we strongly recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country. If people want to come to Britain to start a new life, they can do so, but they must contribute, learn our language and seek to integrate. Similarly, if employers want to bring workers from overseas, they must also invest in the skills of workers already in Britain.
As we have heard, the previous Government lost control not just of the number of people arriving but of the entire system, with serious consequences for public confidence, which play out—I am absolutely certain—in all our mailbags every day. That also impacts the working of our economy, public services, the housing market and community cohesion. We are debating this matter today because, in the space of just four years, net migration quadrupled to a record high. Overseas recruitment shot up, while training in the UK was cut. Lower-skilled migration soared, while the proportion of UK residents in work plummeted. Hundreds of thousands of people were given visas to arrive and stay in the UK, but without the requirements for them to speak or learn English, so that they could get the best out of their time here.
We hear from our constituents that migration needs to be managed so that we can support families, support communities and create cohesion. We need proper support for integration and for people to seek a better life, but there have to be clear rules about contributing to the UK. Where the pace of migration is too fast or integration is too weak, it is harder to maintain confidence, community bonds and relationships. Fundamentally, people must see the rules being clearly expressed, clearly respected and properly enforced. For the system to be credible, decisions must be fair, and misuse and exploitation must be tackled fast, as we have heard from many colleagues, and along the way we must prevent illegal migration, overstaying, exploitation and undercutting. It is our position as a Government that the immigration system must be properly controlled and managed.
Alex Norris
I will in a second. I appreciate the strength of feeling that colleagues have expressed today. I would caution them about defending a status quo that does not work. I ask them to engage in the spirit of how we might improve that status quo.
Andy McDonald
On the reasonable point about English language, the bar has been raised, as the Minister has set out. Is the Minister content that there are sufficient resources devoted to the teaching of the English language? That will be a charge that is put to us if we make that demand but do not put in the resources to match.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will turn to the BNO status shortly, but I think of all the work that goes on in my community around English language. Similarly, with those who have come from Ukraine in the past few years it has been transformative. As we make the proposals in the White Paper law, we will consider those important accompanying conversations.
It is a long-standing point of consensus across this place that settlement is a privilege and not a right. We know that settlement in the UK brings significant benefits, so the proposals that we have set out in the immigration White Paper reflect our view that people who benefit from settling in the UK should at first make a proportionate contribution. We have heard much about the valuable contributions that hon. Members’ constituents are making. That is why, although we are setting a baseline qualifying period for settlement at 10 years, we will allow those who make meaningful contributions to reduce that period, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) referred to.
I turn to skilled work, the subject of the first petition. Skilled worker visa holders make an important contribution to our economy and public services, filling essential skills and labour market gaps, but for too long, sectors have become reliant on them to fill those gaps and have not sought to invest in our domestic workforce. The reforms that we have set out in the immigration White Paper are addressing the balance and reversing the long-term trends of overseas recruitment increasing, at the same time as reducing investment in skills and training and increasing levels of unemployment and economic inactivity in the UK, which I know we are all concerned about in our communities.
We implemented the first of the reforms in late July, lifting the threshold for skilled workers to RQF level 6, and we have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to advise on future changes to salary requirements and a temporary shortage list. We have established a new labour market evidence group, which met at the end of July and will continue to meet quarterly, to support our aim of tackling the underlying causes of workforce shortages and ensuring that growth-driving sectors have access to the skilled workers that they need now and into the future. I speak as someone who, until a couple of days ago, was the local growth Minister: we must support our children and schools with the same vigour, so that they get brilliant opportunities and the training that they need first.
Colleagues have talked with great passion about the Hong Kong British national overseas visa route. I want to take a moment to reflect on what the BNO route means, not just for those who have made use of it but for this country more generally. Our country has a long-standing and unique connection to the people of Hong Kong. As Hong Kong is a former British territory, many Hongkongers hold BNO status, which is a recognition of that shared history, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) said. I commend the previous Government for launching the BNO route in January 2021—I supported it in this place—as a direct response to the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong. Through that, the UK honoured its historic and moral commitments to the people of Hong Kong by creating a bespoke immigration route for those seeking safety, stability and a future rooted in those shared values.
Since it launched, close to 225,000 people have been granted a BNO visa, and over 160,000 have arrived in the UK. Like many of the migrants across the immigration system, Hongkongers have quickly become an integral part of both our economy and local communities, with high levels of employment, education participation and community engagement. They have made their homes in key cities and regions across the UK.
In Nottingham, Hongkongers have made an extraordinary contribution, whether it is in our public services, the private sector or the community and voluntary sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) takes a great interest in this area, and a year ago we met organisations representative of the extraordinary contribution Hongkongers are making. I will stop short of saying whether I consider them to be from Nottingham now; due to local government reorganisation, that is a very sticky point, as it is for my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) and possibly for my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who mentioned Long Eaton. I am not going to go anywhere near that question.
The presence of those people is not just valued; they are making a huge positive and lasting contribution to our national life. As a Government, we recognise the significance of that community, not just for what they have done so far but for the role that they will play in the years ahead. I assure Members that this Government remain steadfast in supporting members of the Hong Kong community in the UK and all those who will arrive in the future. We remain fully committed to the BNO route, through which we will continue to welcome Hongkongers, but I do know how important the ability to obtain settled status is to the Hong Kong community. That is why I can assure them that we are listening to their views about the route to settlement, and we will continue to do so. In the meantime, the current rules for settlement under the BNO route will continue to apply.
Peter Swallow
Given how profoundly the Minister is setting out the importance of the Hong Kong community in the UK, can I tempt him to take this opportunity not only to recommit to supporting the Hongkongers with the current route, but to use this as an opportunity to fix some of the things in the BNO visa route that have made it not quite as bespoke as was originally intended through this process? Will the Minister look at that as he looks at the overall immigration system?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend seeks to tempt me off topic slightly, but he has made an excellent point, and I have heard it. However, I want to go back to the fundamental point around consultation. We have heard from colleagues about its importance to people all over the country. It is only right that those who may be affected by the proposals have a fair and equal opportunity to make their voices heard. That is precisely why we are moving forward with the consultation: to ensure that any decision made is rooted in evidence, made with fairness and based on a clear understanding of its real-world impact. I hope that Members will accept that I will not prejudge the outcome of the consultation before it has taken place.
James Naish
I thank the Minister for his speech. The clock is ticking, and I would like him to recognise that. It is really important that the consultation is done quickly. With that in mind, does he know at this stage whether different groups will be carved out within the consultation? Will there be separate opportunities to comment on the BNO scheme, for example, and on other routes?
Alex Norris
We will be opening the consultation up for everybody to make important points about how the system relates to them. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), asked for clarity, and I can give it to her: everybody will get that important opportunity to say how the proposals would affect them. That takes me to some of the things that colleagues have said.
Bobby Dean
Clearly, if there is to be consultation, that will entail a further few months of uncertainty for many people on the scheme. Does the Minister have an ambition for when the consultation will be concluded and for when we will hear the results?
Alex Norris
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a timeframe today, but I appreciate and accept his point about the time pressures that people will feel.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)
Given the unanimity of feeling in the Chamber today on the importance of BNO visas and the uncertainty that the consultation is creating, will the Minister put it on record that he recognises that uncertainty, and that it will be foremost in his mind as he develops policy going forward?
Alex Norris
I absolutely do. When we talk about a system—and this is a system—there is a danger that we forget the fact that these are individual people with lives, hopes and dreams. We always want to treat those people with the utmost dignity and make sure there is no more uncertainty than is necessary. This is my eighth year in this place, and I have watched seven years of immigration policies just fall out of the sky—many times, they were chasing headlines rather than trying to change the system. The question everybody asked was “Why on earth didn’t you consult on this?” There is good reason for engaging with people properly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) all talked about the scope of the changes and who will be affected. That is the point of having a consultation: because we appreciate that people’s circumstances can be very different. That is why we want people to come forward to say how the proposals might affect them.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk talked about transition in general, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) and for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). Again, we appreciate the strength of feeling that has been expressed, and feedback on that point is very helpful. We have also had some feedback since the publication of the White Paper, which is helping us to frame the consultation before we finalise any policy following it.
I have clearly heard the strength of feeling regarding Hongkongers, and our profound connection with them, from my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Rushcliffe, for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), for Birmingham Northfield, for Warrington South (Sarah Hall), for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Erewash, as well as from the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). I hope they see that I share that feeling, as well as their pride in that connection—a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards).
Before I finish, I want to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and the racism that his constituents have endured in their NHS service. That is totally unacceptable, and I would like to add my solidarity to his, which is coming from the TUC. I also want to address a couple of final questions before I hand back to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk with enough time for him to sum up. He talked about diplomatic consequences; I want to assure him that we have engaged with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the issue and that we recognise the diplomatic interests in the BNO route and will continue to consider those impacts carefully.
My hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk and for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) mentioned impact assessments. It is right that colleagues see impact assessments after we have finalised proposals. However, the point of the consultation is that we do not yet know that final stage, which is why we are having those conversations, and impact assessments will of course be carried out at the right moment.
Finally, my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) raised the issue of study. International students are crucial to the UK, the city of Nottingham, our universities and our economy. They allow us to have a world-class connection to our higher education sector, and they are an important pillar of growth. It is essential that opportunities to study in the UK are given to individuals who are genuinely here to do just that. The universities that sponsor those individuals to study here must treat that responsibility with the seriousness that it deserves. That is crucial to public confidence.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk and other colleagues on what has been a brilliant debate. There has been a lot of interest, for good reason, and there is a lot more work to do, for good reason. I hope that those who are watching have seen that we want to get this right. We will be moving forward with a consultation, and I look forward to engaging along the way in that process.
Ben Goldsborough
Today’s debate has been a perfect example of what the Petitions Committee is very good at. It has brought these topics to the fore, in front of a brand-new Minister, so the two e-petitions are now at the top of his box. I give huge thanks not only to the Petitions Committee itself, for all the hard work and effort that went into setting up the process, but also for the stamina of our guests in the Gallery who stayed for the full three-hour debate. I hope that those who are watching at home will realise that this is the best of Parliament, where we speak with more light than heat; where we look at the instruments in front of us and take them issue by issue; and where, instead of deciding to turn them into a mud-slinging match, we actually look at these projects and at how we can make our country better.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 727360 and 727356 relating to the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain.
MOD Security Review
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Further to the statement made by the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), on Monday 23 June 2025, I wish to give an update on the MOD Security Review. The strategic defence review, which reported earlier this year, identified defence sites, including RAF Brize Norton, as needing further investment. After many years of under-investment and hollowing out under the previous Administration, we have identified the physical security of our sites as an area of greater focus. The Department is using in-year funding to deliver physical security enhancements at pilot sites across the defence estate. We will roll-out to further prioritised sites in line with security threat assessments.
As the House will know, in the early hours of Friday 20 June 2025, Palestine Action, now a proscribed organisation, managed to penetrate RAF Brize Norton and damage RAF Voyager aircraft.
Not only was this an act of vandalism; it was a direct attack on our national security. Our personnel stationed at RAF Brize Norton serve with total dedication and professionalism. They work tirelessly to support our armed forces deployed across the world, deliver military assistance to Ukraine, and have been formally recognised for their contribution in flying humanitarian aid into Gaza. As such, this act did nothing to further the path to peace.
Immediately following the attack, all RAF sites were raised to “high alert”. Following this, we have maintained an “enhanced vigilance” security posture across all defence sites. This includes increased patrols with greater visibility, placing guard forces at heightened readiness, ensuring CCTV, gates and barriers are in good order, and directing improved security awareness and behaviours across the defence estate. These remain in place.
RAF Brize Norton is now operating an upgraded and automated track-and-detect system covering all operational air frames and linked to a central control room. This means more areas can be monitored and tracked, with a faster response from quick reaction forces. This approach is being rolled out to other priority RAF sites.
Advanced technical security enhancements are also being installed to ensure our sites are secure by design. We are significantly investing in a broader programme of technology, such as drones. MOD Police teams are accelerating the deployment of remote piloted aerial systems to deliver a specialist policing capability at our most secure sites. We will expand this programme to enhance the security and guarding provision across priority sites, and we are working with industry to rapidly procure enduring technological solutions.
RPAS is a proven capability to deepen security effect. Establishments and their personnel will benefit through the increased security and protection that routine RPAS use provides, including increased situational awareness, intelligence gathering and increased patrolling efficiency of not only the establishments but the surrounding areas. We have approved funding for eight high-priority sites, with an intention to invest across a further 31 priority sites as a matter of urgency.
Defence is also looking at options to further enhance the physical infrastructure in place at its sites, alongside the technological improvements referenced above, to prevent unauthorised access. This approach will be piloted at RAF Coningsby and RAF Waddington.
The permanent secretary has approved £20 million funding for a digital transformation of security within the MOD. This will improve our understanding of the dependencies of defence critical national infrastructure, risk and assurance of physical security, and enable better real-time situational awareness of security incidents.
However, improving security is not just about physical changes. It is also about investing in our people. To support this programme of enhanced vigilance, we are accelerating recruitment of MOD Police, MOD Guard Service and Military Provost Guard Service through targeted campaigns and considering financial incentives for the sites with the greatest recruitment challenges.
We take improving security very seriously as we move our armed forces to warfighting readiness. Identifying and responding to security breaches is a core part of defence’s daily business, whether through vigilance on the ground, intelligence-led policing, or rapid incident response. We work closely with policing and partners to stay ahead of emerging threats and take robust action where necessary. Alongside these immediate measures, we are assessing further medium and long-term improvements through the defence investment plan process this autumn.
[HCWS913]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, as your Lordships will be aware, should there be a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
As noble Lords will know, when this Government came to power, we inherited a prison system in crisis. From January 2023 to September 2024, the adult male prison estate routinely operated at over 99% of capacity. Had we exceeded maximum capacity, the consequences would have been unthinkable: with nowhere to put new prisoners, the police would have stopped making arrests and courts would have suspended trials. It could have led to the total breakdown of law and order, with criminals running amok on our streets.
This Government carried out a series of emergency release schemes to prevent that disaster. At the same time, we launched the independent sentencing review, with one clear goal: to make sure we never run out of prison places. The highly regarded former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, and his expert panel published their recommendations on 22 May, and the Government accepted the majority of them in principle.
One of the specific areas we asked the review to look at was how we tackle the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons. They currently account for around 12% of our prison population—that is 10,772 foreign national offenders as of June this year—and cost British taxpayers millions of pounds every year.
The Government have made it very clear that foreign nationals should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced, and, where appropriate, we will work with the Home Office to pursue their removal. I am pleased to say that in our first year of government, we have removed 14% more foreign national offenders than in any year that the previous Government were in office. But we must go further and faster, in removing individuals who have broken our laws and who have no right to be here.
The draft instrument before the Committee today implements the sentencing review’s recommendation to reduce the minimum period that foreign national offenders have to spend in prison from 50% to 30% of the custodial term, and to increase the window in which they can be removed.
I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this instrument and its report.
As noble Lords will know, the Secretary of State has a power to remove eligible foreign national offenders—those serving a determinate sentence who are liable to be removed from the UK—from prison for the sole purpose of immediate deportation. This is referred to as the early removal scheme. Foreign national offenders serving indeterminate sentences, life and sentences of imprisonment for public protection are outside the scope of the scheme. Prisoners serving a sentence for a terrorism-related offence set out in Schedule 19ZA to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are also excluded.
The power to remove a foreign national offender under this scheme is discretionary, and prison governors can refuse to remove individuals where it would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system—for example, where there is clear evidence that the prisoner is planning further crime, including plans to evade immigration control and return to the UK or dealing in class A drugs in custody—or, finally, where there are serious public safety concerns regarding early removal.
Under the current rules, eligible offenders can be removed up to 18 months before the earliest release point of the sentence, provided they have served one-half of the requisite custodial period. This SI amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow foreign national offenders to be removed up to four years before the earliest release point of their sentence, subject to having served 30% of the requisite custodial period. This means eligible offenders can be removed from prison earlier.
At current removal rates, we expect this change to free up to approximately 500 prison spaces a year. Not only will it help us to safeguard prisons from collapse, with all the risks that poses to the public, it will also prevent taxpayers’ money being spent to keep foreign nationals in this country any longer than necessary.
Noble Lords will also know that the Government are seeking to go further still in the Sentencing Bill, which was introduced on 2 September, by removing any minimum custodial requirement, so foreign national offenders can be removed from prison immediately after they are sentenced. In line with the existing early removal scheme, this further change will apply to all foreign criminals serving a determinate sentence, except terrorists and prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, such as life, who will be excluded.
Until this change takes effect, this SI will ensure that foreign offenders with no right to be here can still be removed from prison for the purpose of deportation earlier. This will protect victims by ensuring that those individuals can never offend in this country again, and if they return in breach of a deportation order, they will be liable to serve the rest of their sentence.
Indeed, concern for the protection of victims is driving the changes we are making through the sentencing review and now the Bill as a whole. By ensuring that we never again risk running out of prison places, we will ensure that our criminal justice system can function effectively and sustainably, keeping us all safe.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his helpful and brief introduction to what is, in effect, a relatively simple instrument. It comes against a background, as he explained, of the appalling shortage of prison places that the Government inherited and that has only got worse, inevitably, during this Government. The overcrowding that has been the result of that shortage and the crisis that has given rise to the early release scheme have to be ended as quickly as possible; for example, the use of police cells where there has been simply no space for custody within our prisons is unacceptable, and there has been an unholy scramble for places for prisoners wherever they might be found across the estate. That is the inevitable result of a prison system running at 99% of capacity.
The consequences of the prison shortage have been outlined by the Minister, and the clear goal of the Government has been to reduce prison numbers over time, although they rightly accept that that will take a great deal of time. I know the Minister is concerned to concentrate on shorter sentences and rehabilitation, but I am grateful to him for putting the numbers on this instrument—that it is expected to save 500 prison places a year, which is a significant number.
However, in one sense, this instrument is directed at an easy target, because the deportation of convicted foreign offenders, who are liable to be deported anyway, is generally justified in principle for all the reasons the Minister gave and is widely supported. It may also be said that our national Government have little interest in what happens to deported prisoners after they are deported, so that if they leave our prisons earlier than envisaged at the time of sentence, that does little harm, but the instrument rightly excludes some serious offenders from the ambit of the reduction.
However, I note the regret of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee at the lack of review of the need for changes in this early removal scheme. The committee was concerned at the lack of information given to Parliament as to both the number of foreign national offenders likely to be affected by these changes and the treatment that such deported offenders would be likely to receive in their home countries following deportation. The committee reported that
“it would have been helpful for the EM to include background information … on FNO sentences and the treatment of deported prisoners in their home countries”.
It helpfully dug out a considerable quantity of additional information that was within the public domain that it found helpful, and it reported on that.
As a general point, the interest that the United Kingdom Government have in foreign national offenders should not cease altogether when such offenders are deported. At whatever stage, the Government and Parliament have an interest in considering the fate of deportees after they left this country and any continuing risk that they might present if they should return to the United Kingdom—or to United Kingdom citizens abroad, of course. Hence, the overall conclusion of the committee was that, while it recognised the urgency of the need to reduce the pressure on prison capacity, as we all do,
“the information provided with such instruments should … facilitate full scrutiny by Parliament. This means there should be a discussion of the risks as well as the benefits of the measures and adequate background information to understand the full effects; preferably, supported by an analysis of … similar changes”.
It is clearly the committee’s view that Parliament had not had that kind of information to the level of detail that we should have done.
I endorse that conclusion. However, subject to those caveats, I broadly support the measure to enable deportation at an earlier stage of prisoner sentences following sentence.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument today. I begin by affirming that we on this side strongly support the principle that foreign nationals who break the law in our country also break the trust that we accord them and that they have no right to remain here. This order is therefore a welcome step which builds upon reforms that the Conservative Government made in January 2024 to advance the point at which foreign nationals could be removed from prison and deported from 12 months to 18 months before the end of their custodial sentence. The instrument before us today expands on this, increasing the maximum removal period for foreign offenders to the later of either 30% of their custodial term or four years before their earliest release date. This is estimated to result in some foreign prisoners serving only 10% of their sentences before being deported, down from the current 25%. That, as I have said, is a welcome step, but it is not enough.
By the Government’s own admission, this reform will free up, at most, just 500 places. The taxpayer currently spends upwards of £500 million annually just on housing and feeding imprisoned individuals who neither need nor deserve to be here. Five hundred fewer places in our prisons accounts for just 5% of that total cost. That is before we consider the forecast growth in the prison population. Does the Minister really believe that these numbers reflect effective policy? Perhaps what is more worrying is that since this measure has been introduced, the Government have changed their tune. On 10 August this year, the Secretary of State announced the Government’s revised position that foreign offenders should be deported immediately after receiving a custodial sentence. Earlier in the year, we tabled an amendment to the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill which called for the automatic removal of any foreign national convicted of an offence. While it is always gratifying to see the Government following our lead, their slowness to adopt this belated measure will have real-life impacts for the law-abiding people of this country. It will take time to implement and require more time-consuming legislation. In the meantime, more offenders are charged without the prospect of immediate deportation. The taxpayer will pay for the privilege, so I ask the Minister to lay out a timetable towards immediate deportations of convicted foreign nationals.
Similarly, there is nothing preventing the continuation of the endless cycle of appeals and repeals that cause delay. It seems as if every week a foreign criminal has his deportation order blocked under the doubtful guise of human rights. In the long term, without protections against human rights manipulation, this statutory instrument could end up seeing the same number of offenders removed each year as under current policy, just a little bit earlier. That is not effective policy. Can the Minister outline how this will be avoided?
That is why the Conservatives would disapply the Human Rights Act in all immigration-related cases. No delays or obstructions in legislation would be used for means for which they were not designed. Swift, effective removal is what we require.
To sum up, we believe that this statutory instrument is a first step, albeit a small one, towards the shared goal of the removal and deportation of foreign offenders.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions to this important debate about foreign national offenders in our prisons.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly referred to the crisis that we inherited and how having offenders in police cells is not acceptable. What we need is a sustainable justice system. Our prison population is still going to increase. We are building 14,000 more prison places—as I know we have said before, that is 500 more than the previous Government did in 14 years—but we need those extra prison places.
When foreign national offenders are deported, what is clear is that they are not welcome back. Although deportation policy sits with the Home Office, for me, it is clear is that, if they return, they will be locked up and will finish their sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, rightly referred to our desire to deport more of our foreign national offenders. We have increased that figure by 14%, but we know that more can be done. That is why this legislation will be helpful.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, will be interested to know that, before the Recess, I went to HMP Huntercombe, which is a prison for foreign national offenders. It was clear that, although the governor knew that he could refuse to remove prisoners, the new foreign national offender team that we have in the prison—as in 91 other prisons—was making a big difference in supporting foreign national offenders leaving early, as well as encouraging them to do so. That is starting to make a difference, but it is clear that the Sentencing Bill is needed to help us get a sustainable justice system; that Bill has within it immediate deportation post sentencing.
A quarter of our foreign national offenders are on remand so have not yet been convicted. I am aware that the previous Home Secretary—I have not spoken to the new Home Secretary since she has moved across Westminster—was looking at Article 8 as well.
The proposed changes in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025 will enable the Government to remove foreign national offenders from prison for the purpose of immediate deportation earlier in their sentence. By removing them from the country earlier, we will better protect victims from their reoffending. This will also help ease a prison capacity crisis inherited from the previous Government, keeping the public safer and ensuring that less of their tax money is spent on those who come to this country and abuse our hospitality by committing crime.
Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson
That the Grand Committee do consider the Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, in December last year, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby made a Written Statement to the House announcing the Government’s plan to implement two outstanding recommendations made in the independent domestic homicide sentencing review, which was undertaken by Clare Wade KC.
In opposition, we welcomed this review and its approach of updating the sentencing framework for murder to reflect the seriousness of domestic homicides while also balancing the need to ensure that any reforms do not unduly punish abused women who kill their abuser. We did, however, call for more of Clare’s recommendations to be implemented, which is precisely what the draft instrument before us today aims to achieve. The measures in this instrument are central to the Government’s mission to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls, as we anticipate that they will have a significant impact on the custodial terms given to the perpetrators in these cases, rightly recognising the seriousness of domestic murders.
The current sentencing framework for murder, as set out in Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, was first introduced over 20 years ago, and multiple piecemeal amendments have been made to it since then. In recent years, particular concerns have been raised regarding gendered disparities for murders committed in a domestic context.
Clare Wade KC was commissioned by the previous Government to review sentencing in domestic homicide cases and establish whether the law and sentencing guidelines were fit for purpose. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Clare for her thorough and considered work on this review, and to those whose campaigning led to the commissioning of this review. That includes Carole Gould and Julie Devey, founders of the Killed Women network and mothers of two young women, Ellie and Poppy, who were tragically murdered by their former partners in 2019 and 2018 respectively. We commend their courage in continuing to share their stories, and their commitment to campaigning for change.
Although some of Clare Wade’s recommendations were accepted and implemented by the previous Government, a number remain outstanding. This instrument implements two of the outstanding recommendations. First, it introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders connected with the end of a relationship. In over a third of the murder cases analysed by Clare as part of her review, the murder occurred at the end or perceived end of the relationship, and in the majority of cases that appeared to be the catalyst for the killing. In all these cases the perpetrator was male. A murder involving resentment or jealousy by the perpetrator at the end of a relationship is a significant feature of cases involving controlling or coercive behaviour and is often the final controlling act of an abusive partner.
Secondly, this instrument introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders involving strangulation. In recent years, strangulation has been recognised as a method of exerting power and control, particularly in the context of domestic abuse, where female victims are assaulted by physically stronger males. Nearly a third of the murder cases analysed involved strangulation, all of which involved a male perpetrator and female victim.
The intention of this instrument is to expressly recognise these factors in statute, to ensure that domestic murders and the particular harms that arise in these cases are given specialist consideration in the framework. Sentencing in individual cases is of course a matter for the independent judiciary, and it will therefore continue to be for the judge to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the aggravating factors in each case
I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this instrument and its report. As the committee noted, we consulted with the independent Sentencing Council on the draft instrument, in line with our statutory duty to consult the council before amending Schedule 21 by regulations. We are grateful for the council’s feedback on the draft instrument, which we took into careful consideration. A full account of the consultation is included in the draft Explanatory Memorandum published alongside this instrument, including the points raised by the Sentencing Council and the Government’s response.
Alongside this important legislation, the Lord Chancellor has also invited the Law Commission to conduct a review of homicide law and sentencing. The sentencing framework for murder was first introduced over 20 years ago and has never been subject to wholesale review. This contrasts with the Sentencing Council’s sentencing guidelines, which are regularly reviewed and updated, with any changes being subject to thorough consultation.
Although Clare Wade’s review and the legislation before us today go some way towards ensuring that the sentencing framework for murder reflects a modern understanding of domestic abuse, more fundamental reform is also required. The intention of the Law Commission review is a complete reconsideration of the sentencing framework for murder, with a view to making recommendations for a new Schedule 21. The review will also consider the law relating to homicide offences, including full and partial defences to those offences.
We anticipate that the Law Commission review will take several years to complete, and we will then need to consider the recommendations and bring forward any necessary legislation. This is the right course of action for such a complex area of law but it is not a quick one, which is why we are taking more immediate action in the short term by introducing the measures in this instrument.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, it is perhaps ironic that the first statutory instrument we considered was designed to relieve the pressure on the prison population, but these measures are calculated to increase the prison population. They will add to the list of aggravating features that a judge will have to take into account when considering the length of time to serve and, in reality, as the Minister said, they will have a significant impact on custodial terms.
Such amendments should be introduced only where it is plain that they are needed, and I express reservations as to whether that criterion is satisfied in this case. Of course, the amendments were recommended by Clare Wade in her review of domestic homicide sentencing. I pay tribute to her for that review, but it has not left me convinced that these measures are necessary or desirable.
The review puts a spotlight on the fact that the homicide of a woman by a man is often the final chapter of a coercive relationship in which the man has regularly abused the woman. I can see the arguments that, in those circumstances, the previous history aggravates the final act of homicide by the man, but effect has already been given to that factor by the addition last year to the list of aggravating factors in Schedule 21.
These regulations were considered on 14 July this year by the Second Delegated Legislation Committee of the House of Commons. On that occasion, as has been repeated today, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice said that the draft instrument was
“central to the Government’s mission to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/7/25; col. 1.]
The justification put forward appears to be that this will augment deterrence. The Opposition spokesman then referred to reasons why the previous Government had not taken forward these measures and to reservations expressed by the Sentencing Council, but indicated that the Opposition would not oppose the measures. I believe that the comment on these measures by the Sentencing Council was that they were “unnecessary” and “counterproductive”.
In this House, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has made no adverse comment in relation to the measures, so I will briefly express my personal reservations. Schedule 21, which dates back to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has had the unintended and unfortunate indirect consequence of approximately doubling sentence lengths across the board, contributing significantly to prison overcrowding. Adding to that list of aggravating factors will augment this effect and, as I said, should be contemplated only where there are compelling reasons.
The reason given for making strangulation a factor that augments the seriousness of the offence is stated, on page 21 of the Wade review, as being because
“strangulation includes additional suffering and greater harm”.
When one considers the many different ways in which a man may kill a woman, I question whether there is justification for singling out strangulation as, in itself, so increasing the horrific effect of the murder of the woman as to justify a result that may be several further years of imprisonment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, in considering this instrument, I once again express our gratitude to the Minister for the way in which he set out the justification for the instrument and its background, particularly the fact that the Law Commission review will take some time to happen. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, for the careful consideration that he has given to this and for his expression of concern at the effect that adding these two aggravating factors could have on sentencing.
It has been explained that the instrument adds two statutory aggravating factors to Schedule 21 for judges to consider when imposing a minimum term for murder. The first is when the murder is connected with either the actual or intended end of an intimate relationship, while the second is when the murder involves strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, judges will of course be entitled to consider all factors and take all factors into account when sentencing for murder. Those will include anyway the fact that a relationship is coercive or controlling and the degree to which the murder reflects the coercion or control—in this case, generally by a man over a woman.
I know that we all welcome the further Law Commission review that is promised, but it is a fact that these reviews take a considerable amount of time; that is inevitably the result of the care that the Law Commission gives to such considerations.
In one sense, this instrument does very little. I note the noble and learned Lord’s concern that the changes will lead to significantly increased sentences. One can see that a statutory aggravating factor does have that effect—and that is the intended effect. However, how far sentences would be increased is not capable of assessment; neither is there any clear evidence of how far such sentences will be increased because of an aggravating factor.
The facts are that the social background against which this instrument is presented is that coercive control is now recognised far more widely than it used to be; and that the effects of factors such as those mentioned in this instrument are more widely recognised and taken more seriously. So I hope that the noble and learned Lord’s concern that the changes will lead to significantly increased sentences proves unfounded, not in the sense that there should not be a recognition of aggravating factors but in the sense that such aggravating factors are increasingly recognised by judges in any event.
The two factors added by this instrument around coercive relationships were particularly important, as has been said, in influencing the 2023 review of domestic homicide sentencing by Clare Wade KC and in framing her recommendations. In the domestic abuse context, which is the context we are considering, they are particularly significant. They are also significant in the light of the Government’s stated determination, on which they are plainly acting, to halve violence against women and girls, which is a major ambition.
The first change recognises that actual or threatened relationship breakdown can, and often does, play a role in promoting extreme domestic violence. I accept that the extent of deterrence that follows from that is uncertain, but it sends an important signal to the potential perpetrators of domestic violence about the effect of coercive control.
The second change recognises the particular significance of strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation in domestic violence, particularly by men on women. We recognised that during the passage of what is now the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, when I, along with the Government, signed a cross-party amendment to introduce the new offence of non-fatal strangulation. In the debates on the then Bill, we took account of a great deal of evidence of the high incidence of strangulation in domestic violence cases, as well as of the distressing fact that so many cases where non-fatal strangulation occurs ultimately lead to the perpetrator escalating that violence to, ultimately, fatal violence and murder.
The fact is, therefore, that judges will continue to weigh up all relevant factors in assessing minimum terms of imprisonment to be served by those sentenced to life for murder. There is merit in highlighting these two factors because they can only send an important signal to the actual and potential perpetrators of domestic violence—and, indeed, to the victims of such domestic violence because, of course, victims are often frightened out of reporting domestic violence even when it is an attempt at strangulation. The evidence that that can escalate to murder in due course is important; it is important that potential victims, as well as potential perpetrators, should know of that signal. In my view, that is a powerful reason for supporting this instrument.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument amends Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020. These regulations implement key recommendations from the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review led by Clare Wade KC and mark an important step forward in how our legal system treats cases of murder that involve domestic abuse. They are welcome, and I say that notwithstanding the concern that they may add to the prison population, as explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips.
The instrument introduces two new statutory aggravating features in determining the minimum term for murder: first, where the offender is engaged in controlling or coercive behaviour towards the victim; and, secondly, where the murder has involved sustained and excessive violence, sometimes referred to, in depressing jargon, as “overkill”. By contrast, importantly, it conversely explains a new mitigating factor, putting it on a statutory basis. It recognises that an offender’s culpability may be reduced where the victim has engaged in controlling or coercive behaviour towards the offender.
These additions reflect a long-overdue evolution in the way the criminal courts have recognised domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 broadened our understanding of harm so that it embraced emotional, psychological and economic abuse, but, until now, the sentencing framework for murder has not fully reflected the complex dynamics that can exist in abusive relationships, whether in the context of the abuse suffered by victims before their death or the potential impact of long-term abuse on an offender’s culpability.
We on this side welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward these changes promptly—that is, ahead of the Law Commission’s broader review of homicide. These changes send a clear message: domestic murders are not isolated or inexplicable acts but, often, the tragic endpoint of long-standing abuse.
However, I note the concerns raised by the Sentencing Council, particularly around the interaction between new statutory factors and the existing, established judicial discretion to take such behaviour into account. The council has rightly warned that codifying these factors may risk creating ambiguity or inconsistency in sentencing, particularly if guidance in respect of it is not clear. There is also a risk that difficult evidential issues—in determining, for example, whether a relationship was “intimate” or whether coercive control occurred—could inadvertently complicate proceedings or place additional burdens on the families of victims or on prosecutors.
To mitigate this, we urge the Government to ensure that clear and robust sentencing guidelines are published alongside, and at the same time as, these changes; that the Government provide training for judges and practitioners to apply the new factors consistently; and that there is a commitment to monitor the impact of these amendments, particularly on the outcomes of trials and sentence lengths in domestic homicide cases.
To conclude, subject to those caveats, these regulations are positive, necessary and a welcome reform. They better align our sentencing framework with the reality of domestic abuse and send a strong signal that such crimes will be treated with the seriousness they deserve. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. I hope that noble and noble and learned Lords will appreciate that, due to some personnel changes in the department over the last couple of days, I may not be as familiar with or as expert on this as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who would have been here today.
The observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, on prison capacity is important. Due to the existing length of murder sentences, these changes will not increase the prison population for at least 13 years after they come into force and will not reach a steady state until 2052 for strangulation and 2062 for the end of a relationship. This will be factored into our long-term capacity planning. Also, Clare Wade KC found that many domestic murders, invariably those committed by men against women, take place at the end of a relationship, when the perpetrator perceives that they can no longer control the victim. Further analysis of the sentencing remarks in these cases also found that, in some instances, the sentencing judge appeared to consider the provocation or distress caused to the perpetrator by the breakdown of the relationship as mitigation for the crime. This factor will ensure that the perpetrators in these cases take full responsibility for their crimes.
The noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Sandhurst, referred to Clare Wade’s recommendations. It is important to recognise that the Government are not taking forward the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review’s recommendation to disapply the 25-year starting point to domestic murders. Implementing this recommendation would lead to significant inconsistency between domestic and non-domestic murders where a weapon has been taken to the scene. The review also recommended excluding sexual infidelity as mitigation, and excluding the use of a weapon as aggravation in domestic murder cases. The Government do not consider these recommendations to be necessary, as they largely involve putting a non-statutory position into legislation.
The Government recognise that application of the factor and whether there is sufficient evidence to establish it will depend on the circumstances and available evidence in a particular case. If evidence of the factor cannot be established to the criminal standard, the aggravating factor will not apply. The Government recognise that, in some cases, establishing whether the victim and offender had been in a relationship and whether this was connected to the murder may increase the length of some legal proceedings. The sentencing framework is clear that the statutory aggravating factors are not exhaustive; the sentencing judge is able to consider any relevant factors in terms of aggravation, including pregnancy and stalking. The end of a relationship factor in particular is not necessarily intended to acknowledge the vulnerability of the victim; it is intended to address the link between resentment at the end of the relationship on the part of the perpetrator and coercive control.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to strangulation. Strangulation has been recognised as a method of exerting power and control, which is particularly relevant in the context of domestic abuse where female victims are assaulted by physically stronger males. The review found that nearly a third of the murder cases involved strangulation—all of these involved a male perpetrator and a female victim—and highlighted that strangulation is a gendered form of killing that encapsulates the vulnerability of the victim and inflicts a high degree of suffering. I am sure that noble Lords will look forward to the process of the Law Commission’s review and keep a close eye on how it progresses, although it will take considerable time.
A number of today’s remarks gave general examples that are sobering reminders of the necessity of these reforms. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, is quite right to refer to victims being fearful of raising domestic abuse, even though it can sometimes be very severe abuse. I believe that the statutory aggravating factors introduced by this instrument are essential to ensure that our sentencing framework appropriately recognises the particular and wider harms that arise in cases of domestic murder. While it is for the judge to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the aggravating factors in each case, we expect that these measures, along with Clare Wade’s recommendations already implemented, will have a significant impact on the custodial terms given to perpetrators in these cases. This rightly recognises the seriousness of domestic murders, ensuring that sentencing in these cases delivers justice for victims and their families.
Online Safety Act 2023 (Qualifying Worldwide Revenue) Regulations 2025
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Online Safety Act 2023 (Qualifying Worldwide Revenue) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, as set out in the Online Safety Act 2023, Ofcom is empowered to make regulations that define how the qualifying worldwide revenue—QWR—of a provider of a regulated service is to be determined, along with the relevant qualifying period. The Act requires Ofcom to send the draft regulations to the Secretary of State, whose role is to then lay them before Parliament. In accordance with this process, the Secretary of State for DSIT laid the draft QWR regulations on 26 June 2025.
Defining QWR is critical to establishing the fee regime whereby providers of regulated services pay a fee to Ofcom to fund the costs of online safety regulation. The regulations are also a key part of informing a penalties regime that will act as a suitable deterrent to non-compliance among providers in scope of the Online Safety Act.
The regulations define QWR in relation to fees as the total revenue of a provider referable to the provision of regulated services—that is, revenue generated from relevant parts of a service, including parts where user to user, search or certain pornographic content may be encountered from anywhere in the world.
The regulations account for the apportionment of qualifying revenue in cases where direct attribution to relevant parts is not possible. In these cases, providers must apportion revenue to relevant parts using a “just and reasonable” method.
The qualifying period for calculating QWR is defined in the regulations as the calendar year two years prior to the fee-charging year. For example, for the 2026-27 charging year, the qualifying period will be 1 January to 31 December 2024.
The Act empowers Ofcom to issue penalties to non-compliant providers up to £18 million or 10% of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. In cases where Ofcom has found joint and several liability for a contravention of the Act within a group of entities, the regulations define QWR as the total of all worldwide revenues received by the provider and its group undertakings, whether or not that revenue is referable to a regulated service. Ofcom’s view is that the approach set out in regard to penalties will act as a suitable deterrent to non-compliance.
For both fees and penalties, in defining QWR Ofcom’s view is that the use of worldwide revenue reflects the global nature of online services and ensures fairness across providers—and, further, that this is consistent with the Act, which applies to any service with links to the United Kingdom, regardless of whether the service in question is a UK company.
During the passage of the Act through Parliament, it was agreed that the taxpayer should not be liable for paying for online safety regulation but rather that the providers of regulated services in scope of the Act should fund the regulatory regime. Following a public consultation between October 2024 and January 2025, Ofcom has recommended that the Secretary of State consider setting the QWR threshold at £250 million. In practice, this means that providers whose QWR meets or exceeds the threshold will be liable to pay fees to Ofcom unless they are exempt. Ofcom believes that this recommendation balances proportionality and workability, while limiting the impact on SMEs. As set out in the Act, the Secretary of State must now consider this advice and set the final threshold in a separate statutory instrument later this year. Ofcom will then consult on guidance relating to its Statement of Charging Principles, publish the final statement and begin invoicing providers in the 2026-27 financial year.
In accordance with its duties under the Act, Ofcom has drafted these regulations, and it is now for both Houses to consider them.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this SI, although I have some questions about it. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to them and, if not, write to me about them.
It is good to see progress being made on these issues. This was an area of considerable discussion and debate during the passage of the Bill, which some present will remember, mainly because we had no real certainty about the ambitions regarding whether those who were benefiting from Ofcom’s work would actually be prepared to pay for it. Even if they were prepared to pay for it, there was no certainty that they could be made to pay for it. Even so, despite the wording and deep thought that has gone into this particular piece of paper before us today, I still have some doubts about whether it will get the effect it wants.
Can the Minister say whether there is a back-up plan should the fees not meet the requirements of Ofcom in its vital role, which increases day by day? What would happen then? If the main companies involved—99% of them are at least operating outside the UK, and most of them are established outside the UK—refuse to play ball and are able to find a way around this process, we may face a bit of a difficulty, and quite an expensive one at that. So, my first point is to congratulate the department on bringing this forward, but I worry a little about whether it will be able to achieve its aims and objectives in a way that will be satisfactory for those of us who are concerned about the generality of this issue and also for those who are directly affected by some of the work done by these companies.
My second point is a bit technical, but that may just be because I am an accountant. The choice that has been made here in assessing the QWR is that it should be “just and reasonable”. These are fine words, but they are not very common. The words used in most accounting systems across most of the world—unless there are areas that I have yet to experience—are “true and fair”. Accountants have not loved those words, have often argued about them and constantly disagree about what they mean, but they are what works in assessing the effective financial position of any publicly owned company: most companies that wish to receive investment have to prove to a “true and fair” standard that their accounts reflected the true situation in that company.
Why have the Government agreed with Ofcom in going for these other words, which must be deliberately chosen? If they are deliberately chosen, will the Minister explain why “just and reasonable” is in any way equivalent to “true and fair” and, if it is not, as I suspect, why that choice was made? I do not say that it is wrong; whether the calculations on which financial results are being made are just and reasonable is a perfectly good way into any discussion with any organisation or company. It would be a good way of testing whether contributions to be made by companies in scope of Ofcom are just, in the sense, I suppose, of being justified, and reasonable in the sense of being able to be made to an apportionment that is sensibly aligned to the actions that will be taken by Ofcom against that company, very often against its economic interests. But I am intrigued by it. There is a perfectly good system that operates in the accounting world; “true and fair” has been used for years and years. We do not like it, but we have learned to live with it. Why have they not taken it forward in this sense?
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the draft regulations. They represent a crucial step in implementing the Online Safety Act, aiming to foster a safer online environment. The principle that the financial burden of regulating the vast and complex online landscape should fall on those service providers that generate substantial qualifying worldwide revenues, rather than the UK taxpayer, is one that we wholeheartedly endorse.
In our view, Ofcom has articulated a robust and pragmatic rationale for basing fees and penalties on global rather than UK-only revenues. This approach, defining qualifying worldwide revenue as the total revenue referable to the regulated parts of a service, is designed to ensure that major multinational operators are appropriately deterred from non-compliance and contribute their fair share to user safety. We believe that such a model strengthens enforcement and promotes regulatory fairness.
However, we also acknowledge the concerns raised by industry stakeholders and examined by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Issues such as the aggregation of revenues across complex business groups, while providing consistency, may create anomalies for certain providers. Questions persist regarding the calculation and apportionment of revenue, especially when services are bundled or operated internationally, and how Ofcom will assess the provider’s just and reasonable approach to apportionment.
Furthermore, the practical impact on smaller providers if fee thresholds are set too low is a significant consideration, despite the current expectation that small and micro-businesses, charities and public sector bodies are unlikely to be affected. I therefore seek assurance from the Minister regarding the practical impact of these regulations. Specifically, is he satisfied that, when setting the crucial fee thresholds for providers required to notify their qualifying worldwide revenue, the regime will remain proportionate and workable so the burden falls primarily on major enterprises and not disproportionately on smaller providers? Furthermore, is he satisfied by Ofcom’s core rationale for adopting a worldwide revenue approach as vital for effective deterrence and regulatory fairness?
I also urge the Government to commit to ongoing review of this framework, particularly given Ofcom’s intention to provide further guidance on just and reasonable apportionment. We support these regulations but expect further scrutiny, coupled with the Government’s commitment to address these assurances.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument forms a key part of the regulatory framework underpinning the Online Safety Act 2023, a significant and necessary piece of legislation that forms part of my party’s legacy in government. I am very proud of the small contribution that I made to its passage through your Lordships’ House. That Act’s core aim is to make the online world safer, particularly for children and vulnerable users—an aim that all of us in this Committee support fully.
That said, let me make a brief point; it does not go directly to this instrument but it is, I think, a point worth making. I am concerned by how controversial the Bill seems to have become in certain quarters—indeed, much more controversial than it deserves to be. Part, though not all, of that is perhaps due to the previous Secretary of State’s rather aggressive rebuttal of some of the claims made about it. So I express my hope and wish that the new Secretary of State will be more emollient in his debate in order to carry people with him, because it is so important that the public come along with the Bill.
This instrument sets out how Ofcom will calculate the qualifying worldwide revenue of regulated service providers. As the Minister has outlined, this matters for two reasons: first, to determine Ofcom’s fees and, secondly, to establish maximum penalties for breaches of up to 10% of global revenue or £18 million, whichever is higher.
Most notable, of course, is the use of worldwide revenue as the basis for both fees and penalties. Although this ensures consistency and deters underreporting, the concern was raised during the public consultation that it can prove disproportionate for providers with only limited UK operations. I hope that, when he comes to speak, the Minister can give a bit more clarity on this point. Has a formal assessment been carried out in this specific area? What safeguards exist to prevent excessive penalties in cases of genuine error?
There is also the question—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, set this out clearly so I will not go into it much—of the interpretation of terms such as “just and reasonable”, particularly in revenue apportionment and currency conversion. Consistent application will of course be critical. How will disagreements be resolved and what guidance will providers receive?
I would also be grateful for clarification on Regulation 4(3)(b), which refers to
“parts where search content may be encountered (in the case of search services and combined services)”.
Ofcom has indicated that both “search” and “user to user” can include the functionality of AI chatbots. I am pleased that it has clarified this point but, if that is so, it raises an important issue: in cases where an entity is to be fined for an unsafe AI chatbot, which service is considered referable? Is it the chatbot service itself, or is the chatbot to be considered an amalgam of a user-to-user service and a search service?
If it is to be just the chatbot service—these are, of course, increasingly being used as search services—many of them generate very little revenue. In fact, AI is frequently loss making for many of the large organisations operating in this space. Could their qualifying worldwide revenue, at least as defined, be negative in such cases? If so, how would that be treated under the regime?
Of course, we welcome the exemption for services with under £10 million in UK referable revenue—we feel that that is a sensible threshold—but are the Government willing to review it if evidence shows that it is deterring legitimate or public interest platforms from entering or remaining in the UK market?
These regulations are a necessary step. They must be implemented fairly, not just for the global giants but for those trying to do the right thing. In closing, I thank the Minister for stepping in at short notice to guide us through this—it was no doubt a not wholly welcome surprise. I hope that the Government will have plans in place to monitor the regime’s impact actively and closely to ensure that Ofcom’s guidance is transparent and consistent and that they will remain open to adjusting thresholds or definitions if unintended consequences should arise.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords, especially my noble friend Lord Stevenson, the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for their valuable contributions to this debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, should be really proud of his legacy in taking the Online Safety Act through Parliament. It is due to him that we are now implementing these regulations.
I shall now respond to the various questions raised by noble Lords and to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its report on this instrument. The total amount of fees collected must not exceed the annual cost of Ofcom’s exercise of its online safety regulation functions. The cost may vary from year to year. Ofcom’s expected annual costs for online safety services for 2025-26 are close to £92 million, which includes regulatory activities and what Ofcom calls common costs, which are its running costs, allocated to all sectors that it regulates. Ofcom’s annual costs will vary depending on the level of regulatory activity undertaken in any given year, and those for online safety for 2026-27 will be published in the 2027 tables. Ofcom’s duties under the Act are extensive, and this will allow it to deliver effectively.
Service providers whose qualifying worldwide revenue is at or above a revenue threshold that we are discussing, and which these regulations will allow Ofcom to consult on and set, will need to pay approximately 0.02% to 0.03% of their qualifying worldwide revenue in fees. The Secretary of State will determine the threshold figure, having taken advice from Ofcom, which recommends a threshold of £250 million. If implemented, that means that only the largest companies will be in scope of fee paying. For example, a company with a qualifying worldwide revenue of £250 million can expect fees to constitute something like £50,000 to £75,000, using the formula of 0.02% to 0.03%.
Ofcom has robust enforcement powers available to use against companies that fail to fulfil their duties and will be able to issue enforcement decisions. That is in response to a question posed by my noble friend Lord Stevenson. This includes non-payment of fees, which is explicitly covered under Section 141 of the Online Safety Act.
Ofcom’s authority to collect fees is set up, as I said earlier, under Section 84 of the Act. Its authority to collect penalties is also set up under Schedule 13. If a provider of a regulated service does not pay its fee to Ofcom in full, Ofcom may give the provider a penalty notice specifying the outstanding sum and a date on which it must be paid. It may also bring legal proceedings for the recovery of the whole or part of the amount due.
I will write to my noble friend Lord Stevenson on the issue of Ofcom’s future receipts being lower than its costs.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for trying to explain the “just and reasonable” approach. Just to unpick what he said, what is Ofcom consulting about? There seems a disjuncture in what we are trying to do here. We are going to pass this regulation tomorrow—it will be in force in a couple of weeks, according to Ofcom—yet we still do not know whether Ofcom has completed its discussion about whether companies are prepared to accept “just and reasonable”. Is that a fair summary of where we are?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My noble friend makes a good point. Ofcom is consulting on the guidance to help providers understand the ways of apportioning revenue in a “just and reasonable” manner. Its guidance will hopefully be published in the last quarter of this year. Until such time, I am sure there will be further guidance for providers along the way.
To come back to the scrutinising of legislation, ongoing parliamentary scrutiny is crucial. Indeed, the Online Safety Act requires Ofcom’s codes to be laid in Parliament for scrutiny. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee continues to provide vital scrutiny of statutory instruments and has drawn special attention to several instruments that my department has laid in the past few months. It identified the instrument we are debating today as an instrument of interest. The Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee and the Lords Communications and Digital Committee also play a vital role in scrutinising the regime.
Finally, the Secretary of State is required under Section 178 of the Act to review the effectiveness of its regulatory framework between two and five years after key provisions of the Act come into force. A report of the outcome of this review will be published and laid before Parliament.
Ofcom has said in response to the SLSC that it will review the information from providers and is able to use its powers to require further information under Section 100 of the Act should it need further details to scrutinise the approach taken by the provider—that is to do with the “just and reasonable” method. Ofcom has stated that it has access to sufficient expertise to make this assessment.
The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked about exemptions. Under the Act, Ofcom has the power to make or revoke exemptions and this must be approved by the Secretary of State. Ofcom is proposing to exempt service providers whose UK referral revenue is less than £10 million. We will consider that carefully before deciding whether to approve the exemption. I am sure noble Lords will know that about 60 companies would probably fall within the bracket of the Ofcom fees regime—the majority of which are non-UK companies. I am sure noble Lords will also know that most of these companies have revenues in excess of £250 million. I would have thought that there are not many companies with revenue of less than £10 million.
In the last 12 months, we have seen key elements of the Online Safety Bill progressed and implemented. Many of Ofcom’s powers are now in effect. Platforms are now legally required to protect children from harmful content, including rolling out highly effective age assurance to tackle pornography, suicide, self-harm and eating disorder content. This instrument will bring us one step closer to a fully implemented online safety regime, ensuring that companies raising revenue from online services cover the cost of regulation—not taxpayers—and take responsibility for keeping our children safe online.
Suicide Reduction
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the rate of suicide.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, our Plan for Change clearly commits to a renewed focus on preventing suicides. We know that one-third of all suicides are committed by people who are in contact with mental health services, and our new 10-year health plan sets out how we will strengthen and improve those services. We are committed to delivering an ambitious cross-government suicide prevention strategy to extend our reach, and recently published the new Staying Safe from Suicide guidance.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. Wednesday 10 September is World Suicide Prevention Day; can my noble friend give the House further assurances that the Government are intent on delivering the suicide prevention strategy for England and the implementation of the ambitions contained therein? Will the Government work with civil society, including charities such as the Samaritans—which is currently subject to some restructuring—to ensure that suicide prevention is an integral part of the delivery of the NHS 10-year plan, to which the Minister has already referred?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am very pleased to be able to provide the assurances that my noble friend seeks. I reiterate our commitment to implementing the strategy. My colleagues and I continue to work closely with our trusted partners in civil and voluntary society and elsewhere. The Secretary of State will be joining the Samaritans this week at their World Suicide Prevention Day event. I am also pleased that the e-learning module from NHS England’s Staying Safe from Suicide guidance, which I mentioned earlier, will be launched later this week.
Baroness Browning (Con)
I know that the Minister has an interest in this. Would she please find time to read the report, published last week jointly by Cambridge and Bournemouth universities, on suicide and autism? Among all the neurodivergent conditions, autism has by far the highest suicide rate. It is not rocket science why; it is preventable and I know the Minister will do all she can to help get that figure down.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right to speak as she has done. The suicide prevention strategy and the seven priority groups it identifies does include autistic people. As the noble Baroness will know, I think that is particularly key and I will certainly be pleased to look out for the report to which she refers.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, first, I welcome the Minister back to her place and wish her rudimentary health in the future.
Internationally, a co-ordinated government approach, as the noble Baroness said, is a proven factor in reducing suicide. She said moments ago that two-thirds of people who commit suicide are not actually involved in mental health services. In light of international practice, where the best success rates are when co-ordination is dealt with not by one department but across government, would the Government look at potentially moving this to the Cabinet Office, rather than it being led purely by the Department of Health?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his warm welcome back to the Dispatch Box in full health. The noble Lord makes an interesting suggestion. I will be co-ordinating a cross-government suicide prevention approach. It is the case, as the noble Lord alludes to, that this cannot be solved by DHSC alone. However, it is where it is placed presently and I assure him of the cross-government commitment we are making, and also how that will be developed so that it is much more meaningful than it is at present.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome back the Minister. With her leadership in this area, how will she ensure that the e-learning programme, which I am delighted is now ready, will be extended way beyond mental health practitioners? For example, school nurses, health visitors and many community nurses would benefit from undertaking that module. To do so, they would need additional time as part of their continuing professional development. Can the Minister confirm that that will be considered?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness as well for her kind comments. I assure her that the whole point about the e-learning module is that it can extend to people beyond those in mental health services. As I mentioned, only one-third of those who die by suicide are in contact with mental health services. Of the other two-thirds, a number are in contact with other health services, or other services, while some are in contact with none. There is a lot of work to do in this area and I am looking forward to developing it in the way that the noble Baroness referred.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for raising this important issue today. The Minister will be aware that the data on suicides shows some disparities: for example, men make up three-quarters of reported suicides and the north-east of England has a suicide rate nearly twice as high as that of London. What research are the Government aware of that explains such disparities? What is being done in local communities, especially by civil society organisations, to try to reduce the rates of suicide in those communities?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that there is disparity, which is often linked to priority risk factors, including, for example, financial difficulty, physical health, alcohol and drug abuse, harmful gambling, domestic abuse, social isolation and loneliness. Those priority risk factors are, sadly, more at play in the more disadvantaged areas to which the noble Lord referred. As we seek to develop further the effectiveness of the strategy—we have made great progress so far, but it is not enough—we need to ensure that the whole country is attended to and that we address the risk factors for suicide for everybody.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I too extend my warm welcome to my colleague; it is fantastic to see my noble friend back on the Front Bench. In our country, the greatest killer of women in the year after birth is suicide. What are my noble friend and her department specifically doing, within the suicide prevention strategy, to look at this very serious issue? What can we do to stop these tragedies, which affect not only the mothers but their children?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her comments and kindness. She is quite right that maternal health is absolutely key and to speak about the impact not only on mothers but on their children. We have developed a considerable programme for mental health well-being. We are also recruiting 8,500 mental health workers to reduce delays and provide fast treatment, because we need to ease pressure on what are incredibly busy mental health services. The area to which my noble friend referred is key and will be part of our development on maternity provision.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, suicide rates among veterans as a whole are broadly in line with those of the population at large, but they are much higher among younger veterans, both men and women. There is evidence that, in the past, the NHS has struggled to understand the mental needs of such veterans. What is being done to improve the situation?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord raises an important point. I have been in discussion about a whole range of matters around veterans’ health with the Veterans Minister, and I would be very pleased to discuss this further with him in the way that the noble and gallant Lord described.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the excellent work done by Samaritans’ volunteer listening service. Is she aware of its grave concern over plans to close over half of local Samaritans branches? Can she tell us what assessment the Government have made of the impact of those changes? Will she meet with representatives of those volunteers to discuss their concerns?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I regularly meet with the Samaritans and doubtless will be doing so again soon. I know it is a matter for the Samaritans to decide how best to use its resources, but I will gladly speak with them.
Gaza City
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, we continue to reiterate our position to the Israeli Government. Palestinian territory must not be reduced in the conduct of this war, and the forced displacement of people risks breaching international humanitarian law. The planned displacement of so many Gazans is morally unjustifiable, wholly disproportionate and utterly counterproductive. On 29 July, the Prime Minister announced the UK’s intention for a Palestinian state to be recognised by UNGA if Israel did not take substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commit to long-term peace.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister says the Government are now doing. We all look with horror at the policies of the Israeli Government to displace the population of Gaza City, to bomb them into submission or to starve them into submission. It is appalling in the 21st century to see this going on. Can we please toughen up the Government’s policy, impose further sanctions and, if a leading Israeli politician comes to Britain, protest at what the Israeli Government are doing? I believe that it is without the support of the majority of the people of Israel.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is not for me to assess the majority view of the people of Israel but, having been there very recently, I understand that there is a range of opinion among the Israeli population and that the people are not afraid to let us know this. This needs to be acknowledged and respected. My noble friend is right to draw attention to it.
The UK Government have taken many steps—unprecedented, extraordinary steps—which are appropriate given the situation that we see on the ground in Gaza and, increasingly, in the West Bank. Our position is clear. The UN General Assembly is now days away. We continue to make our assessment on the decision that we will be taking in New York at the end of this month.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Minister referred to the Government’s intention to recognise Palestine. The Montevideo convention sets out in international law the four criteria that constitute a state: a defined territory, a permanent population, a functioning Government and the capacity to enter into international relations. Which of these four criteria are fulfilled by the state of Palestine? This is the third time that I have asked the Minister this question. Perhaps this time she would do me the courtesy of answering it.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This is the third time that the noble Lord has asked that question. The response remains the same. We will make our decision when the time comes in accordance with the principles that we have laid out. We will explain fully the rationale for that decision at the time. I think that people can see the reasons for us getting to the place that we have. It was in our manifesto that we would recognise Palestine at a time that was conducive to bringing about peace. Many of us were hopeful that those conditions would be brought about more quickly.
Things have not developed as any of us would wish. We find ourselves in a situation where we have made announcements about recognition in the worst of circumstances. I wish that it was not like this, but it is. The noble Lord will have every opportunity to agree or disagree and challenge us on that decision when the time comes.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the move by the UK Government to recognise the state of Palestine alongside Israel. My Private Member’s Bill on the subject will, I hope, be redundant. I was privileged to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on that. What engagement will the Government have with President Trump when he visits to convey the strongest message that Israel’s long-term security is best served when it has widespread international support—and that this requires a two-state solution rather than the forced removal of Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We discuss our position on this and many other issues—but specifically this—with our US counterparts on a regular basis, as the noble Baroness will understand. She is completely right that support for a two-state solution must remain central to everything we do and say on this issue. I fear that some of the decisions that are being taken by the Government of Israel now make that outcome less likely; hence the situation in which we find ourselves now, as the UK Government, taking the decisions that we have.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the paramount need is for
“Israel and Palestine to share the land, either by partition or by a creative confederate structure, enabling sovereignty and self-rule for both nations”,
those being the words of Professor Fania Oz-Salzberger, one of the most distinguished Israeli academics and writers, writing, I believe, on behalf of most people in Israel?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have not read the piece that the noble Lord is referring to, but I would be very happy to. It is absolutely the case that, in order for a two-state solution to succeed and to last, Israel must be safe, secure and prosperous, and so must Palestine. That is the outcome that the person he is referring to and very many others, including those in Israel, would wish to see.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I welcome what my noble friend has said, but ask her to what extent the two-state solution, which we all—the international community as well—have supported for decades is now viable, given that Gaza has been reduced to rubble; given what my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said; given that the Israeli Prime Minister has expressly said that he does not want a two-state solution any more; and given that the West Bank is now full of settlements, making that increasingly less likely, and there is no governance in either part of the state. How viable is it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I, like many others, ask myself this more and more frequently, but I come back to everything that my noble friend mentioned making it harder and less viable, which is one of the reasons we are taking the decisions we are, but what else is there? We have to hold on to the prospect of a two-state solution because there is no other outcome that would lead to lasting peace.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Conservative Benches next, and then from the noble Lord.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, given the general consensus that the displacement of the Palestinian people is in itself a war crime, will the Government now take the opportunity to place before the House all the assistance that we give to the State of Israel now, so that harder decisions can be taken on what sanctions must be imposed to prevent this further appalling activity?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We continue to engage with Israel, and I think that is right, because that is the right way to have some influence, difficult though that undoubtedly is at the moment. We have taken the decision to withdraw arms licences to Israel, and even before we did that, less than 1% of the arms used by Israel in this conflict would ever have come from the UK. We have made sanctions decisions against members of the Israeli Cabinet, and we continue, of course, to consider further measures as may be necessary. For now, the focus is on the UN General Assembly in a matter of weeks, where a very significant position may be taken on Palestinian recognition. We will not be commenting on future sanctions designations. I take the noble Lord’s question as a request for more transparency and information. I am struggling to work out exactly what he wants to know, but if there is something specific, I will use every endeavour to provide that for him.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, obviously, it is easy to criticise the Israeli Government. But instead of all this nonsense about sanctions and other measures which will just drive people further apart, would it not be much more use to concentrate on the hard, painstaking work of real diplomacy and contribute to a practical plan to help bring Israelis and Palestinians together, to build trust, and to negotiate and compromise, which is the only way you are going to find a real peace process? We also need a serious proposal to get Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar to fund reconstruction of Gaza, create jobs for young Palestinians so that they do not become involved in extremism and terrorism, and guarantee Israel’s security.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is not an unconstructive approach. Of course, there is going to have to be dialogue and a process that is agreed by all parties involved. We are not currently in a place where that is happening. I hope sincerely that over the next few weeks or months we can at least get to a point where the hostages are released, there can be a lasting ceasefire, and the people in Gaza can get the food and medical assistance that they need.
The only resolution that is going to last—and this has been the case for decades or longer—will be based on dialogue. Then, as the noble Lord says, the process of reconstruction, which will be extensive given what has happened, needs to begin.
Planning Delivery: Acceleration
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Maclean of Redditch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to accelerate planning delivery as set out in their Plan for Change, published on 5 December 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
The Government are delivering a set of pro-supply, pro-growth planning reforms. We have updated the National Planning Policy Framework, introducing bold new growth focus measures to underpin the delivery of 1.5 million safe and decent homes. We are also reforming the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime to maximise certainty and speed, and our Planning and Infrastructure Bill will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, including the delivery of 150 nationally significant infrastructure projects. I know that the noble Baroness takes a particular interest in AI; as the AI champion in the department, I am very pleased to tell her that MHCLG and DSIT, together with the sector, are championing the use of AI in planning with our digital planning programme.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that Answer, and I am grateful for her comments on all those initiatives and also on AI. She will be aware that the previous Housing Secretary delivered only 186,000 net additional dwellings, which is the lowest for over a decade; worse still, permissions are down by 23%. I did see that the new Housing Secretary said he wants to “build baby build”, and he can, by backing Amendments 346DD and 346DE in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough, to which I have added my name, which would release 160,000 homes stalled by nutrient neutrality. Will she have a go at persuading him?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
On the delivery of previous Housing Secretaries, it did not help having 17 different Housing Ministers over the last 14 years. We want to get moving on this. I was very pleased to welcome our new Secretary of State this morning, and I know that Secretary of State Reed is just as keen as the rest of us to get delivering on this. I am very pleased that there were over 90,000 planning applications in the first quarter of 2025; that is up 6%. We are, as the noble Baroness will know, debating all the amendments in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill in some depth, as we did last week, and I am sure we will continue to do so.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the ONS reported that, of the 2.7 million homes that were given planning consent since 2015, only 1.7 million have actually been built, which means that 1.2 million are still on the books of the big housebuilders. This points to serious systemic issues, such as land banking, yet the current focus is only on the planning system. Does the noble Baroness agree that just changing the planning system will fail to resolve the urgent need to build more homes?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness that changing the planning system is a key part of it, but it is not the only part of the jigsaw. We need to improve the skills capacity in both planning and construction. We also need to unblock some of the sites she mentioned that are currently blocked in planning. Our new homes accelerator, working with the department and Homes England, has unlocked significant numbers of homes already. We have unblocked over 63,000 homes so far, including a further 43,000 homes over the last four months. On 5 August, we announced another six sites that the accelerator has identified for targeted support. We are also helping local government, so that it is able to insist that planning applications are built out, once they are applied for and got.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, for some years now planning departments have been hollowed out, specialist planners and experienced planners have resigned and there is a critical need to introduce more planners to make all the housing ambitions realistic. Can the Minister tell us what the Government’s policy is towards recruiting and accelerating planning specialists, so that we will see renewed energy in the planning system in terms of applications?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting a key issue. The Government have announced additional funding to support the recruitment and training of 300 graduates and apprentices into local planning authorities. That is part of a wider £46 million package of investment in the planning system to upskill local planners to ensure they are able to implement the reforms that we are putting through, ensuring—and this is very important—that everywhere has a local plan in place. That will help them to resist the type of planning they do not want to see. We are also allowing authorities to set their own fees through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and ensuring these fees are retained in the planning system to improve the overall service.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Maclean pointed out, this Government are already well behind on their target of 1.5 million new homes. With planning permissions granted in the first half of this year falling to below 100,000—the lowest since 2012—does the Minister believe that removing the lower rate for inert waste, which would potentially add £25,000 to the cost of a new home, will be helpful in achieving that 1.5 million target?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Could the noble Lord repeat what he is asking to be removed?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
There is currently a consultation going on regarding the cost of disposing of waste. Inert building waste, such as earth, will potentially be charged at the full rate, rather than the current discounted rate, which will potentially add £25,000 to the cost of building a new home. Will that help deliver your 1.5 million target?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As we have done since we came into office, we are looking at all obstacles to delivering new homes, working very closely with the sector. I have had a number of issues raised with me; we continue to look at those, and I will be discussing them with the new Secretary of State. We will continue, as I mentioned on the housing accelerator programme, to look at any barriers to see whether there are things we can do to speed this process up.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the National Audit Office’s report in June of this year, which said that the discussion and negotiations on planning matters were between two very unequal partners: on the one side, the local planning authority, which is underresourced and understaffed; and on the other hand, the large-scale developers that employ expensive consultants and legal experts to negotiate down their obligations and contributions? Will the efforts of the Government to bolster the planning departments redress this ridiculous imbalance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. Of course, he has great expertise in this area, which I recognise and welcome. I think there are a number of things being done in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to address that imbalance. I think the resources that we are putting into the planning system will help with that. A £46 million package is a significant investment. We need to upskill our local planners to make sure they are able to implement reforms and drive the scale of growth that we want to see. I am not saying we will offset that balance completely, but I am sure that speeding up the planning process and providing planners with much more delegated authority to deal with application themselves will help.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, one of the problems with developing houses is developers land banking. Do the Government have a policy or plan to stop developers banking land and building on it years and years later?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There are proposals that mean that, at the time that a planning application is delivered, local authorities can specify when that application needs to be built out. So we are taking steps to ensure that, once an application has received approval, it is built out as quickly as possible. It is in no one’s interest for vast areas of land that can be built on not to be built on, so we will make sure that we deliver as much as possible. The new homes accelerator has already moved this on a considerable way.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, in response to that answer and further to what my noble friend Lady Pinnock said, this needs government co-ordination and government action, not just local authority action. Will the Government look at a land value tax for those that land bank?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I know that land value taxes have been looked at many times over the years and that the noble Lord’s party promotes them, but they are much more complex than is sometimes set out by those who promote them. We have no current plans to do that, and I would not want to lead the noble Lord up the garden path in thinking that we do. At the moment, we think that the steps we are taking will significantly improve the delivery of both new homes and the infrastructure needed to support them. We will carry on down that route and hope that we get to where we want to be.
Labour Market
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Londesborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the state of the labour market.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the labour market is resilient, with high employment and falling inactivity, but we acknowledge that there is more to be done, particularly for young people and those with health conditions. The Get Britain Working strategy is driving forward reforms and helping create a more inclusive labour market that supports economic growth and opportunity for individuals.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
I thank the Minister for her response, although I point out, in the interests of balance, that unemployment is rising while job vacancies are falling fast. In fact, graduate vacancies have now dropped to their lowest level since 2018, with some 40% of our graduates either in low-skilled jobs or unemployed, yet employers report that skills shortages are frustrating job creation and holding back productivity—the two key ingredients of economic growth. Can the Minister tell us how phase 2 or the reset will address this damaging mismatch?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to trade stats with the noble Lord but, hey, why not? If he looks carefully, as I am sure he has, at the most recent set of local labour market data, he will see that employment is up to record levels, economic inactivity is down, wages continue to grow and we have a healthy number of vacancies in the labour market. However, he raises an important point about the skills needed by employers at the moment, and the fact is that the labour market is changing.
The noble Lord mentioned graduates, the most recent data for which show that there is still a strong graduate employment market and that graduate employment is still above average. I do not want to send out any messages that degrees are not worth having. Graduate employment is important. However, there are signs of the beginnings of changes in that market.
What the Government are doing is not just for graduates but for all people, as we risk too many young people being left behind if they do not have the right skills or opportunities. As the noble Lord may know, Skills England recently published a report providing an assessment of the Government’s priority skills to 2030. It gave a detailed analysis of future employment needs across 10 critical sectors, aligned with the industrial strategy and the plan for change. I hope he will appreciate that moving adult skills into the DWP strengthens the Government’s focus on the importance of a highly skilled workforce and accompanying economic growth. The DWP has a lot of experience of helping to retrain and reskill workers; that focus will make the difference in future.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Minister just said that salaries are increasing, but starting salaries are at their weakest in years, according to the KPMG and Recruitment and Employment Confederation report from yesterday. I quote:
“Shrinking demand for staff and concerns around payroll costs dampened rates of starting pay in August”.
Will the Government now finally commit to reforming the provisions in the Employment Rights Bill, so that they genuinely support both businesses and workers, rather than adding to their costs?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, if ever a Bill was set to be relitigated on a weekly basis, this House is the place to do it. The Government remain committed to our Employment Rights Bill. We believe that having appropriate rights for workers increases productivity and strengthens the labour market. On the broader point, unemployment is dipping down and there is a range of reasons for that. One is that the labour force is growing, and we know that people are moving from inactivity to looking for work. Our challenge, as we face the global headwinds we do, is to make sure that we invest in infrastructure and create jobs across the country. Crucially, when there is any tightening in the labour market, the people who struggle are those farthest from the market. Our job is to make sure that we upskill people and invest in every part of the country, and that the jobs that are there go to the right people. There is a healthy number of vacancies out there. Our job is to make sure that everybody has the chance of a good job, moving on and progressing in work.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that introducing digital identity cards could make a real difference to tackling illegal working? This is very often connected with human trafficking and even modern slavery. Can she assure me that the Government are looking seriously at this and that work on it is happening at pace?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My noble friend raises a very important point about illegal working. There are certainly all kinds of difficulties attached to it. She mentioned human trafficking, but there is also the abuse of workers who are not in a position to report abuse or breaches of legislation because of their status. I reassure my noble friend that, when it comes to tackling illegal immigration and illegal working, the Government are already rolling out forms of digital ID through e-visas so that we have a digital record of someone’s ability to work and their ability to enter this country lawfully. We are determined to look at any serious proposals to help strengthen our border security and to benefit society. I can assure my noble friend that this includes digital ID.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for telling us what the Government are doing. When the Chancellor increased employers’ NI in last year’s Budget, she chose to lower the starting point for paying national insurance contributions. In practice, this has meant that employers of part-time workers have been disproportionately affected. Given that part-time and starter jobs are a good way for the unemployed to get a foot in the jobs market, does this decision not undermine the Government’s welfare to work efforts and all the positive points which the Minister has made?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The answer to the noble Lord’s question is no. The Government have had to take tough decisions and we knew that they would have some impact. However, all the signs are going in the right direction—there are real signs of progress out there. When it comes to part-time workers, I assure the noble Lord that one of the good things about the way in which the DWP is now organised is that it is tailoring and personalising the employment support it gives people in two ways: first, to get those who are not in jobs into them; and, secondly, to get those in jobs moving on within them, whether that is through more hours, better work or more skills. For example, through our new jobs and careers service, we bring together people who are not on benefits at the moment—perhaps they are working at the margin only for a few hours and do not need to claim—to be part of that. As a country, if we are to have economic growth, we will need a skilled and motivated labour force. I am confident that we are doing that well.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, if people are better off not working and being on benefits than they are working at the minimum wage, is the Minister surprised that we have millions of people who should be working and who are not?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I presume the noble Lord is referring to the stories about universal credit. The structure of universal credit was created by the last Government. It was designed to operate in and out of work. We have become aware that there were some imbalances in the system. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Universal Credit Bill that we put through just before the recess has rebalanced the rates of universal credit by halving the amounts that will be paid in future to those who are out of work on grounds of illness or disability. It will increase the standard allowance to help raise incentives to work. I think most people want to work and have a fulfilling life. Our job is both to put the incentives in the right place and to make sure that the jobs are there and that people are skilled to do them. We are determined to do all this.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, thousands of workers who want to go to work today are unable to do so because of the Tube strike. Thousands of Tube drivers who should be at work have stayed at home. Will the Government reverse their policy of giving in to every trade union demand, thereby putting up prices, encouraging inflation and making more people stay at home and not go to work?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows, transport in London is devolved to the Mayor and Transport for London.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Are you finished? As I was saying, the Government understand that this is very disappointing for passengers, including the noble Baroness, and for businesses. We continue to encourage all sides to work together to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible.
Baroness Northover (LD)
Has the Minister seen the report from Cancer Research UK that shows that smokers are three times more likely to be out of work owing to poor health than non-smokers? Can she encourage her noble colleague alongside her to bring back the very welcome smoking and vaping Bill initiated by Rishi Sunak, so that we can better protect public health and get people back to work?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am advised that legislation is making its way through Parliament and will come to this House in due course, so we will have plenty of opportunity to debate it.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, jobs depend on people’s ability to buy goods and services. That ability has been severely eroded. Some 16 million people live in poverty and 1.2 million are on insecure zero-hour contracts. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no rollback of any part of the Employment Rights Bill? What steps will the Government take to increase workers’ share of the gross domestic product?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
As I have said before, I can reassure the House that the Government are committed to their Employment Rights Bill and will make sure that the measures in it go ahead. There is a great deal of detail yet to be worked out. A lot of consultation is going on, but our job is clear: we want to make sure that people who go to work and work hard are appropriately protected and not exploited. We think that will make them more productive and the economy healthier.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 70, Schedule 2, Clauses 71 to 75, Schedule 3, Clauses 76 to 78, Schedule 4, Clauses 79 to 92, Schedule 5, Clause 93, Schedule 6, Clauses 94 to 107, Title.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Monday 8th September 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBorder Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (4 Sep 2025)
“Amendment to section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002For section 117C(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 substitute—“(5) Exception 2 applies where C has a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner or a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and—(a) the effect of C’s deportation on the partner would be unduly harsh, or(b) it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK and it would not be reasonable to expect the child to remain in the UK without C.”” Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to ensure that an Article 8 ECHR human rights claim by a foreign criminal sentenced to less than 4 years’ imprisonment can succeed if certain conditions are met. These include that they have a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child (that is, a British child or a child who has resided in the UK for more than 7 years) or a qualifying partner (that is, a British citizen, or someone settled in the UK within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971).
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Noble Lords will note, being terribly observant, that I am not my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Around about now, I hope, she is emerging from theatre, having had an operation on her foot. She will not be in the House for a few weeks, so I am afraid that I am picking up amendments from my noble friend. I apologise for not having taken part at Second Reading, but the timing of the operation was uncertain, so this is where we have got to.
I am moving Amendment 136 and will speak to Amendment 187, both in the name of my noble friend. They propose two new clauses which would address the rights of children. Most of us will understand—and I hope and believe that most of us accept—that we in the UK regard the rights of children as enormously important and that, when making decisions, we have always to keep in mind the best interests of the child. These will often be British children or children resident in Britain.
To set out a couple of points of context for this, I note that, as many will be aware, Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is about the best interests of the child being at the centre of decisions. Article 5 talks about the importance of parental guidance for children and children’s rights, and Article 9 says that separation from parents should be avoided wherever possible.
Let us think about what it means for the child if a parent is deported. I refer to some testimony from an organisation called Bail for Immigration Detainees which talks about what it is like when a child sees their parent facing deportation. Obviously, it is devastating when families are torn apart and children face never seeing their parent in the flesh again. If a parent is deported to, say, Jamaica or India, it will be extremely expensive, perhaps impossibly so, for the child ever to be in their arms again. There are also the practical considerations. Families have arrangements. They take children to school, with employment fitting around it—one parent takes the children to school while the other is working. All those arrangements fall apart very suddenly, and the child is the one who suffers.
That is the context of these amendments, which the two proposed new clauses seek to ensure that the Bill addresses. Amendment 136 would amend the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act to address the rights of the child. As the explanatory statement sets out, it
“seeks to ensure that an Article 8 ECHR human rights claim by a foreign criminal sentenced to less than 4 years’ imprisonment can succeed if certain conditions are met”.
This is about a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child. It is about the reality of children’s lives, not just this year or next year but for the whole of their childhood.
Amendment 187 would insert into the Bill a new clause providing a
“Duty to have due regard to family unity”.
Again, this would put the rights of the child front and centre in the exercise of all immigration and asylum functions. It would apply to the Secretary of State, to immigration officers exercising immigration and asylum functions and to the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal in deciding human rights appeals.
We hear a lot about the problems and difficulties in our society. If we are to be a caring society that prepares our young generations for the future, I put it to the Committee that these two amendments would be a step in the direction of making sure that—as we so often claim to do—we put the rights of children first for the future, for all of us. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will speak on the two amendments together. Section 117C, on the deportation of foreign criminals, which the noble Baroness is seeking to amend, provides at subsection (1) that this deportation is in the public interest. I suggest that the well-being of children is a matter of public interest. There is a lot of noise about the deportation of foreign criminals at the moment, and the noble Baroness has rightly focused on the position of children. As the noble Baroness has identified, the family unit, about which politicians talk an awful lot, is generally in a child’s best interest. I am not sure about there being public interest in children being properly brought up. I do not disagree with the concept, but I am not sure how you define it.
In Amendment 187, there is a reference to maintaining contact by electronic means. I have been aware over the years that, although the means have developed, “Skype families”, as they used to be called, were desperately distressing for everyone concerned. I heard one example many years ago of a child who thought that daddy had no legs, because they had never seen the father below chest level. So, although it is not Skype these days, the principle remains.
I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, a quick recovery and I thank her for bringing this to the attention of the House.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I too wish a swift and full recovery to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Her colleague has ably set out the thinking behind this amendment. I suspect I am more sympathetic to it than some members of the Committee, but I suggest the following additional observation on a point that it demonstrates, even to those who feel very anti anyone who has committed a crime ever being able to stay in the United Kingdom.
The amendment demonstrates that Article 8 of the convention is broadly drawn, so there is room for considerable debate about where the line should be drawn on what is a necessary and proportionate interference—for example, to prevent crime or for the purposes of immigration control. A great deal of latitude has always been allowed to signatory states as to where, in the first instance, democratic politics and the elected Government of the day think that discretion should be framed. For many years, Governments of both persuasions have attempted to structure that discretion—just as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is doing in one direction in this amendment—by a combination of primary legislation, Immigration Rules and policy. So, anybody who says that one needs to resile from the European Convention on Human Rights because of Article 8 is either misguided or not misguided at all and is doing this for various political reasons.
I have been a lawyer for only 31 years, but my understanding is that there have been only four removal cases since 1980 in which the UK Government have been found in violation of Article 8. So, if people are upset about the way domestic courts are drawing the line in particular cases, I suggest that that is something for domestic legislation—primary or secondary legislation, rules, guidance and so on. It is in no way a justification for some of the toxic debates about international human rights that we have heard in recent days, weeks, months and years.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I too send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We shall miss, for a temporary period, her distinctive contribution to this House.
I am puzzled by this amendment, essentially for the reasons my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentions. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is part of our law. There are suggestions that proposals may be brought forward in relation to its application, but it remains part of our law. The Minister will tell me if I am wrong, but there is nothing in the Bill that purports to remove Article 8.
Article 8 requires adjudicators, tribunals and courts to have regard to family law issues and the interests of children and parents—families—and that seems entirely appropriate. There is a balance to be struck in these cases. We are talking about the deportation of criminals. Sadly, there are people here on a temporary basis who commit serious crimes and who need to be removed. It is right and proper that the interests of families are taken into account, but that already happens. I do not see the need for the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there are particular statutory provisions on additional considerations in cases involving foreign criminals, and it is those that I understand the noble Baroness is seeking to amplify.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I too offer best wishes, from these Benches, to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for a speedy recovery.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling these amendments but, like several other speakers before me, it is our party’s position that the legislation already strikes a careful and considered balance between the public interest in deporting foreign criminals and the need to protect the rights of their partners and children under Article 8. Section 117C of the 2002 Act is clear: in the case of those sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment, deportation is the default position unless one of two well-defined exceptions apply. Exception 2, to which Amendment 136 relates, already provides that where there is a genuine and subsisting relationship with the qualifying partner or qualifying child, and the effect of deportation on that partner or child would be “unduly harsh”, deportation should not proceed. So the amendment before us appears to restate protections that are already embedded in the legislation, and the courts already have the discretion—indeed, a duty—to interpret and apply that exception.
We have to be mindful of clarity in the law and not introduce duplicating or potentially confusing provisions. In short, with the greatest respect, the amendments would not meaningfully add to the safeguards already in place, and for that reason we cannot support them.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for moving the amendment. I hope she will pass on the best wishes of His Majesty’s Government and myself to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, regarding her absence from this House. We look forward to undoubtedly seeing her back for day 6 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, on a date to be determined in October.
The noble Baroness’s Amendment 187 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the unity of the family in exercising immigration functions. It is important that the noble Baroness has raised this point, but I share the view expressed by both the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their kind wishes to my noble friend. I will certainly be passing all those on as soon as possible. I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this debate—including the Minister. However, I will point that in his closing comments he repeated several times, “Do not commit the crime”. But the child we are talking about here has not committed any crime. It is the future of the child’s whole life and family life that we are talking about—focusing not on the criminal but on the child.
I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising a very important point about the well-being of children. We are focusing not just on those children but on the public interest. The future of our children is the future of all of us. The noble Baroness made a very useful point by noticing how often the unity of the family is brought up in public debates but then seems to be excluded from certain parts of the conversation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made a really important point in the context of our current national debate for those who would see us withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. It is actually a very flexible instrument, which reflects why these amendments have been tabled. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked why these amendments were needed and said that it is all there in Article 8 judgments. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said that we can set the guardrails; we can say what Article 8 means and that is what these amendments seek to do.
None the less, we have had a useful debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned Skype families. That is an issue I have been working on for a very long while. I think we might have to get a new term—maybe Teams families or Zoom families. It is important to think about the reality. Let us think of a child of seven or eight who knows they are never going to be held in the arms of a parent again. How does the other parent, if there is another parent there, explain that to the child?
I am sure my noble friend will be looking very closely at this debate and taking on board all the comments so, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Duty to make legal aid available to detained persons(1) The Lord Chancellor must ensure that civil legal services in relation to any of the matters set out in paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 31A, 32 or 32A of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 are made available to any person who is detained under a relevant detention power within 48 hours of the relevant time.(2) The Lord Chancellor may make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under subsection (1).(3) The duty under subsection (1) is subject to—(a) section 11 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (qualifying for civil legal aid) and any regulations made under that section, and(b) section 21 of that Act (financial resources) and any regulations made under that section.(4) In this section—“civil legal services” has the same meaning as in section 8 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012;“relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—(a) paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal),(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation),(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by Secretary of State), or(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation);“relevant time” means—(a) the time at which a person is first detained under a relevant detention power, and(b) if a person has been released following detention under a relevant detention power, the time at which they are next detained under a relevant detention power.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to make civil legal aid available to certain detained persons in relation to immigration matters within 48 hours of their detention.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 137. I also declare my registered interest as the unremunerated, non-executive chair of the board of trustees of the Leicester Law Centre. I remind the Committee that I am also the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Access to Justice.
I thank noble Lords who have put their names to my amendment and others who have expressed their support. I also thank those from outside the House who have provided excellent briefing and particular assistance to me and other noble Lords.
In the Government’s own words, the UK’s asylum and immigration system is “broken”. In few areas is this damage more obvious than in the struggle people face accessing legal aid immigration advice, due largely to so-called “legal deserts”. This stems, of course, as so much does these days, from the drastic cuts to legal aid following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, always known as LASPO. Immigration legal aid is, in the words of the Public Law Project,
“an advice sector that has collapsed”,
leaving individuals
“adrift in an ocean of unmet need”.
The facts are fairly brutal. In June 2025, the Law Society estimated that 63% of people in England and Wales could not access a local immigration legal aid solicitor. The result is that 50% of claimants are unrepresented in asylum claims and appeals. In real terms, this means that almost 55,000 people are left without a legal aid representative at the time they need one.
This amendment is about that crisis. Its purpose is to place a duty on the Lord Chancellor to make civil legal aid available within 48 hours to individuals in immigration detention. This will ensure that people who are perhaps in fear for their life, safety and future are supported at a time of obvious extreme vulnerability and helped to navigate the confusing—to put it mildly—labyrinth that is the UK immigration system. Importantly, it will also save taxpayer money by facilitating better decisions earlier on.
Recent announcements have made early access to legal aid more pressing than ever. The first people have been detained as part of the Government’s pilot of the UK-France migration treaty, which facilitates expedited deportations. In addition, the Government are intending to expand the “deport now, appeal later” scheme. It has also been suggested that the Government plan to replace tribunals with independent adjudicators to speed up appeals. On top of this, we are seeing an expansion of the detention estate, such as the reopening of Campsfield House immigration removal centre in Oxfordshire, enabling more people to be detained.
The recent increases in immigration legal aid fees announced by the previous Lord Chancellor—now the Home Secretary—are very welcome. She recognised herself that the changes were designed only to
“stabilise the system and prop up the bits that are most likely to experience system failure”.
As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed, the increases will go nowhere near restoring the Ministry of Justice budget to pre-cuts levels, with the legal aid budget being 36% lower than in 2008.
The increases announced also do not deal with the unique and urgent challenges of accessing legal advice in immigration detention and are unlikely to prevent system failure in that context. This amendment is a further step in supporting the Government’s efforts to prop up the most broken part of our legal aid system.
I want to address directly why the Government and the House should support making legal aid available for migrants in detention. First, it is to ensure the sovereignty of Parliament; if people cannot obtain legal advice and challenge Home Office decisions when they may be unlawful, the laws passed by Parliament are, frankly, not worth the paper they are written on.
Secondly, this amendment supports the rule of law, of which access to justice is a vital part, as the Committee will surely agree. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, put it in 2017:
“Obtaining advice and representation does not merely mean that competent lawyers exist; it also must mean that their advice and representation are sensibly affordable to ordinary people and businesses: access to justice is a practical, not a hypothetical, requirement”.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I am a signatory. It has been admirably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. He has set out in detail the rationale for the amendment, so I will not repeat his arguments. However, I would like to highlight the human impact of lack of legal aid for those in immigration detention.
Look at the scenario. Those in detention may have faced trauma such as persecution, threats to life and inhumane treatment by callous human traffickers. Following this trauma, they face a very complicated, confusing and bureaucratic system which they have to navigate. It is, in fact, extremely difficult to navigate the system without competent legal advice, and if they get anything wrong, the consequences are very detrimental to them, as this can endanger their safety in the long term.
Concerns have been expressed by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons about the detained duty service, which all the evidence shows is not easily accessible and is of doubtful quality. It gives only 30 minutes of advice, which is not enough to explain the circumstances. Furthermore, at the end of the 30 minutes, it is not clear whether they will be supported. If appeal deadlines are missed, and because of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, this lateness is held as evidence of lack of credibility. All this is happening when those detained are locked up in prison-like conditions, potentially indefinitely.
This scenario is not exceptional; all the evidence shows that it is quite common. In short, the system of providing legal assistance and representation in detention is broken. Action is urgently needed—not least for the reasons described by the noble Lord, Lord Bach—such as the piloting of the UK-France migration deal. We need practical action to improve access to high-quality legal advice within 48 hours. This will not only be humane, but, as has been described, will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the immigration and asylum system. I therefore commend this amendment to the Committee.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I too have put my name to this amendment, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for how he opened the debate and explained the amendment.
About 42 years ago, my first task in the other place was to be a member of the Standing Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which was probably the most important criminal law statute enacted in my time in either House of Parliament. Paragraph 6 of the Home Office’s online summary of the Act’s provisions, which is shared with the Legal Aid Agency and the Law Society website, says:
“The police must tell you … why you have been arrested and are being detained”.
There is an analogy between what we are discussing today and what happens in cases where people are arrested in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Those of us who have been MPs or have worked with the police—I was once the chair of the London Policing Ethics Panel—and spent the night with police officers on duty have seen the following happen in real time in the real world. If somebody is taken into a police station under arrest, they wait to be interviewed and then a duty solicitor is found for them if they do not have a solicitor of their own. The job of that duty solicitor is to explain to them—in terms they understand, and, I hope, in a language they understand—why they have been detained.
People who are arrested for criminal offences in the ordinary course of things on a noisy Saturday night in north London do not expect to be kept in custody for a very long time. If somebody is detained under immigration detention, it must be even more alarming, because the consequences they see panning out before them are being put by force on to an airplane and returned to a country they have not been to for a very long time. It may be a very deserved return, but it must still be alarming.
For the kind of police situation I have described, it is worth looking at the statistics. Some 25% of those arrested—one in four—are not charged with any offence whatever. Mistakes are made and, sometimes, they are glaring mistakes: the wrong person is arrested, either due to mistaken identity or because they happen to be a youngster carrying the identity card of somebody who may look rather like them but is a bit older. They may be arrested mistakenly because their age has been misunderstood. There may just be a terrible mistake, which can be ironed out only if somebody is there to help them, because complete misunderstandings occur. It is very important in all cases that there should be an early intervention, which may be very brief, in which a lawyer can be made available to advise a person whether what has happened to them is legitimate—not whether it is right; that is not the question—as part of the process.
For the sort of immigration detention we are discussing, it may be that the figure of mistakes is much lower than 25%—I accept that. However, I do not accept for one moment that there will be no mistakes. Indeed, the provision of legal aid is a key component in upholding the constitutional right of access to the courts, which is itself inherent in the rule of law. The courts have repeatedly upheld the principle that a failure to provide legal aid in what are regarded proportionately as proper circumstances can amount to a breach of fundamental rights. I cite, for example, the judgment of Lord Reed in the UK Supreme Court case, R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017], at page 51, paragraph 66. It is an undeniable right.
I congratulate the Government on some steps that they are taking to deal with immigration cases. They are speeding up the process dramatically. I hope that those cases—for example, the Afghan and Hong Kong cases—in which almost everybody is given asylum anyway will be speeded up so that they can be dealt with more or less summarily. I hope that the Government will fulfil their promise to appoint more adjudicators, judges of one kind or another, for as long as is needed to deal with the backlog. I hope they will use these adjudicators in a creative way by sending them out to where the people they are adjudicating on are situated, so that cases can be dealt with in bulk, possibly by hiring a local school or village hall or by simply setting up a room wherever those people are held, so that the cases can be dealt with quickly.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, self-evidently I am not my noble friend Lady Ludford, but her name is on this amendment on behalf of these Benches. The noble Lord described immigration law as labyrinthine. It certainly is. There are easier subjects in which to practise. As a society, we are very lucky that a lot of lawyers are prepared to sacrifice themselves—I do not say this lightly—to ensure that people are advised about the labyrinthine rules.
I am a member of the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. At the moment, we are doing some work on the rule of law. I think we have raised with every witness the issue of access to justice. The committee is paying a lot of attention to that.
I want to pick up the reference to the 30 minutes of advice that is available. It is not 30 minutes; it is less than that, as I discovered when I visited Yarl’s Wood a few years ago. It was explained that you have to take out of those 30 minutes the time needed to bring the detainee to the room where the lawyer is holding a surgery, for want of a better word. Can it really be advice? The first job of a lawyer in this situation is to listen. In pretty much every case, if you were to do it properly, I think it must take longer than 30 minutes to have a detainee explain what has happened and what his or her history is, and not just in one period, taken consecutively. For a number of people—those who have been subject to human trafficking and modern slavery have been mentioned—it takes a long time to be able to tell that story. So there is listening, and then there is advice—or, rather, an explanation and then advice, let alone action. We know that action does not happen. These Benches very much support the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bach. Had I been awake, I would have added my name to it, but I was sleeping in the Recess. He describes a situation which I do not think it is exaggerating to call critical. The numbers and percentages that he cites are shocking. The case for his amendment can be made on the grounds of fairness, access to justice and, as he said, the requirement for the Executive to carry out the laws that this place has passed. I agree with all that, and I do not think anybody in this House would disagree.
I will emphasise a point that the noble Lord made en passant and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made at greater length: we should not just act on this amendment on the grounds of fairness, equity and access to justice, but it makes sense in terms of economy. The costs of the delays in the system, which must in many cases result from inadequate preparation of a case, the wrong grounds being advanced and cases being deferred and having to be heard again, must be considerable. I have no numbers to offer, but I know that, in asylum cases, 50% of initial applicants have no legal representation and, in asylum appeals, 60% have no legal representation. That must prolong the process.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I congratulate the Government on the efforts they are making to reduce the queues for the initial application stage and for appeals, getting rid of these backlogs which grew terrifyingly under the previous Administration while the emphasis was on the Rwanda scheme and people were taken off these cases. The Government’s efforts to get the backlogs down are admirable, but they would be assisted by putting into practice what this amendment calls for, so I support it on the grounds not just of equity, which is perhaps in itself sufficient, but economy.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment have got a deep understanding of a very complex system—the legal aid system—which I certainly do not, so I will leave the fundamentals of the amendment and how the legal aid system works to those who have a great deal of professional knowledge about the system.
However, I noted the observation from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, when he moved his amendment, that a modest investment would be required now in order to deliver the plans that he has outlined. Can he give some indication of what that modest investment would be? While accepting that it sounds like a simple question, I suspect that the answer is probably complex in terms of the netting off of savings elsewhere through a more efficient process and so forth. Can he also say what proportion of the existing legal aid budget that would represent in order to get the system to the level that he feels would be satisfactory, and where the additional capacity would come from and how long it would take to come through the system?
If the noble Lord could answer those points—or perhaps the Minister could in his winding-up speech—it would be very helpful, certainly to give some context to the non-professionally qualified Members of the Committee.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I also support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Bach and pay tribute to him not just for the amendment but for decades of service to access to justice, not least through successive Labour Governments and leaderships. I also congratulate him on his rather impressive list of supporters; clearly, there were many who were knocking on the door to be supporters but could not get in there quickly enough to be signatories.
I remind the Committee that we are talking about incarcerated people. This is not all migrants by any stretch, though no doubt more and more will become incarcerated in the future; there has certainly been a growth in detention in previous decades. These are incarcerated people, which means that the instinct behind the amendment from my noble friend Lord Bach is not a 1998 instinct or even a 1950 instinct; it is actually coming from a 1215 instinct—and noble Lords will understand that I do not mean 12.15 this afternoon. These are incarcerated people who are not getting access to legal advice around their incarceration and potential urgent removal from the country without legal advice. I do not think that most members of the public realise that that is the situation.
Obviously, I think this is a no-brainer, but I must try to walk in other people’s shoes and think about what the objections to the amendment might be. Clearly, if you believe that Governments and successive Home Offices and their officials always get things right and that legal process, and legal advice in particular, is just a burden and impediment and that we should ask my noble friend Lord Bach questions about how much this is going to cost et cetera, that is an obvious objection to the amendment. Another objection would come if you were of the view that non-nationals have no rights or should not have rights. If you take those two objections together, you very quickly pave the way for many more Windrush situations. I remind the Committee that nationals were swept up in that particular scandal because of the callous approach to non-nationals.
That takes me to the very important speech by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, comparing the lot of these incarcerated people with those who are swept up in the criminal justice system but have PACE protections that these people do not have, even though these incarcerated people are often not even accused of the kind of criminality that many criminal suspects are. These are incarcerated people; yes, for the most part they are non-nationals, but they face very serious consequences, quite possibly for reasons that are not a huge fault of their own.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a practising barrister including in immigration cases—sometimes for claimants, sometimes for the Home Office. I support this amendment for the reasons so eloquently presented by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and those who have followed him.
I want to add one point, and it is a legal point. The Court of Appeal has explained that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is of course part of our law by reason of the Human Rights Act, imposes obligations on the state to provide civil legal aid in some circumstances. The question of law, says the Court of Appeal, is whether an unrepresented litigant is able to present his or her case effectively and without unfairness, having regard to the complexity of the relevant laws and the importance of what is at stake. Applying those criteria, you decide whether there is an obligation to provide civil legal aid. Those criteria were stated by Lord Dyson, the then Master of the Rolls, for the Court of Appeal, in the case of Teresa Gudanaviciene v the Director of Legal of Aid Casework and the Lord Chancellor—a case reported in vol. 1, 2015, of the Weekly Law Reports, page 2247 at paragraph 56.
If you seek to apply those criteria to immigration detention, it seems to me that the answer is very clear: there is an obligation to provide civil legal aid. Why is that? Because the law in this area is highly complex, and the issues are of great significance to the person concerned. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has emphasised, the person concerned is incarcerated. It is wholly unrealistic to think that an unrepresented litigant, who may after all speak little if any English, will be able present their case effectively—that is the test—and without unfairness, if they lack legal representation.
The Government have emphasised repeatedly the importance of complying with their human rights obligations—the Minister has said that; I have heard him on many occasions. I suggest to him that this commitment requires Ministers to look favourably on this amendment and, indeed, to answer the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, to do so irrespective of the cost. I do not think the cost would be more than a tiny proportion of the legal aid budget, but that is not the point. The obligation is irrespective of the cost. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us, when he replies to this important debate, that further thought will be given to this issue by the Government before Report.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, not being a lawyer, I feel more qualified to speak on this than anybody else.
The reality is that legal aid across society is, in effect, a rationed resource; it cannot be universally applied. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made a point about obligations, and Parliament has been perhaps unwise in the past to have open-ended obligations when we cannot deliver them. The Minister will no doubt have some figures on this but, if more money is allocated through the legal aid system to asylum and immigration cases, either the budget will have to expand or money will be taken away from other areas. It is a simple matter of arithmetic. This is about choice and priorities, and they need to be matched with obligations that we have shown ourselves unable to meet.
On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made in his contribution, it would be invaluable for the Committee to have some factual evidence. A point was made that if cases could be made to go more quickly, with fewer adjournments and appeals, savings could be made—and maybe they could be—but we are flying blind because we do not have the facts. I do not know whether they are obtainable or whether this can be looked at before Report, but it would be extremely helpful to have some factual evidence to support this.
Unless the Government expand the budget for legal aid, something will have to give somewhere. If more money needs to go into this area, less will have to be spent somewhere else. It is not a hugely challenging intellectual concept. It would be most helpful to hear in the Minister’s reply whether he has any facts at his disposal. The Committee would be in a much stronger position to take a decision when we have that information.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to speak in this debate because we have had a fantastic presentation by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the legal arguments were made by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. They gave the legal basis for why this amendment ought to be accepted, but I am going to go in another direction—that of ethics.
We as a society may say to ourselves, “We are built on the rule of law and in everything we do it is a mirror by which we are judged”. Then we get strangers whose language is not English and whose background is not that of our culture, and we say, “We really uphold the rule of law”. The best way to know whether we are doing that is, first, that no one is above the law, and, secondly, in how we apply the rule of law to those unfortunate to find themselves facing immigration questions so that people see that this is a society that does not simply talk about the rule of law but upholds it. We are going to be judged by the rule of law.
Immigration is its most testing point. Immediately, people say that such people could be illegal and ask why we should give them legal aid, as it is going to be costly. But I am with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: the question of cost cannot in the end trump the rule of law because, if you do not get good representation, you will find those cases going to appeal. If we have not carried out our obligations, we will find this question of the rule of law to be just words and words.
Let me put it another way. Any civilised society that abides by the rule of law will be judged by the way it treats the stranger—the one whose habits and behaviour are not our norm. In the end, if this amendment is not allowed, something similar to it must be, if we really believe that we are a society built on the rule of law.
We will know what we are when we treat the stranger with great disdain and think that anything will do. I know of many immigration appeal cases that happened because there was no legal representative. I know that some cases go wrong because they have not hired a legal person who understands the nuances. If we want to speed this up and hold a mirror to our society, it is what we do, particularly towards the stranger, that demonstrates how we uphold the rule of law. If we cannot, we should stop using these words.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches agree that detained persons should, of course, have access to good legal representation when they are detained. This amendment pertains to legal aid for those detained persons. As noble Lords are aware, legal aid is already provided for those who bring asylum cases or other matters such as immigration bail, certain applications by victims of domestic abuse or trafficking, proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, asylum support applications and applications made by separated children. Put simply, this support is already clearly in place. It is our position that extensive provision is already made and at significant cost.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment and for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on behalf of her noble friend Lady Ludford. I have also heard contributions from the Floor of the Committee from the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Pannick, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, all of which were broadly in support of my noble friend Lord Bach’s Amendment 137.
This amendment would impose a duty to make civil legal aid available to detained persons within 48 hours. I am going to repeat what noble Lords have said already, because it is important to put it on the record. People detained under immigration powers in prisons and in immigration removal centres are provided initially with 30 minutes of free legal aid advice through the detained duty advice scheme—DDAS. This is a triaged appointment which supports people to meet with a legal provider who may provide further advice, subject to the matter being within scope of legal aid and the detained person’s eligibility. I want to be clear that there is this 30-minute availability, as noble Lords have mentioned. It is important to re-emphasise that, following that DDAS assessment, whether a legal representative accepts or takes on a case is subject to a merit test and to a decision about independent legal representation, in line with legal aid. There is already some scope for reassurance. I hope that the Committee can accept that this well-established service is in place to provide people with quick and easy access to legal provision.
I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Bach mentioned the take-up. I fully accept that this is an important matter for him, and for the Committee and the Government to consider. Take-up is monitored by officials from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. It will be examined in detail. I am happy to look at how we can improve take-up of the initial provision, but the initial provision is there.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am listening very carefully to what the Minister says, but does he not agree that the very high percentage of these cases that reach an appellate level in which the litigants are not represented by lawyers is alarming evidence that if legal aid is available at an early stage, it is not having much effect?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I do not have before me, although I perhaps should, the figures to which he refers, but Ministers can certainly examine, and look at how we improve, that. It is in the interests of the Government—never mind of the individuals who are seeking asylum—to ensure that we have speedy, correct asylum decisions that get to the heart of the person’s asylum claim as a matter of urgency, rather than going through tortuous numbers of appeals and other legal matters. We must get to a position whereby the Government can determine whether someone has a legitimate asylum claim and, if so, can act upon it or, if not, can take action to deny that asylum claim and put in place the consequential action to be taken.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
So the Goschen/Empey number is neither here nor there. It is not a watertight compartment. The country can decide how much money to put into legal aid. There is also an offsetting benefit, which the Minister has been explaining, from speeding up the process, making sure that good decisions are taken and courts’ time is not wasted. So the Goschen question, to be honest, is irrelevant to this issue. My argument for economy is based on taking the two things together: the speed of the system, the cost of delays, unnecessary detentions and backlogs of asylum cases versus the undoubted additional cost of legal aid.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I put it to the Committee that I sense that my noble friend Lord Bach’s amendment is now being interpreted as being potentially much wider than certainly I took it to be on initial examination of that amendment.
Recess has meant that we have not had as much discussion about that as we may have wanted to have. The main point here is that, under current MoJ/Home Office determinations, 30 minutes is available, and subsequent legal support is available subject to tests of eligibility, et cetera. I think that goes parallel to the wish of the Government to put in additional advisers to speed up applications, to make sure that there is better-quality initial decision-making, but I am always grateful to be advised by the Committee.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving way. While he is still on his feet—I love that device—and before my noble friend Lord Bach responds, I think I am hearing an understandable response to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that at the moment none of us has a view of precise figures, but we could examine that, and maybe that should go into the mix of a future discussion on Report.
However, I have to agree with noble Lords who have said that this is not a zero-sum game between justice and efficiency. Indeed, I just wanted to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he agrees—I think he indicated that he does—with judges who have had to deal with cases of unrepresented people about how much time and energy that adds to hearings that, I believe, the Government actually want to speed up. In any calculation that the Minister comes back with on Report, I hope that officials will add that component for delay—an unrepresented person in an asylum case; that should go into the mix.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I draw the Committee back to where we are at the moment: an individual in detention can have 30 minutes’ worth of legal advice very quickly after they have requested it. There may be an issue around take-up. We are monitoring take-up on a regular basis and want to increase that take-up, but that 30 minutes is there. If further advice is required, on the merits test that can be taken forward as of now.
My noble friend’s amendment may take that issue wider than that discussion. It is the Government’s objective to speed up claims to get to decisions on asylum. We are doing that through executive action, not legislation, increasing the number of people taking decisions and making it much quicker and fairer, because that is in the public interest, as has been mentioned by all. I do not think we are going to resolve that issue in Committee today. I have tried to set out where I think we are, and my noble friend has tabled his amendment.
Serious questions have been raised on these issues by me, by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, because I believe the Government’s case as I have put it is the right course of action on those issues. If we are going to have even further discussion on the points he has made, we need to have some better information on which to base it, even though I accept that for some members of the Committee, that becomes a matter of principle.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful. The noble Lord has been very generous with time on this important matter. I entirely understand his point that further factual information is required. Will he do his best to ensure that we do not wait until Report to receive that information, and that at least those who have spoken in this debate and the Library generally receive a written explanation of the factual position as seen by the department on the cost of implementing the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the 30 minutes, and the take-up? Will he also commit to meeting with noble Lords who are concerned about this matter, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Bach, so we can see whether there is a way forward prior to Report?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for that intervention. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are valid and I will do my best to examine them. Some of these issues are within the Ministry of Justice, not the Home Office, but I will examine those points in detail and make sure that we respond to those who have spoken in the debate and potentially put a note in the Library of the House accordingly.
I want to re-emphasise that the Government strongly believe that there is a good offer at the moment. That offer is available to all who seek it, and there is the potential for further advice if the case merits it and for us to examine how we monitor take-up. I will certainly look at the points that have been raised, but in the meantime, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I start by reminding the Committee that in this very complicated and important Bill, this is the only amendment, and therefore the only discussion there has been, on the legal aid issue, so I do not apologise for the time this debate has taken. Everybody who has spoken, on all sides, has taken this issue seriously, as they ought to, because it is very serious, given the principles behind the rule of law. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord on the Front Bench repeat what I knew to be the case—that that side as well as this side, and all sides of this House, believe it important that the rule of law applies when non-nationals are detained, and that those people are as entitled as anyone else to have the benefit of legal advice. That is a big principle and the one behind this amendment, so I am glad it is accepted.
I am really grateful, in that no mover of an amendment could have enjoyed a more expert team of people speaking on behalf of the amendment—or, indeed, not on its behalf. Every contribution was important, not least of all that of my noble friend the Minister, who in his usual courteous way listened to the debate and answered it as well as it could be answered.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“Automatic deportation: Appeals(1) Subsection (2) applies to a person (“P”) who has been given a deportation order in accordance with section 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007.(2) P may not appeal against the deportation order but may only appeal against their conviction in accordance with section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. (3) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended in accordance with subsections (4) and (5).(4) In section 32, after subsection (7) insert—“(8) An order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) is final, and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court.”.(5) In section 34(2) omit “or sentence”.”
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 138 and 139 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Together, they go to the heart of what it means to have a fair, firm and trusted asylum and immigration system that both commands the confidence of the British people and respects their good will.
We should start from first principles. The people of this country are generous, compassionate and welcoming. That generosity has been demonstrated towards those migrating to the UK over the centuries and has especially been seen more recently in the Homes for Ukraine scheme, through which ordinary families across the UK opened their doors, and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which have offered refuge to those who stood by our Armed Forces. This reflects a profound national instinct to offer sanctuary to those in genuine need fleeing persecution and violence, and to do so with humanity and dignity.
However, that good will is not unlimited, nor should it be exploited. When we ask the British people to assent to immigration policy, we are not legislating in the abstract. We are in effect asking our fellow citizens to share their homes and their services with those arriving on our shores. That is a profound act of trust, and it is our duty in this place to protect that trust. That is why I suggest that these amendments matter: they draw a clear and important distinction between those who come here in need of our support and behave with gratitude and decency, and those who come here and break our criminal law and expect to remain regardless.
I turn to the detail of the two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies. Amendment 139 would provide that any person who was not a British citizen and was convicted of a crime while in the UK would be automatically deported. Furthermore, where a non-British citizen over the age of 17 was convicted of an offence, the court would have to order deportation when sentencing. That would bring absolute clarity: if you break the law, you forfeit the right to remain. It would also ensure that those who committed immigration offences, such as entering or remaining unlawfully, were dealt with firmly and consistently.
Amendment 138 deals specifically with automatic deportation orders. These were introduced to the immigration system by the previous Labour Government in the UK Borders Act 2007. They state that the Secretary of State must make a deportation order in cases of conviction where 12 months’ imprisonment is applied and an offence is specified. My amendment seeks to prevent the possibility of constant and lengthy appeals by removing the ability of foreign offenders to frustrate an automatic deportation order through a lengthy appeal mechanism. It provides that, if a deportation order is made, it is final and can be neither appealed nor overturned by a higher court. That would not, of course, affect the right to appeal the criminal conviction, which would remain, but the automatic deportation order could not be overturned.
We cannot justify to the British people a system in which convicted criminals linger here for years during protracted appeal proceedings. These amendments are not directed against those who genuinely need our protection—those fleeing war, persecution and danger—but against those who exploit our generosity, take advantage of our systems and commit crimes against the very society that has given them shelter.
Finally, I lend a word of support to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I have no wish to steal his thunder, so will be as brief as I can. I support the amendment, which would ensure that deportation orders follow swiftly within seven days of release and cannot be endlessly delayed or appealed. That clarity is essential both for the integrity of the system and for the public’s trust in it.
These amendments draw a firm line, restore public trust and reaffirm the principle that compassion must be matched by responsibility. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Amendment 203A in my name and to contribute to the wider deliberations of the Committee. It almost feels as if this Bill is from a different era. The speed of change of government policy on immigration following the publication of the immigration White Paper and various other political developments has left us somewhat flat-footed.
Foreign national offenders remain an endemic issue, which the previous Government, in all fairness, failed to tackle as effectively as they could have. It is apposite that just today the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025 is being considered by the Grand Committee. As noble Lords will know, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has opined on that statutory instrument in its 31st report. I will not bore the Committee with the details.
Foreign national offenders cost roughly £54,000 each. They cost £500 million a year and, as of 25 June, there were 10,772 foreign national offenders in our prison estate. They represent 12.5% of the prison population. Disproportionate groups are Albanians, Poles, Romanians, Jamaicans and Irish citizens.
I welcome the Government’s new focus on this area. It is fair to say that they have made some progress. Up to August 2025, they had removed around 5,000 of these individuals. Nevertheless, the number of foreign national offenders is still extremely high compared with just six years ago. Since 2019, there has been a 16.8% rise in foreign national offenders in the prison estate. It was not always the case that we were struggling to remove them. In 2016, the previous Government removed 6,437. In 2017 the figure was 6,292 and in 2018 it was 5,500. Believe it or not, over 12,000 were removed in 2012. The previous Government secured a prisoner transfer agreement with Albania in May 2023.
Regarding some of the legal impediments to the removal of foreign national offenders at the end of their sentences, the German Government—no doubt we will come back to this issue in future—derogated from parts of the European Convention on Human Rights specifically to prevent vexatious and spurious claims against deportation by, in particular, persistent Albanian career criminals. I wonder why the UK Government have not sought to pursue a similar policy, but I am obviously glad that they are looking at it in their review of Article 8. Every time the Minister speaks on this, he sounds a bit more robust in his interpretation, which I am hopeful about.
One-third of foreign national offenders are citizens of the European Union. They should be removed on the basis of public policy, public health and public safety and security, available under the free movement regulations and, post Brexit, Regulation 27 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.
I am interested to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in the Chamber, as I do not know what the statutory basis for this is, but why do we not remove the many hundreds of Irish prisoners in our estate? It seems to be a “convention” that we do not. As she would no doubt agree, surely we can ask the Irish to take back their own prisoners as a quid pro quo for the defence support we consistently give to them. The previous Government paid £25 million to the Government of Jamaica to construct a prison in Kingston as part of a quid pro quo for the removal of several thousand Jamaican prisoners in our estate. It seems that we have not expedited that positive outcome. Can the Minister update us on any new prisoner transfer agreement that is likely to come to fruition on top of the one signed in October 2023 with the Philippines? I know that there is ongoing work with the Government of Italy in this respect as well. Maybe he can say how many prisoners claim asylum, or are likely to claim asylum, at the point that they are due to be released or deported.
The reason why we need this amendment and a statutory duty as an imperative in law is that Ministers are bedevilled not just by judicial activism and the misuse of Article 8 of the ECHR by some judges in the Upper Tribunal, as consistently exposed by the Daily Telegraph, but by a fundamental and chronic issue of mismanagement in the criminal justice system. It is why we have 12,000 criminals mooted for deportation at large in our communities, an increase of 192% since 2012. Yet we have the legal powers to act decisively under the Immigration Act 1971 and the UK Borders Act 2007. I applaud the Government for their early removal scheme changes and efforts to secure new prisoner transfer agreements. I think we all agree with that, but we need better and more up-to-date data and communications between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. We need better reporting performance at the foreign national offenders returns command and a review of case working. We need to stop the use of manually accessed spreadsheets, tackle poor IT provision and improve case ownership, case management, accountability and timelines.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I will add a few words about the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby: I too greatly appreciated all the work he did and the courteous manner in which he addressed this House. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, his replacement at the Ministry of Justice.
Amendments 138 and 139 would certainly bring clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said in speaking to them, but they would do so, surely, at the expense of any balance and consideration of relevant factors. Amendment 138 would provide that there is to be no appeal against a deportation order. It would be most unusual and highly regrettable to have a sanction that is simply unappealable; I cannot think of any other circumstance in which that is the case under our law.
If this amendment were accepted, there would be no appeal, however strong the basis for one. If a deportation order were to be made despite the fact that the criteria set out in the UK Borders Act are not satisfied, it would be quite an extraordinary position to be in. There would be no right to appeal despite a deportation order being made to a country which everyone accepts would pose a well-founded risk of torture to the individual concerned; such a provision would be absurd, in my respectful submission.
Amendments 139 and 203A would impose obligations to make a deportation order with no exceptions or discretion where a person who is not a British citizen is sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Again, this is surely wholly unacceptable because it would mean an obligation to make a deportation order even if it means removal to a country where the person concerned will face torture. It would mean an obligation to make a deportation order irrespective of the circumstances of the offence, any mitigating circumstances or how long the person concerned had been lawfully in this country. Such an absolute provision surely cannot command the support of the Committee.
I very much hope that the Minister will say that the Government will not accept any of these amendments. The right way forward, I suggest, is for the Government carefully to consider the existing work to address what guidance and directions should be given to courts and tribunals, particularly in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, so that a proper balance can be accepted and implemented in this important area.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I was not able to be here at the opening of the debate on the earlier group, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if anyone else has already said this, but I was delighted when I walked into the Chamber and saw the noble Lord still in his place. I have worked very closely with him on these matters over the years and I am pleased that his qualifications have been appropriately recognised over the weekend.
I certainly support the thrust of these amendments, and I will come on to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in a moment. They are important because the public believe that, if you are in the United Kingdom and you are not a British citizen, you owe some obligations and responsibilities to the country that has provided you with a home. People generally feel that if you come to the United Kingdom and you are here lawfully, and you subsequently break the law, it is something we should deprecate. There should be some consequences, and we should set a very clear expectation that those who come here under the Immigration Rules and who are not British citizens are expected to be exemplary in obeying the law. It is both a sanction, as the noble Lord said, and something that sets an expectation about behaviour. That is ultimately the thrust behind the amendments from my friends on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lord Jackson.
To pick up one point my noble friend Lord Jackson made, and I hope the Minister can cover it in his response, I believe the issue around Irish nationals is that they have unique legal status here that is not connected to the Republic of Ireland’s membership of the European Union. It is to do with our entwined history and the Act which set up the Irish Republic—or separated it from the United Kingdom. That is therefore a more complicated position and it would be helpful if the Minister could deal with that when he responds, because my noble friend made some points that the public would not necessarily understand.
I want to pick up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which I thought had some merit, and which have been considered previously by Ministers. I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Jackson referred to the very successful deportation period in 2012—I just throw out as an aside that that was when I happened to be the Immigration Minister and responsible for such matters; I will just leave that there. When we toughened up the legal regime in what became the Immigration Act 2014, we contended with exactly the points that the noble Lord raised, about whether you put an absolute position in the legislation or allow any judicial weighing-up of these factors at all. I agree with him that there is a role in allowing there to be some judicial oversight, and we did that in the Immigration Act 2014; we said that if you were sentenced to over four years in prison, you must be deported unless there were compelling reasons over and above the two exceptions set out in the Act. This was to circumscribe the ability of judges to use Article 8 to allow people to stay here at the drop of a hat.
Where I part company with the noble Lord is that I do not think that the Government’s current plan to simply set out in guidance, or some non-statutory mechanism, directions to judges is going to be adequate. When we looked at this, we found that because the Immigration Rules are set out in secondary legislation, courts felt very confident about inserting their judgment on whether people should be removed from the country. We put the balancing arguments—particularly those for Article 8—in the primary legislation, which set out some exceptions and the need for compelling circumstances. The effect was that judges, as they properly do, put a great deal of weight on what Parliament said, rather than what Ministers put into secondary legislation.
Therefore, if my noble friends withdraw and do not move their amendments today, I urge the Minister to think about coming back on Report—we can think about that as well—with something tougher than simply guidance, advice or directions for judges. My experience is that, unless you put it in the legislation, it does not have the desired effect.
Appeals in this area of law are different than in others because, if somebody is in the United Kingdom unlawfully or if we are trying to deport them, it is in their interests for the appeal process to take as long as possible, because for every day the appeal process is not concluded, they are able to stay in the United Kingdom and effectively achieve their objective. That is not like the situation in other areas, where they do not have an incentive to make the process go very slowly. Therefore, we need to do something in the legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has a point when he says that there should be some element of judicial discretion. The challenge, of course, is that as soon as you allow there to be any, it is very easy for that to creep along and for judges to widen it. Then we get all the cases we read about in the paper that bring the law into disrepute.
Therefore, the expert drafters in the Home Office—whom I know are there—should bring forward some tightly drawn amendments that achieve the spirit of what my noble friends have put on the Marshalled List but that perhaps allow some judicial discretion. I was certainly told that, by allowing some judicial discretion, you actually strengthen the power of the statute, because it means that the courts will not seek to overturn it in creative ways, because they feel that justice can be done by following what is in the law. That is perhaps the approach I would urge the Minister to take as he puts together his response to this and what he may come forward with on Report.
Of course, I am more hopeful about the Minister bringing something forward on Report than one would perhaps normally be in this debate because, having seen some of the opening remarks of the Home Secretary, I note that she seems very taken with the idea of a more robust approach to removing foreign national offenders in particular from the country.
I hope the approach I have set out, taking inspiration from what my noble friends have done, is something that the Minister will find meets favour with his new boss in the Home Office. I therefore commend these amendments in moving the debate in the spirit I think the public would wish.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I will just intervene on this interesting exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friends on Amendment 203A. The question this raises—I say this really as a question—is: is it not the case that people in this country who want our borders strengthened and immigration controlled may perhaps consider that convicted offenders from overseas who are not British citizens should not enjoy the same rights, privileges and protections after a conviction as a UK citizen should?
I understand that we are bound by international regulations and international law. None the less, as my noble friend has said, there have been derogations from the law, not least by Germany, which has in fact withdrawn legal aid from those appealing. The French Government, in defiance of their own courts, very often deport overseas offenders. Therefore, although it is a very persuasive intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, there is a wider context in which this group of amendments is being spoken to.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and shall give one example as to why automatic removal regardless of the circumstances is so wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Harper—whom I was lucky to work with many years ago in the coalition Government and am glad to see here—raised a point that a number of other Lords have also mentioned: people who have come to this country and have been afforded protection by it should understand the consequences if they breach the law. That is an understandable point to make.
However, I will give one example. Take a small child who came to the UK, whose parents became British citizens and who had assumed that they were in fact a British citizen, who had committed a crime and was sentenced to prison—and, under this amendment, was therefore subject to automatic removal—but the national referral mechanism competent authority later found that they were a victim of modern slavery for the purpose of forced criminality. That person would have no right of appeal, none of the circumstances of the case would be considered and they would be deported automatically to a country that they have never been to and where people speak a language that they do not understand. It would be wholly wrong for that to happen without any mechanism for a court or tribunal to consider it. I very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and oppose these amendments.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will make a very brief point in addition to that one. It is interesting that we have just came out of a debate on a group of amendments that address the rule of law and legal advice. Around the Committee, there was a strong view that people should have representation, that they should be able to make their case and that their case should be heard. What we have before us now is a group of amendments in which there is absolutism without any sense of balance or proportionality. The case of coercion, which my noble friend has just discussed, makes it incredibly difficult for anyone who believes in the rule of law and in due process to support these amendments, particularly when we are told that the criticism largely comes from the Daily Telegraph.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I will respond, with all due respect, to the noble Lord’s comments about minors. We should bear in mind that this amendment would apply to people who would be subject to the provision as adults, not children, when sent into the prison estate. They would be subject, for instance, to pre-sentence reports and background information being provided if they were young people, but, in essence, they would be adults. They would be at the top level of criminality, because they would be incarcerated in respect of a custodial sentence. In other words, they would have committed pretty serious offences; they would not have been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence or for speeding. Therefore, for the noble Lord to conflate the two is wrong. This is something that the British people are looking to the Government to take action on. They look at other jurisdictions and simply cannot understand why other jurisdictions are in a position to take robust action to remove people who have committed persistent criminal offences in their country.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, the question was posed by my noble friend Lord Jackson—and touched on by, I think, my noble friend Lord Harper—as to why Irish citizens are not deported. The answer lies in the Ireland Act 1949, which was passed by this Parliament when the Irish Free State turned itself into a republic. The Ireland Act 1949 states that Irish citizens should not be treated as foreign citizens for the purposes of British law, which is why Irish citizens can vote in our elections and why Irish prisoners are not sent to the Republic of Ireland.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson, for their amendments. I echo the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Jackson, about my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. He has served his party and Government over many years, and he deserves to be recognised for the efforts that he has put in. I am pleased to endorse those sentiments from the Committee today, not least because I have shared an office with him for the past 13 months of my term in this Government. I will pass on the Hansard reference to him, so he can read the responses himself.
Foreign nationals who commit crime in the UK should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned this in passing, but it is worth placing it on record that 5,179 foreign national offenders have been deported in the 12 months between July 2024 to July 2025—a 14% increase on the previous year.
On a personal note, I am grateful for the comments about my continuing tenure in this job. I am commencing my 15th year as a Minister, 28 years overall as either a Minister or a shadow Minister, which is quite a long time. I have been around this block several times and I can recall, on foreign national prisoners, going to Nigeria in 2008 and negotiating a foreign national prisoner transfer with the Nigerian Government. Because this falls within the MoJ, I will update colleagues in due course about any potential new prisoner transfer agreements being developed.
Amendment 138 seeks to prevent any challenge—this is a key point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—to an automatic deportation decision and to prevent a deportation order being made when there is an appeal against a sentence. Amendment 203A, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, seeks to prevent any appeal against deportation; I will refer to the circumstances around that in a moment. Both amendments would remove any challenge to deportation and would, if nothing else, be contrary to the withdrawal agreement, which the previous Government negotiated and which requires us to provide a right of appeal against deportation for beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement.
For other foreign national offenders, the right to appeal deportation was removed by statute in 2014 by the previous Government. Appeals can now be made against only the refusal of a human rights claim, the refusal of a protection claim or a decision to revoke a protection status. In any event, the amendments would be contrary to Article 13 of the ECHR when read with other rights. We can have a debate about the ECHR, and I am sure that we will, at the moment, the amendments would be contrary to those rights. It would also be unconstitutional and contrary to the ECHR to deny courts the ability to set aside a decision by the Secretary of State when such a decision may be manifestly wrong. This Government take citizens’ rights very seriously and we continue to work constructively with the EU to ensure that we meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement.
Amendment 203A, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would also undermine the UK’s agreement with Ireland on the deportation of Irish citizens. There is a range of legislation around that, but since 2007, public interest has been the qualifying matter. Irish citizens are exempt from automatic deportation, except in exceptional circumstances where the Secretary of State can determine that it is in the interests of the public at large. It would also undermine the protections against deportation afforded to certain Commonwealth nationals. It would set an artificial deadline for the making of a deportation order, preventing any leave being granted to a person who made a successful human rights or protection claim.
Amendment 139 seeks to extend automatic deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK or charged with an immigration offence, without consideration of their human rights. As the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Pannick, mentioned, it would remove protections for under-18s and victims of human trafficking. It would also require a court to pass a sentence of deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK. In my view, these amendments would not be workable and would be contrary to our international obligations.
For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I say again that the Government are committed to the protection of human rights and to meeting our international obligations. The Prime Minister has made clear that the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the ECHR, and these amendments would not prevent persons being deported from raising human rights claims with the European Court of Human Rights. They would deliver nothing except the outsourcing of deportation considerations to Strasbourg and would slow down the removal of those being deported. The amendments would also undermine our obligations to identify and support victims of trafficking, as set out in the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, of which we are a signatory.
I hope that noble Lords are getting the general sense that I am not going to be in favour of the amendments. I can continue, should noble Lords wish me to do so.
Lord Harper (Con)
The Minister has made very clear his approach to the amendments, but I want to press him a bit. The Government accept that in some cases the courts are not drawing the lines in the right place, which is why the Government have suggested, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referenced, that they will issue further guidance to courts to make these decisions and draw the lines in a different place. Is guidance going to be sufficient to alter where judges make these decisions, or do we need to change the law? The Minister may not agree with these proposals, but I would argue that you do need to change the law. If he does not think that these proposals are okay but thinks that courts are not getting it right at the moment, the Government should bring forward their own amendments on Report. I suspect that this House will give them a fair hearing.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord raises perfectly valid questions. I was clear to the House and have been today to the Committee that the Government will examine the European Court of Human Rights Article 8 requirements. We will be issuing guidance on that and have some further discussion on what that means in practice. We are still considering those matters, but we not minded at the moment to bring forward legislation—and I am certainly not minded to support, for the reasons that I have said, the amendments from the Opposition Front Bench and from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I hope that I have been clear on that.
We are committed to reforms across the immigration system. It is right that we take action against foreign national offenders in the UK before they get the opportunity to put routes down in the UK. We will do what we can to protect local communities and prevent crime. We will simplify the rules and processes for removing foreign national offenders and take further targeted action against recent arrivals who commit crime in the UK before their offending can escalate.
Later this year, as the noble Lord is intimating, we will set out more detailed reforms and stronger measures to ensure that our laws are upheld, including streamlining and speeding up the removals process. We will table legislation to strengthen the public interest test, to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country’s borders and take back control over who comes to and stays in the UK. We need to strike that balance between family rights and the wider public interest. That is why we will clarify Article 8 rules and set out how they should apply in different immigration routes so that fewer cases are treated as exceptional. We will also set out when and how a person can genuinely make a claim on the basis of exceptional circumstances.
Amendment 139, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, seeks to amend the penalty for immigration offences in Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, replacing this with a sentence of deportation and removing the lack of knowledge as a defence against these offences. We have been clear in our response to the sentencing review that we will reduce the use of short sentences and increase the use of suspended sentences, so there will be a significant reduction in the number of such offenders being sent to prison. Foreign nationals convicted of immigration offences can be considered for deportation at present, and we will act to ensure that such action is taken in future.
Removing lack of knowledge as a defence will likely result in consequential deportation decisions being subject to more ECHR challenges, resulting in delay, the consequence being fewer successful removals.
Lord Harper (Con)
To pick up on a point made by the Minister, he confirmed that the Government are undertaking this review of Article 8 and how it is interpreted by the courts. He also said that, if necessary, the Government would bring forward legal provisions to put reforms in place. We have a bit of time before Report, with another day in Committee in October and Report a little bit after that. Can I urge the Minister to speed up that review? If it is necessary to put into statute any changes in how Article 8 is being interpreted, he can then bring that forward in this legislation, to take advantage of bringing those reforms in urgently, rather than waiting for another piece of legislation to come down the track in a year or two.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We keep all matters under review. This will go at the pace that it goes at. We will be making further announcements in due course on how we will review Article 8 and the issues that will result accordingly.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly the Minister, whom I congratulate on showing his survival instincts over the weekend. I do not shy away from the absolute nature of these amendments. Having listened carefully to what has been said, I intended to withdraw or not move them, but I make just one point, which was also made by my noble friend Lord Harper.
The rationale of these amendments lies in building a fair, trusted and enduring immigration system that requires us to carry the British people with us. Protecting that good will must be a matter of utmost importance. The danger is that the good will that currently exists is dissipating very quickly. Foreign national offenders are at the epicentre of that and public confidence in our system can never be taken for granted.
However, in the light of what has been said, and reflecting on everything, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Collection of data on overseas students subject to visa conditions and immigration rules(1) The Secretary of State must collate and publish—(a) the number of overseas students who have had their student visas revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences,(b) the number of overseas students who have been deported following the revocation of their student visas, and(c) the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visas.(2) Data published under subsection (1) must be broken down by nationality.(3) For the purposes of this section—“overseas students” means any person who is not a British citizen who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for the purposes of partaking in an educational course;“student visa” has the same meaning as in the Immigration Rules.”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships’ House too long with this amendment because it is straightforward. It relates to the piece of the jigsaw that is missing in respect of foreign national students with visas to study in the United Kingdom. The background of my amendment is the very serious occasions on which public disorder has occurred, in London and other parts of the country, arising from the Israel-Gaza conflict, which dates from October 2023.
This has obviously been a phenomenon across the world of student bodies, whether it is Harvard, Columbia in New York, in Australia or across Europe, protesting against what they perceive as wrong policy pursued by a particular country—not just the Israel-Gaza situation but other contentious political issues. Other jurisdictions have co-ordinated their response to public disorder which has occurred with student bodies in a better way. In other words, they have monitored whether those students have properly abided by the restrictions and obligations put on them when they apply for and are successfully granted a visa.
Students and those with educational visas in higher education are not in any sense sui generis. They do not have carve-outs and are not given a free pass. Indeed, for the purposes of any transgression of criminal law, public disorder and other issues, they are as much subject to statute as anyone else: the Immigration Act 1971, the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Immigration Act 2016. As I referenced in the earlier group, if they are from the European Union, they are also subject to restrictions in their conduct, essentially around visa breaches and immigration law violations, but for our purposes today, I am focusing on criminal activity. That is quite a high bar for those students, in that it is deemed to pose a threat “to the public good”, which is the wording used in primary and secondary legislation—statutory instruments.
It is unusual that I am praising the Government slightly today, but I know that they are mindful of the concerns that the general public have on this issue and that they are seeking, as did the previous Government, to address and ameliorate abuses of the student visa system. We accept in good faith that they are seeking to tackle those egregious abuses, but, to my mind, the piece of the puzzle that is missing is that there is not proper co-ordination in respect of student visas. Therefore, it is important to collect the data on those student visas which are applied for by students who are subject to criminal sanction, not just being arrested but charged and, perhaps, subject to criminal penalty, including, of course, incarceration in the prison estate.
It is for that reason that I think my amendment fits well with this Bill. I am not saying that every foreign student is a criminal—far from it. We welcome the many thousands of students who come to our country to study, some of whom stay here to further their careers and add to our economy and our civic life, et cetera. But there will be some who come here and commit criminal offences. To my mind—I echo the astute comments of my noble friend Lord Harper—you have an obligation, if you apply for a visa and come here, to behave yourself, to behave in a civilized manner, to abide by the law, to work hard and to abide by the conditions of your visa and wider obligations. If you fail to discharge that, particularly, for instance, by shouting antisemitic abuse on a hate march in London or anywhere else, that is unacceptable. If you are subject to criminal sanction and penalty, there is a strong case that your visa should be revoked and you should be removed from this country.
However, the first step should be that that information should be collected and collated in a way which is transparent and open, so that the state and the criminal justice system has an opportunity to make a value judgment on your behaviour, as someone who is not a British citizen and who has been invited here in good faith to behave as a decent, honest, law-abiding citizen. For those reasons, I commend the amendment in my name, support Amendment 141A from my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and look forward to the Minister’s answer in due course.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments proposes the means to make transparent one of the constituent parts of the high immigration levels that the Government aim to reduce. The amendments propose making transparent the data on the numbers granted student visas and the numbers of dependents, capping the numbers—in the case of the amendments that will follow, Amendments 198 and 199—and dealing with those who offend and the home countries of offenders.
I shall focus on my Amendment 141A, which proposes an annual statement on the number of visas given to overseas students and their dependents, because they contribute significantly to the overall immigration numbers, on which this Government and the previous one have concentrated in order to get them down. The evidence that we have is piecemeal. It covers a range of periods and categories and comes from the Home Office, the ONS and the Higher Education Statistics Authority, but all of the evidence indicates that overseas students’ visas and those issued for dependents constitute a large cohort of the immigration numbers.
In the previous academic year ending September 2024, there were 732,285 overseas students at higher education institutions in the UK. That is almost 25% of the total student population. Around one in 10 came from the EU, while 90% of them came from further across the world. Although the total was down from the very high period of 2022-23—a record high, as it happens—these figures from 2023-24 are still the second-highest ever for overseas students and their dependents.
We want to find out what the top countries are. India was top of the list, sending 107,500—almost nine times the number from India in 2017-18. China, which sent the most students for 10 years, is now in second place; it sent 98,400. There have been rapid increases from Nigeria, which is in third place. The figures for Nigeria will come up in my notes in a moment, so I will come back to them, but it is in third place.
Now we have another set of figures, though, from the Home Office. I want to talk about them. They give an indication of the numbers for the year ending in June this year—the year in which the Labour Government have been in power. From them, we discovered that the number of student visas granted for the year ending June 2025 was 436,000; that was higher than the average from 2012-21, which was an average of 305,000, although it was much smaller than in the peak year of 2023, which was the year when 650,000 student visas were granted. During that time, there were 18,000 dependents—a far lower figure than the 154,000 who came in before that. That is, I think, due to the previous Government’s attempts to curb the figures.
What we see from this is that student visas for overseas students still run at a very high rate. If we take the figures for the year ending June and multiply them, say, by three, we are looking at well over a million people in the country on overseas student visas. For these reasons, it would be very helpful for Parliament, and indeed the public, to know on an annual basis the number of overseas student visas granted, and the numbers granted to dependents, and whether that is increasing or falling. That kind of information in an accessible and consistent form will help identify the nature and scale of the question, whether it is indeed a serious problem and, if so, how we can deal with it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for his amendment, which seeks to collect and publish data about overseas students who have committed criminal offences leading to the revocation of their student visas.
When immigrants commit crimes, we need to understand whether there are patterns that suggest wider or systemic abuses of the system. Data of this kind has immense practical importance. It allows us to identify risks, ensure accountability and take informed decisions about how to strengthen our Immigration Rules. When we talk about borders, we must do so with an eye to safety, fairness and national interest. The British people rightly expect that those who come to this country will contribute to it through our economy, workplace, communities and civic life. The vast majority of overseas students do just that, enriching our universities and our society. But when a small minority commit offences, we must have the tools to know about it, track it and respond effectively.
As my noble friend Lord Jackson mentioned, he has tried time and again, unfortunately in vain, to get the Home Office to release these statistics. The Answer my noble friend received to his Written Question on 7 April, that official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review, is not particularly helpful. I hope the Minister will be able to finally give my noble friend the answer that he deserves. This amendment seeks to provide that clarity.
Amendments 198 and 199, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, go to the heart of what it means to exercise control over our borders in a way that serves our national interest. The first amendment makes it clear that family migration through spouse and civil partner visas must be subject to sensible limits and rigorous criteria. This is about making sure that those who come here are ready to contribute, not to extract; to work, not to remain idle; and to build, not to burden.
Our economy, jobs market, public services and national identity all depend on a social contract: that people pay in before they take out. That is the foundation of our tax system, the National Health Service, schools, housing and every element of our welfare state. Introducing a salary threshold of £38,700 is not a punitive measure; it is common sense. It would ensure that new arrivals will be net contributors to this country, helping us to strengthen our economy at a time when the Government’s mismanagement has left us in a dreadful state. It would reassure the British people that migration is working for them, not against them, and it would help to rebuild the trust that is so essential if public confidence in our immigration system is to endure.
The second amendment addresses an equally important issue: the question of sovereignty. Put simply, we cannot allow this country’s ability to remove those with no right to remain to be dictated by the whims of foreign Governments. Our domestic policy must never be determined by third countries which frustrate deportations by refusing to co-operate with basic verification of identity. This amendment would strengthen the Government’s hand by making visa penalties mandatory when other countries refuse to play their part.
The link between border control and national well-being could not be clearer. Our economy, our jobs market, our communities and our state services depend on a system that is fair, firm and respected. The British people are generous, but they are not fools; they want an immigration system that supports growth, rewards contribution and protects our national autonomy. These amendments deliver on those principles; they are proportionate, robust and urgently needed. I urge the Government to recognise their merit and adopt them.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I will say something about Amendments 198 and 199, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Amendment 198 would, as I understand it, specify a maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually as a spouse or civil partner of another. If I were not already married, I would be exceptionally aggrieved to be told that my spouse, from whatever country she may come, would not be permitted to join me in the United Kingdom, despite the fact that I am a British citizen, because too many spouses or civil partners had already entered this country in the last year or because, looking at proposed new subsection (5), the country concerned cannot exceed 7% of the maximum number specified in the regulations. I do not know where 7% comes from rather than 6% or 8%, but that is what it provides.
It is not difficult to see that such arbitrary restrictions on spouses or civil partners coming to this country would be a manifest breach of this country’s international obligations under Article 8 in relation to family rights. It is also not difficult to see what the reaction of our closest allies—the United States, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries—would be to being told that their citizens cannot join their spouse in this country. Reciprocal measures of this nature would be highly likely to be adopted, to the detriment of everybody. It is also plain from this amendment that these arbitrary restrictions on numbers would apply irrespective of whether the person coming from abroad is to work here and irrespective of whether the spouse in this country, the British citizen, is able to accommodate and provide for them. I am afraid that this is simply not well thought out.
It also requires in proposed new subsection (10)(b) that the applicant in this country provides evidence that the happy couple were married or formed a civil partnership at least two years prior to the application. So, my beloved and I are to be arbitrarily prevented from living in this country together for at least two years. I cannot begin to understand the logic, the rationality or the justification of such a measure. I hope the Minister will tell the Committee that Amendment 198 is unacceptable.
Amendment 199 is equally unacceptable. It would impose, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, a mandatory obligation on the Government to impose visa penalties on unco-operative countries. The Government already have ample powers in their discretion to impose visa penalties on unco-operative countries. It makes no sense whatever to impose a mandatory duty on the Government to impose visa penalties. For this reason, the Government may well take the view that it is far more productive and effective to inform the country concerned of its failures, to negotiate with it and to seek to secure a resolution to the problem. A mandatory duty simply serves no sensible purpose.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord has left out of his critique the requirement that the happy couple, as he described them, must both be at least 23 years old. When minimum income rules increased the amount of income that had to be shown in 2012, I heard a call-in debate about this on the radio. British citizens were affected; as he has said, it is not just about the foreigner. One person who called in said of the person who had been speaking, “Well, why can’t you just go and work in her country?” He said, very calmly, that it is not easy to find a job in mortgage broking in Nigeria.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for her interesting statistics. As a former chairman of a university court, I find high student numbers a cause for delight. I am not quite sure why we should see it as bad news; the university sector as a whole finds large numbers of students wanting to apply from abroad rather good news, and so do I.
I would like to put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about Amendment 198, on which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has expressed some doubts. I am struck by the plight of the British Romeo, who happens to go to Verona and meet Juliet. Not only does he have to tell her that they have to wait until they are both 23—the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—but they have to wait until he is earning £37,750 a year and until they have already been married for two years. Even then, they cannot be sure, because they have to get a place in the quota. The quota for Italy will be 7% of an unknown number, to be determined at some future annual date by the Secretary of State. So, they would be well advised to get up very early on 1 January, two years after they got married, and register their application to come to this country. On what basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies, does one pick 7%, and on what basis is the Secretary of State to pick the annual number?
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I want to touch on three matters—two to do with these amendments and one of a more topical nature. We have at previous stages of this Bill talked about the ability of the Government to remove people from the country. Amendment 199 touches on illegal removals. The Minister has been very keen to champion the deal the Government have done with France. Given that the French Government have, just a few moments ago, been voted down by the National Assembly and therefore collapsed, I wonder if the Minister, as he has been in post—I am sure the Home Office will have given it a great deal of thought—could comment on what impact, if any, that will have on the deal that the Government have done, whether in substance or the speed with which they will be able to implement it. That would be both of interest to the Committee and relevant to this legislation.
I strongly support Amendments 141 and 141A, from my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor, because they are about making sure that we better understand the system. While I welcome students who come here to go on good courses, who are here to study, it is useful for us to know if those students are breaching criminal law. I will not rehearse the arguments that my noble friend Lord Jackson made so eloquently, but there is a very good reason why having this data is helpful: one of the things that the Home Office pays a great deal of attention to, when it is making judgments about granting student visas in the first place, is looking at countries where there is a high risk of abuse. It puts a great deal of weight and expectation on universities to ensure that students are genuinely here, that they are competent to study courses and that they are going to study those courses when they get here. If the data highlights countries that are a particular risk, it would enable the Home Office and universities to take that into account when they are making decisions; it would tighten our immigration system and it would make sure that people are genuinely coming here to study—which is, of course, the reason they have been given the visas. So I strongly support both those amendments.
I also support Amendment 199. There is an argument for it—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was not enormously persuaded, but I will just give him one argument for where it might be helpful. One of the things that the Home Office finds difficult at the moment is when it wants to deport people to countries that will not have their nationals back. This is internal government politics, but I suspect that the Home Office is very keen to implement those visa requirements. I do not know—and I would not expect the Minister to confirm this at the Dispatch Box—but I suspect that other bits of government, such as the Department for Business and Trade and perhaps the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, are not very keen on implementing those visa sanctions. They would come up with all sorts of compelling reasons—for them—for why the Government should not do so. The countries know this, and they also make those arguments about why we would not want to implement those visa sanctions—damage to our trade and all sorts of other reasons.
This provision may be helpful when Ministers are having those conversations because, by making it mandatory, if the country will not up its game and if is not willing to take back citizens who are not entitled to stay in the United Kingdom, the Government can explain to those countries that their hands and discretion have been fettered by Parliament. Therefore, the only possible sensible course for that country is to improve its compliance and, frankly, do what it is required to do by its international obligations, which is to take back the citizens who are not welcome here. So I think there is a very sensible argument. It may be that the drafting of this amendment can be improved, and the noble Lord is well qualified to help with that.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Is my noble friend as pleased as I am by the news that the new Home Secretary is a keen reader of the amendments that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have put down on this Bill? The top story in the Times today is:
“Mahmood plans visa crackdown on countries that won’t take back migrants”.
Is she a sinner repenting, and is my noble friend full of joy about this?
Lord Harper (Con)
I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Jackson raised that, because I read that piece this morning and it is part of the reason why I was keen to speak on this amendment. In the debate that was going on this morning, our friend the shadow Home Secretary was challenging the new Home Secretary on this. She hit back and made the point that this permissive power had been in place for some time and had not been used for the reasons that I set out and because of all the other arguments that will be brought forward in government about why you would not want to disturb the relationship between the United Kingdom and the other country that is refusing to take back its citizens. It was interesting to note that the Home Secretary appears a little more seized of using this power.
We are trying to be helpful here because—I do not know, but I suspect—when she has these arguments inside government and expresses her intention to use this power, she will get quite a lot of push-back from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and from the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Secretary, who perhaps may not have remembered that, just a short while ago, she was responsible for these important matters in the Home Office; it is amazing how quickly Ministers forget when they change departments. The Business Department and the new Business Secretary will be making the point about our important commercial relationships. Actually, the new Home Secretary may well welcome the strengthening of her hand that would be put in place by the Government accepting Amendment 199.
When the Minister responds, even if he does not like the specific drafting of the amendment on the Marshalled List today, and given what my noble friend Lord Jackson said about the Home Secretary’s views, I hope that he gives it a fair wind and commits to come back with a government amendment on Report. If he does not, perhaps we will discover that the Home Secretary’s tough words are just that—words.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Harper, will forgive me, I will not comment on the consequences of the fall of the French Government on this legislation or any other. My noble friend Lord Hanson has been a Minister for 15 years; I am of a rather more recent vintage, like a cheap wine, so, if the noble Lord does not mind, I will pass on that. But I have not the slightest doubt that it will be the subject of further debate and comment in your Lordships’ House before too long.
Amendment 198, from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, proposes a cap on the number of entrants of partners and proposes amendments to the immigration requirements for a partner of a person present and settled in the UK. I will set out the overall position. The Government are very clear that net migration must come down, and the swift return of those with no right to be in the UK forms a key part of a functioning migration system that commands the confidence of the British public. The provision for family members to come to or stay in the UK is set out in the Immigration Rules, so this is not, strictly speaking, the correct legislation for this debate. But the Government’s position is clear: we support the right to family life and we value the contribution that migrants make to our society. As a migrant myself, I am profoundly grateful for the opportunities that I have had in this country. Like so many others, I have an ineradicable respect and admiration for British institutions and values. Perhaps that is why I am here today.
The noble Lord, Lord Harper, talked about the expectations of immigrants. I entirely endorse those remarks but, as an immigrant myself, I should also say that, in large numbers, immigrants are happy and proud to fulfil the expectations that he sets out.
However, this commitment to supporting the right to family life must be balanced, as we all know, by a properly controlled and managed immigration system that commands public confidence. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, commented on earlier amendments that there is a great deal of consensus on these points. Our immigration system welcomes people from across the globe to come to the UK to join family here, and it is right that we continue to enable family migration.
To ensure financial independence, the family rules include financial requirements. The minimum income requirement is currently set at £29,000. On 10 June, the Migration Advisory Committee published its independent review of the financial requirements across the family route. The report is now under review, and we will consider the recommendations made by the MAC. The Home Secretary will respond to the review in due course.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
On welcoming overseas students, I accept that good students who come here lawfully can be a great bonus. Indeed, I have had the benefit of teaching such students, and I had a great time with bright students. But does the Minister agree that many UK universities are now dependent on overseas applications and overseas student fees, and that this can have a detrimental effect on the cultural life of the university and perhaps on its overall quality? In some institutions, it seems that the courses offered and their quality have changed as universities race to increase their fee income through a higher overseas student ratio. I am not saying that this is true of all universities, and there are other ways of obtaining income. It requires more work by universities, but many have pioneered other ways of getting that income by setting up overseas campuses.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
It is not really within my brief to comment on the financing of universities, so the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not go too deeply into that. However, I can be clear about the grounds on which a student’s permission to stay may be cancelled, and this relates to some of the points the noble Baroness has made: where the person’s sponsorship or endorsement has been withdrawn, for example because they do not have the required knowledge level of the English language; where the person does not start their course with their sponsor—that is important because, as universities know, people sign up but do not turn up; where the person ceases to study, which can include no longer attending their course, completing it at an earlier date or the start date of their course being delayed for more than 28 days; where the sponsor loses their licence—this is important too—or transfers the business, so if they are not a serious higher education institution and are not sustainable; or where the business for which the person studies is transferred to another business or institution and that business or institution, for example, fails to apply for a sponsor’s licence.
If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I do not feel I can comment on higher education funding, but we think we have robust arrangements for removing people and cancelling student visas where there are the sort of problems I have set out, including those to which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred in relation to crime and disorder.
Foreign nationals—including students, of course—who commit a crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced, and that, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation. Before coming to your Lordships’ House, I was deeply involved for many years with the Prison Service, and I saw at first hand the problems of not deporting foreign national offenders and what that was doing to not just immigration policy but the prison capacity crisis. I spent several years working on that policy with the Ministry of Justice, so I understand that problem very well and take very seriously the need to get better at it.
On the specifics of the amendments about publishing data on these topics, the Home Office already publishes a vast amount of migration statistics, as your Lordships know, including information on visas, returns and detentions. If I may say so, too much of that information does not play a large enough role in an often fevered public debate which is often based on rumours rather than detailed facts. The official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review, in line with the code of practice for statistics. This ensures that we identify changing needs for new statistics to support public understanding. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, have made suggestions, and they may want to continue to press that case.
The Government recognise that there has been heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public about the numbers and types of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in the UK, what happens to foreign national offenders after they have been convicted—I have already stressed my interest in this subject—and what happens to them after they have completed their sentences. We understand the importance of this information. The department is assessing what more can be done to improve the processes for collecting and verifying relevant data on foreign national offenders and their offences and to establish a more regular means of placing that data in the public domain. By the end of 2025—so, again, not far away—if this work progresses as planned, the Home Office proposes to publish more detailed statistical reporting on foreign national offenders subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK.
Before I sit down, I shall make one other comment in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, about the agreement between the UK and France. It remains firmly in place, and we shall continue to work with the French Government in all their various forms. On the basis of the assurances that I have given, I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, for his excellent response. It is the first time I have had the pleasure of listening to him at the Dispatch Box, and I welcome him to it. I thank other noble Lords for their contributions to this interesting debate—even the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with whom I disagree. His characteristically eloquent but pugnacious contribution was most appreciated.
The Minister touched earlier on the reason why I tabled this amendment. I asked his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, a Question for Written Answer about the collection of data around student visas and criminality. He answered on 25 March that the Home Office did not collect that data. If you are going to design public policy around an efficient and effective immigration policy, wider economic issues and the efficacy and viability of the higher education sector all wrapped up in one, you cannot do it if you do not have the data. You need to collect that data. It is not just about criminality. In fact—dare I say it?—my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s amendment is actually more germane to this debate because we need to collect that data. The Government should perhaps look at that on Report.
On Amendment 199, I think that there is quite a bit of consensus across the Committee about the rather liberal, permissive powers of the Government in response to what one might call, if one used a pejorative term, visa retaliation. There is a way of doing it in a more collaborative way without going nose-to-nose with each individual country. It is good that the Government are now looking to invoke those powers because they are important. Countries should know that they have a duty and a responsibility adequately to address the issues we have in our country.
Lord Oates
“(a) P was granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules, which has not been cancelled, curtailed or revoked,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that all persons granted residence status in the UK under the EUSS, which has not been cancelled, curtailed, or revoked by the Secretary of State or an Immigration Officer, benefit from this Clause if they are not already a beneficiary of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ludford, who unfortunately cannot be in her place today. In doing so, I pay tribute to her tireless advocacy for EU settled status holders. I also thank the3million for the brilliant work that it does representing EU citizens in the UK and for its support and briefing.
The amendments in this group seek to protect the rights of holders of EU settled status and ensure that the procedural safeguards provided for under the withdrawal agreement apply to them all. I should say at the outset that we welcome Clause 42, but we believe it would be significantly improved if the Government took on board the key elements of our amendments.
The problem that Clause 42 seeks to address arises from the creation of two distinct groups of EU settled status holders: those whom the Government have determined the true cohort, who had permanent resident rights or were exercising treaty rights at the end of the implementation period, and the extra cohort, those who were not exercising treaty rights but who were granted settled status based on simple residence at the end of the implementation period. The Government did not tell settled status holders which cohort they were in as they never tested for true cohort membership when granting settled status. Regardless of cohort, the grant of settled status states specifically that it is issued under the withdrawal agreement, even though the Home Office argues that that is not the case for the extra cohort. Nevertheless, the Government claimed that as they did not intend to distinguish between the two cohorts, the existence of two cohorts had no material impact. Subsequently, the outcome of litigation required that some government services could be accessed only with proof that the person concerned was part of the true cohort. This requires them to prove the exact legal status of their residence on 31 December 2020, and this is increasingly difficult as time marches on.
Clause 42 seeks to legislate to end this distinction between the true and extra cohorts, and to fulfil the Government’s commitment that they would not treat the cohorts differently. It does that by granting a separate route to withdrawal agreement rights for the extra cohort via this Bill. In intention it is therefore extremely welcome. However, there are elements of the clause that undermine the Government’s own objective and create further difficulties. It is these difficulties that our amendments seek to address.
First, Amendment 144 would delete Clause 42(2)(c), as this is foundational to the issue. The subsection gives the Home Office the power to remove settled status without affording status holders the procedural safeguards provided by the withdrawal agreement where it believes that settled status was granted in error, even if that error was the Home Office’s.
This is wrong, for several reasons: first, because it is wrong for the Government to remove status from someone who applied in good faith without committing fraud or misrepresentation of any kind and who has been building their life in the UK over many years. If the Home Office has made an error in the original decision, it is one that it needs to live with rather than visiting that error on others and potentially causing huge disruption and misery.
Secondly, it is wrong because it allows the Government to execute this decision without applying the procedural safeguards which exist to ensure that status is not unjustly removed, and which are provided under the withdrawal agreement. This is because, where the Home Office thinks status is granted in error, it does not issue a decision to remove the status; if it did, people would have procedural safeguards, as the Home Office would need to have applied a proportionality assessment and the status holder would have a right to appeal.
Instead, what the Home Office does is to allow the status to expire. This sidesteps a proportionality assessment, which would otherwise be required, and denies the right of appeal. The Home Office says that this is a helpful thing to do, to give people a bit more time before their status is lost, but in fact it is letting status holders slide off a cliff without any of the withdrawal agreement safeguards. This must not be allowed to happen, fundamentally because the Home Office may well be wrong in its assessment that the status was granted in error.
Does the Minister accept that there is no right of appeal on the specific decision to allow a person’s status to expire on the basis that the pre-settled status was granted in error? Is a withdrawal agreement-compliant proportionality assessment made before a decision is taken to allow status to expire? If it is not applied, does he accept that the Government will be in breach of the withdrawal agreement should it transpire that they wrongly asserted that pre-settled status was granted in error? The fundamental issue here is protecting people’s rights to safeguards under the withdrawal agreement.
Thirdly, the subsection could also invite any government department or public body to revisit a grant of settled status to decide whether the individual can rely on withdrawal rights by assessing a person’s legal position on 31 December 2020. That is precisely what the clause is supposed to avoid.
I turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 142 would ensure that
“all persons granted residence status in the UK under the EUSS, which has not been cancelled, curtailed, or revoked”
benefit from Clause 42—not only those with extant settled status. This is to ensure that rights under the withdrawal agreement are maintained for those whose status is varied—for example, if they have been forced to give up settled status to access protection as victims of domestic abuse—those whose pre-settled status has expired because of a failure of the automatic extensions and those whose settled status has been deliberately expired rather than revoked.
Amendments 143 and 145 would address the situation for those granted settled status under EU derivative rights; that is, those rights which were established outside EU directives through case law, which are known as Zambrano, Ibrahim/Teixeira and Chen rights. Zambrano rights holders are not protected under the withdrawal agreement, and these amendments would maintain that situation, but they would ensure that Ibrahim/Teixeira and Chen rights were covered by Clause 42.
In conclusion, these amendments would clarify the law. They would give certainty and reassurance to settled status holders and would ensure that the Government’s stated intentions had effect.
Finally, before I sit down, I want to raise with the Minister a related issue of serious concern about the lack of transparency of the Home Office over the effectiveness of its digital immigration systems, which directly impact settled status holders. On 22 July, I tabled a Written Question asking how many reports had been made through the “Report an error with your eVisa” online form in each of the past 12 months. The Minister replied on 30 July, saying:
“The information requested is not currently available from published data and could only be collated and verified for the purposes of answering this question at disproportionate cost”.
The idea that the eVisa IT system cannot generate a report of how many error forms it has received for anything above a minimal cost is, to my mind, absurd. In any event, this is critical information for policymakers and those who scrutinise them. If officials and Ministers do not have this data, how can they know how their systems are functioning?
Perhaps they do know the answer, and they just will not tell us. In replying to a similar question in a letter to the 3million group, the Home Office gave a different answer. It did not claim that the data could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In fact, it stated that it intended to publish the requested data on the volume of error web form requests in due course. We all know what “in due course” means, or, more precisely, we do not know what it means at all.
I hope the Minister will address this issue in his answer and tell us when the data will be published. We cannot have faith in ministerial assurances that errors in the eVisa system are not a significant problem if the Government are not able or prepared to share the data. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this issue and to the points raised on the amendments. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support these amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Ludford and Lord Oates. We support Amendments 142 to 145, as they would safeguard the rights of individuals granted status under the EU settlement scheme, ensure the proper application of the withdrawal agreement, prevent arbitrary removal of status, and uphold procedural safeguards.
It is worth just stating what those safeguards are. There are four of them: first, the Home Office must notify the person of the decision that their status will be removed; secondly, the Home Office must explain the grounds on which that cancellation decision was taken; thirdly, the Home Office must take proportionality into account before removing their status; and, finally, the individual would have a right of appeal against the decision to remove their status.
Amendment 142 would ensure that
“all persons granted residence status in the UK under the EUSS, which has not been cancelled, curtailed, or revoked”
benefit from Clause 42 even if they are not already direct beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement. This is crucial for some groups because there are those whose EUSS status might be varied; for example, to access protection as victims of domestic abuse under a different immigration route. It clarifies that these individuals should be deemed still to have directly effective withdrawal agreement rights.
Amendments 143 and 145 focus on those who obtain resident status by the various routes under the EUSS. While the Home Office suggests that these individuals are already part of what is called the “true cohort” of beneficiaries, there may be a minority whose grants were based on caseworker discretion and would not otherwise fall under this cohort. Amendments 143 and 145 ensure that such individuals who have built their lives in the United Kingdom in good faith are also included within the personal scope of the withdrawal agreement without undermining the Government’s overall policy intention to exclude certain other routes.
Lord Deben (Con)
I do not understand why one should object to protecting people with these four protections in circumstances in which it appears that the Home Office has made a mistake. It seems to me that the most unsuitable moment to remove the protections is when the Home Office has made a mistake. Indeed, if the Home Office has made a mistake, one would hope there would be greater protections because there was a mistake.
Lord German (LD)
The noble Lord is correct. If the Home Office recognises it has made a mistake, then it should apply the protections which are provided by the withdrawal agreement, which is precisely the major point that is being made in this set of amendments. Amendment 144 would ensure that all actions related to EUSS status are subject to clear procedural safeguards, as laid out in the withdrawal agreement.
Taken together, these amendments reinforce fairness and legal certainty for EUSS beneficiaries, ensuring that administrative decisions respect individual rights and that the procedural safeguards are consistently applied.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I have very little to add except that I await the explanation from the Minister with great interest. The amendments in this group and Clause 42 itself concern the rights of those granted settled status in the UK under the EU settlement scheme after the UK left the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has ably explained, there are a number of avenues for an individual to apply for this scheme. As I understand it, the impact of Clause 42 is to standardise the rights applicable to EU, EEA and Swiss citizens who are granted leave to remain under the settlement scheme so that they can rely on them under UK law. Subsection (2) of the clause defines precisely who this applies to, and Amendment 142 seeks to amend that. I am not quite certain of the intent behind that, because the language is very similar to the original text, so I think it is essential for the Minister to clarify what Clause 42 lacks that makes these amendments necessary.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for moving the amendments on behalf of himself and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. He will know that we had some meetings in relation to this, and I have tried to engage on behalf of the Home Office as the answering Minister here, but, as he realises, the Minister who has been dealing directly with this issue was until recently one Minister in the Commons and is now another Minister in the Commons. But we will return to that in due course.
First, I want to set out the purpose of Clause 42. As the noble Lord said, Clause 42 is designed to provide legal clarity for those EU citizens and their family members with EU settled status who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement that it is the source of their rights in the UK. This has been achieved very simply by confirming in UK law under Clause 42 that any EU citizen or their family member with EU settled status will be treated as being a withdrawal agreement beneficiary. Where they do not already do so, they will have directly effective rights under the withdrawal agreement as brought into domestic law by Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This gives legal effect to what has been the UK’s approach since the start of the EUSS.
Because the EUSS is more generous than the withdrawal agreement requires, there are, as the noble Lord has mentioned, two cohorts of EU citizens with EUSS status: there is the “true cohort” who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement because, for example, they were economically active or self-sufficient in the UK as per EU free movement law at the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020; and there is the “extra cohort” who were resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but did not meet the technical requirements of free movement law. Although the UK has sought, through both the previous Government and this Government, to treat both cohorts the same, certain court judgments since the end of the transition period, as the noble Lord mentioned, mean that some differences in treatment have emerged. The whole purpose of Clause 42 is to address that anomaly.
Amendment 142 in the noble Lord’s name permits all those granted EUSS status to benefit from the clause where that status has not been cancelled, curtailed or revoked. This would mean, for example, that Clause 42 would benefit a person who was granted EUSS status but has since committed a serious criminal offence, for example, and has been deported from the United Kingdom. In my opinion, that would not be an appropriate outcome, but it would be the effect of the amendment that the noble Lord has tabled.
In respect of those with pre-settled status under the EUSS who obtain another form of immigration leave, I can confirm that this amendment is not needed because the clause as drafted covers that point. We have listened carefully to representations with stakeholders on these issues and we have decided that, where a person with pre-settled status obtains other leave, such as the domestic abuse route, they will retain their pre-settled status. That will enable them easily to show that they still have withdrawal agreement rights, should they need to do so.
The noble Lords spoke to Amendments 143 and 145 together, and I will deal with them together, if I may. These are concerned with those with EUSS status based on certain derivative rights under EU law. Those individuals include people who are the primary carer of a self-sufficient EU citizen child or with a child in education in the UK where the EU citizen parent has been a worker here and their primary carer. Both these categories are in scope of the withdrawal agreement and are included in the EUSS on a basis which reflects the relevant EU law requirements. Complex though this is, a person granted EUSS status on that basis will be in the “true cohort” and will have the withdrawal agreement rights in the UK. The amendments are therefore unnecessary.
That is so regardless of whether the caseworker applied evidential flexibility in granting EUSS status. Such flexibility—for example, not requiring missing evidence to be provided and therefore minimising administrative burdens on the applicant—can be applied only where the caseworker is already satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the relevant requirements of the EUSS rules are met.
Finally, Amendment 144 would remove subsection (2)(c) from Clause 42. This would mean that we were granting withdrawal agreement rights to people in the UK who do not qualify for EUSS status, which would not be right. Subsection (2)(c) protects the integrity of the EUSS and of Clause 42. It ensures that, to benefit from Clause 42 and therefore have withdrawal agreement rights, the person was correctly granted EUSS status. This amendment is not needed to ensure that the status of a person in the “true cohort”, or by virtue of this clause in the “extra cohort”, can be removed only by applying the procedural safeguards contained in the withdrawal agreement.
The noble Lord mentioned the issue of a decision to cancel, curtail or revoke EUSS status. It carries a right of appeal under Regulation 3 or 4 of the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, and nothing in Clause 42 changes that. I hope that will give him the reassurance that he seeks. A person whose EUSS status has manifestly been granted in error will not be in the true or extra cohort and should not benefit from Clause 42.
Safeguards are still in place in such cases. Where the Home Office comes across the case of EUSS status granted in error, the individual is contacted and provided with a reasonable opportunity to show that their grant of EUSS status was correct. If they cannot do so and they have pre-settled status, our current approach is to allow them to remain in the UK for the remaining period of their leave. They are also informed that they can reapply to the EUSS. If such an application is made and refused, it will give rise to a right of appeal. Any family member application that is refused because the sponsor was granted EUSS status in error also attracts a right of appeal. Safeguards that I hope the noble Lord will find adequate are therefore in place in both these cases.
We have had a discussion and I hope the noble Lord can look at what I have said. Again, this is always a complex area. I have read deliberately from my brief so that the issue is, I hope, clarified by what I have said, and he can read Hansard in the morning and look at what I have said to date. The purpose of Clause 42 is to clarify the very points that the noble Lord has concerns over, and that is why I hope he will withdraw this amendment today. If he remains unhappy then obviously he has the opportunity to return to this issue on Report.
The noble Lord asked about data. I answer in this House for the department, but I often answer for other ministerial colleagues who are looking at these issues in detail. I will revisit the questions that the noble Lord put to me on data sharing, and I will make sure that, well before Report, I get him a fuller response to clarify the issues that he has raised, because I am unable to give him a definitive answer on that today. While I might wish to do so, it is best if I examine that in the cold light of day and drop him a note accordingly. With that, I hope he will not press the amendments.
Lord Oates (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response and for taking time to meet me and my colleagues to discuss these matters, as he referred to. I am grateful for his clarification regarding Amendments 143 and 145, which will give welcome reassurance.
I am not entirely convinced that the response he has given to Amendment 144 addresses all the concerns that we have raised, although I will certainly study Hansard carefully in case I have missed some of those issues. While it is true that someone whose status expires because the Home Office has determined that it was granted in error has a right to subsequently apply again, and if that is refused then they can appeal, that is not an appeal against the decision that the original status was granted in error, so that remains a cause for concern. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, it is particularly in cases where the Home Office has made an error that we want all the safeguards to exist.
Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We will look at it and decide how to proceed from here. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
“(2A) After section 3(1) insert—“(1A) The Secretary of State must, where a person breaches any of the conditions of their leave to enter or remain under subsection (1)(c), make a deportation order against the person.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that anyone who breached a condition of their leave to enter or remain would be deported from the United Kingdom.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 146 and 147, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel.
At the heart of these amendments is the principle of conditionality. Where an individual is granted conditional leave to enter or remain in this country, that permission is given on very clear terms. We need to be clear that these conditions are not arbitrary or frivolous. They are carefully set out to protect the fundamental interests of our economy, the integrity of our communities and the sustainability of our public funds. If those conditions are broken then the privilege of remaining in the United Kingdom should be forfeited. To do otherwise would render the entire conditionality regime meaningless. Rules that cannot be enforced are not rules at all; they are invitations to abuse and exploitation, and they undermine the trust of the British people in our immigration system.
The amendments before us are common sense. They would require that, where an individual breached the conditions of their leave, a deportation order must follow. That is a proportionate consequence, one that would reinforce the principle that with the right to stay comes the responsibility to comply. This is also about fairness to those who abide by the rules—fairness to the taxpayer who shoulders the cost of our public services, and fairness to our communities who deserve confidence that immigration is properly managed.
These are key aspects of government administration. Without robust enforcement, our borders cannot be effectively controlled and our laws risk becoming toothless. Through these amendments, we are providing the Government with the tools they need to deliver on their own stated objective of a firm but fair immigration system. The amendments are practical, enforceable and just. They would ensure that our conditionality regime had meaning, that our rules had effect and that the British people could have confidence that their borders were being properly secured.
On the question that Clause 43 does not stand part of the Bill, we on these Benches must disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I do not need to go into great detail on the point. Clause 43 pertains to conditions on limited leave to enter or remain, but we on these Benches are clear that, where this status is granted, it is vital that strict conditions are both met and enforced, and that anyone found to have broken those conditions should be deported. The Government have a duty to control and manage immigration in the interests of our country. We say that removing those conditions undermines the Government’s ability to do that, so I cannot support it.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, raises an interesting point in reference to the Immigration Act 2016 on the process of being granted bail accommodation. I too would be grateful, alongside the noble Lord, to hear from the Minister what the Government’s assessment of this is, whether it is a problem that they have identified and what plans they have to mitigate it. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I have tabled a notice to oppose Clause 43, which has been signed by a former immigration Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
I have listened with great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has just said, so I shall make it clear what the amendment is about. We are not trying to stop the Government doing what they say they need to do, but we are objecting to a means of doing it that is arguably unnecessary and which is certainly exorbitant—indeed, dangerously so.
The provision that Clause 43 would amend is Section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, under the title:
“General provisions for regulation and control”.
Section 3(1) is indeed general in its scope. It provides for conditions to be imposed on any person who is given limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. That includes those who are here on a student visa, a business visa or a spousal visa. The conditions that can currently be imposed on the grant of such visas do not appear in the amendment. I remind noble Lords what they are: they include the power to issue visas for certain types of work only, and the power to require visa holders to maintain themselves and their dependants without recourse to public funds. They are fair conditions, and they are well understood by those who are subject to them. Those people include—and I declare an interest—one of my sons-in-law, who is on the five-year pathway to indefinite leave to remain. The happy couple have settled in Norwich, but I try not to hold that against them.
Clause 43, if we were to pass it into law, would allow the Secretary of State to impose on any of these visa holders such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit. No limit of any kind is placed on this power, and its potential severity is shown by the illustrative restrictions given in Clause 43(2): electronic tagging, a curfew to operate in a place specified by the Secretary of State for unlimited periods of day or night, and requirements on individuals not to enter a specified area—exclusion zones—and not to leave a specified area, so-called inclusion zones.
Such conditions are not entirely without precedent in our law. They will be familiar to your Lordships from the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or TPIMs, introduced in the TPIM Act 2011 and echoed in Part 2 of the National Security Act 2023, for those believed to be involved in foreign power threat activity. It might be thought extraordinary enough if this clause allowed individuals whose only crime is to have studied here or married a British citizen to be treated like terrorist suspects, but it is worse than that. Clause 43 would introduce a materially harsher regime than TPIMs in at least three respects.
First, there is the threshold for their use. TPIMs require a reasonable belief on the part of the Secretary of State that the subject is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. Clause 43, by contrast, is universal in its application. There is no threshold. Even the most blameless of migrants, whose only crime is to have come here for a wholly legitimate purpose, may in law be subject to its full rigour.
Secondly, there is the scope. The measures that appear in Clause 43(2) are all familiar from Schedule 1 to the TPIM Act, but the range of possible TPIMs is at least finite. Not even in respect of those believed to be terrorists did Parliament trust the Government with the unlimited power to impose, in the words of Clause 43,
“such other conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit”.
Thirdly, there are the safeguards. TPIMs can be imposed only after the Home Secretary has obtained both the permission of the High Court and the confirmation of the CPS that it is not feasible to prosecute the subject for any criminal offence. No such safeguard exists in Clause 43, which would allow the severest restrictions on personal liberty to be imposed by the Executive without the intervention of a court on a potentially vast range of people, without any requirement for consultation, authorisation, automatic judicial review of the kind that exists for TPIMs, or oversight.
Clause 43 came late to this Bill. It was introduced in Committee in the Commons. No attempt was made to defend its breadth of application, but the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Angela Eagle, did explain the limited circumstances in which the Government proposed to use the new powers for which they were asking. It was intended for use, she said:
“Where a person does not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention but cannot be removed from the UK because of our obligations under domestic and international law”.—[Official Report, Commons, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, 13/3/25; col. 265.]
It was intended to allow the same conditions to be placed on such persons as they might have been subjected to under immigration bail. She said:
“The powers will be used only in cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety”.—[Official Report, Commons, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, 13/3/25; col. 268.]
Speaking for myself, that objective is entirely understandable, indeed defensible, though I pause to say that the definition of extremism is worryingly uncertain. Given the Government’s limited ambitions for the use of this clause, can the Minister explain why the existing powers to issue TPIMs, serious crime prevention orders and measures under Part 2 of the National Security Act 2023 are considered insufficient? They contain better safeguards and seem to meet precisely the cases that the Minister has in mind. Indeed, serious crime prevention orders are to be extended further by Part 3 of this Bill. If I am right about that, there is no need for Clause 43, but I am sure the Minister will explain.
Even if these existing powers are not sufficient, any new power must surely be tailored to its intended target, rather than to the vast range of innocent visa holders covered by Clause 43 in its current form. That is what the Constitution Committee had in mind when we recommended that the power be narrowed and that safeguards on its use be included in the Bill. The Joint Committee on Human Rights reported in similar terms. For anyone who is interested in more detail, I can recommend the useful briefings from Amnesty and the Public Law Project.
No one doubts for a moment the good faith of the Minister or his colleagues, but to legislate for unlimited powers and trust to assurances from the Dispatch Box about the narrow scope of their intended use would not just be poor legislative practice but an abandonment of parliamentary scrutiny at the very time when that scrutiny is most needed. The courts have no regard to ministerial assurances, save when the terms of an Act are ambiguous. That, as noble Lords know, is a rare eventuality.
No one who looks at the opinion polls can be confident that all possible future Governments would apply Clause 43 with the restraint to which this Government have committed. To enact Clause 43 would be a gift-wrapped present to any future Government who wished to threaten or erode the rights of immigrants across the board, without thresholds or oversight. If this clause is needed at all, I hope the Minister will agree that it should at least be confined in the Bill to the circumstances where that need arises.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I am very pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and my name is on this amendment. I would just like to say to my noble friend Lord Davies that I was indeed the Immigration Minister, and I came forward with the term “being firm but fair” in relation to all immigration matters. I think that has stood the test of time. I have always believed in very strict conditions being attached not only to the Immigration Rules and their application but to our approach to those who seek asylum in this country.
My name is on this amendment because this is something of an example of a Government using a sledgehammer where it has been quite unnecessary to do so. This clause is so general and so wide in its effects that it seems to me to go against all propriety and balance. I will be very brief because I do not want to fall into the trap of repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has said, but I want to tease the Minister out a little on those points.
We know that terrorism prevention and investigation measures, TPIMs, are already very effective, and as are serious crime prevention orders. They all have within them the necessary ingredients to be able to deal with virtually all the circumstances that we are debating in relation to this Bill. Therefore, I again suggest to the Minister that it is unnecessary for us to have these extra powers being sought by the Government. It is true that the Minister in the House of Commons gave a clear indication that the use would be only limited. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has given us the list of things where there might be interest here. However, in the circumstances, these intentions of the Minister do not necessarily make good law and I am sure he shares my concern that, if you allow extensions in this way, you are allowing future Governments to abuse the system and the situation unnecessarily.
Also, these new measures, unlike TPIMs or the SCPOs, do not seem to require any judicial approval. There is no such requirement, so far as I can see. As a fairly junior lawyer, but a lawyer nevertheless, I find that reprehensible and dangerous. I would like the Minister’s comments on that.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure that the amendment in my name ought to be in this group, but it has to be somewhere, and it probably does not deserve to be on its own. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for moving away from the topic. The only link I have is that my amendment would add something to the clause that we are discussing, but that is out of convenience as much as anything else.
There seems to have been some confusion between the Home Office and those who have been advising me about this amendment. I do not think I am in a position to speak to it until my noble friend and I have had an opportunity to meet and discuss it. It is not a long amendment, but it is quite an important one. It relates to what the guidance says on immigration bail and what it should say going forward. I do not want to say much more about it now. We have lots of business to complete today and I imagine the Committee has heard too much from me anyway, so I am going to leave it there.
I do not have any intention of moving the amendment, but I invite my noble friend to meet me shortly. It would be a short meeting just to discuss whether there has been some misunderstanding between the department and those who have asked me to table this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Committee does not need me to repeat what has been said about Clause 43 by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Kirkhope. I agree more than I can say with what they have said. Tagging, curfew, and requiring someone to be or prohibiting someone from being in a particular place at particular times, et cetera—the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has explained what “et cetera” could mean in this situation—are all huge interferences with life in practical, emotional and psychological terms. It basically means that you cannot live a normal life. For instance, how would an international student pursue a course with these restrictions?
As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned, the Constitution Committee made a recommendation regarding this clause in its report on the Bill. We have had a response today from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, saying that the person affected can make representations to the Home Office and apply for a judicial review, which the Home Office says in its letter would “provide appropriate scrutiny”. That may be the topic for a whole other, long debate. Noble Lords will understand that I do not feel—I say this personally, because the committee has not had an opportunity to discuss this yet—that that is an appropriate or particularly helpful response.
The comments—the assurances, perhaps I should call them—made by the then Minister for Border Security and Asylum have been referred to. I would be surprised if this detail had yet been discussed within the Home Office, but one never knows, so perhaps it would not be out of place to ask the Minister whether the change of various Ministers within the department means that these assurances remain in place. Is this still what the Government think? Would they be able to give some sort of undertaking to this effect? However, I do not think that would completely answer our objections to Clause 43.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, in an earlier debate on the Bill, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel reminded me that it is the purpose of the Opposition to oppose. That is why I find it impossible to understand why the Opposition are not opposing this clause. I thought that Conservatives were wholly against Governments being given powers without very clear parliamentary restrictions.
I understand the argument that, if people are allowed into this country with conditions and they break them, all kinds of things, perfectly rightly, can be carried out; I am not disagreeing with that. But I would have thought that it would not take much, looking around the world at the moment, to see how dangerous it is to have a law which can be used by Governments of any kind to do almost anything that they want to. We can look at the United States and see a President who appears to be trying to do things which the law does not allow him to do. Think what would happen if the law did allow him to make the kinds of decisions this clause suggests. I also say to my noble friends that, if this clause applied without any restrictions to citizens of this country, the very first people to object to that would be the Opposition.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be serious in accepting that the argument is not about immigration; it is about what powers the Government should be given, unfettered by parliamentary decision-making and the courts. It seems to me that the powers given to Governments under this clause are unacceptable. I am sure that they would not be misused by the Minister or any of his colleagues, but that is not to say that we do not have in this country politicians whom I would not trust with these powers—some of them, indeed, have been in power, and I would not have trusted them with these powers.
Having been a Minister for some 16 years, I always found it valuable that my decision-making should be kept within particular parameters laid down by Parliament. One was constantly being asked by civil servants and people outside to do this, that or the other, and one was able to say, “That is not within my power”. I do not think this is a suitable clause for a British Parliament to pass. We should rely on the law we have already or, if there is any gap in it, reduce that gap in a clause which is very specifically restricted so that we do not tempt any future politicians to behave improperly.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I agree with everything that the noble Lord said, although I slightly dissent from his description of his discussions with his civil servants. I used to be a civil servant and I thought that the main job of civil servants was to stop Ministers doing things they should not do or did not have the powers to do. Otherwise, however, I entirely agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, made a powerful case. To me, this is a very strange clause. We have to listen to what our Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights said. I followed what the Minister said in the Commons, which was that the power conferred on Ministers would be used only in cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, extremism—I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—or serious crime, or when a person poses a threat to national security or public safety and, presumably, cannot be deported. If the clause said all that, limiting and ring-fencing the powers of the Minister, I could understand the rationale for it and might even support it. However, with no ring-fencing, it is—as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, said—a sledgehammer. The absence of any judicial oversight provision is wrong. It is dangerous to give Ministers the power to add such other conditions as they think fit. This is just too broad and, if it is to be there at all, it needs to be limited. If the Government’s intentions are as Angela Eagle said in the other place, let that be spelled out in the Bill.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful as ever for the discussion around Clause 43 and for the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I will start by setting out the Government’s view on the purpose of Clause 43. There will be an opportunity, as has been discussed, to follow the course of action suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Kirkhope, to delete the clause. There is also the possibility on Report to look at strengthening the clause by some amendments that could be brought forward on judicial oversight. However, I want to put on record where the Government believe they are at the moment.
Noble Lords will know Clause 43 will end the disparity in the powers available to protect the public from migrants who pose a threat but currently cannot be removed or deported because of our obligations under domestic or international law. It will also make absolutely clear the conditions that may be imposed when a person is subject to immigration bail. Where a person is liable to be detained—for example, they are in the UK without the required permission or are subject to deportation proceedings—they may be placed on immigration bail. Those on immigration bail can be subject to measures such as electronic monitoring and curfews, which are imposed in accordance with our ECHR obligations.
A person who does not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention, but who cannot be removed from the UK because of our obligations under domestic and international law, may fall to be granted permission to stay. Irrespective of the threat posed by the person, our legislation currently prevents us from imposing the same conditions that they may have been subject to while on immigration bail. The Government believe that this is perverse. I hope that I can give the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Deben, the assurance that the decisions to impose these conditions will only be taken on a case-by-case basis in order to appropriately address the specific risks that a person is assessed to pose.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. He has really said just one thing, which is not in dispute across the House: he and his colleagues would use these powers on a case-by-case basis and in a very responsible way. However, with great respect, he has not answered either of the two points that were made to him in the debate. The first was the question of why serious crime prevention orders, TPIMS or prevention and investigation measures under the National Security Act 2023 would not be sufficient to deal with all the categories of people that Angela Eagle referred to. That is the question of whether Clause 43 is necessary at all.
Secondly—assuming he makes that case—how can he justify a power that is designed for such a narrow purpose being drafted in such an impossibly broad fashion? Although the Minister says, quite rightly, that we can put this to a Division on Report, I remind him that the TPIM Act, with all the safeguards that it contains, is 59 pages long. Drafting thresholds, proper provisions for scope, and safeguards is not a simple matter—not for a humble and unlettered Back-Bencher or Cross-Bencher such as myself.
I remember a similar case with the deprivation of citizenship, in which, under the last Government, a clause was put forward that allowed anyone who was subject to deprivation to be deprived of their citizenship without notice. It was seen that this was far broader than it needed be and the Government met with me and others and assisted with the drafting. We ended up with something much more tailored to the policy that the Government were seeking to advance, which nobody has questioned in this debate. Will the Minister meet with us in a constructive spirit and with a view to finding a clause that meets the Government’s policy but is not open to the sort of abuse to which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others have referred?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, knows from our 13 months or so of engagement with him that I am always open to meet with noble Lord and to have input into the legislative process to make sure that the Government’s objectives are workable and practicable. I will happily meet with him to reflect on those points. I have Members from the Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Cross Benches pressing me on this issue; it is important that I listen to those reflections with the policy Minister who has argued that case in the House of Commons.
Let us look at what has been said today in the cold light of day and reflect upon it. I will certainly arrange a meeting to hear his concerns further and look at the issues. The Government believe that Clause 43 is of sound policy and that it would be used in the limited circumstances that I have described. They believe that those circumstances can be defined and, even though new sub-paragraph (x) in Clause 43(2)(b) says
“other conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit”,
I understand his concern on that matter. But I believe, again, that a responsible Secretary of State would be held to account, would have to explain and bring forward information on that, and would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in the House of Commons where votes from the governing party can take place, but also in this noble House.
So I say to the noble Lord: let us meet, but the Government have put forward a clause that they believe is appropriate. There are noble Lords in this Committee who believe it is not, so let us have that discussion in the cold light of day to reflect on those points.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
When the Minister goes back to the policy Minister, will he reassure her that nobody in this debate has questioned the policy that the Government are seeking to pursue? All we are questioning is the method they have chosen.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That point has been made, and I will discuss that with my colleagues in government. Clause 43 as drafted is before the Committee today, but there are opportunities to discuss it further if the noble Lord is not happy with any assurances that we can give outside the Committee to table amendments that can be debated and voted upon in due course. I will leave it at that.
Amendment 148 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bach seeks to clarify the eligibility criteria for bail accommodation under Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. Under this provision, the Secretary of State has the power to provide accommodation to someone in exceptional circumstances only when they have been granted immigration bail and are subject to a residence condition that requires them to live at an address specified in that condition. The Home Office recognises that, where the Secretary of State is required to provide a person with accommodation to enable them to meet their bail conditions, a specified address cannot always be known at the time of the bail grant. Accordingly, it has been a long-standing policy position that bail can be granted with a residence condition to an address that is known at the time of the grant of immigration bail, or an address that is yet to be specified. In 2024, this was also set out explicitly in the relevant guidance. The policy is clear, and operational teams are already operating the legislation in this way, to ensure that someone can apply to the Home Office for bail accommodation without having been granted bail to a specific address. Therefore, the amendment—with its good intention—would make no material difference to the current operation of the legislation and is not necessary. I am happy to hear further from the noble Lord, but I invite him not to move his amendment.
On the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, Amendment 146 would require the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against persons who breach the conditions attached to their leave in the UK. Such breaches of conditions may already be addressed by cancelling that leave and removing the person from the UK without the need to seek a deportation order. Mandating deportation in such cases is not therefore necessary. It will provide no guarantee that a person’s removal from the UK could be enforced if they were to make a human rights or protection claim against their removal.
Finally, Amendment 147 would replace existing criminal sanctions for offences under Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 with a penalty of deportation. Overstayers and illegal entrants are already liable to removal from the UK. Where a person is convicted of an offence and sentenced to a period of imprisonment, consideration will be given to their deportation. With respect to the noble Lord, the amendment risks encouraging offending behaviour and would not result in an increase in removals from the UK.
This has been a serious debate that has raised a number of points. But I hope, given what I have said, that the noble Lord will not press his objection to Clause 43. I will meet noble Lords to discuss their objections further to understand their concerns better. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments so that we can examine the clause together.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group for their contributions to this debate. This has been a group that clearly reflects several different views, and I welcome that we have been able to have a debate on these issues.
We on these Benches remain firm in our resolve that conditional leave to enter or remain should be just that—conditional on criteria that seek to safeguard our communities, our public services and our economy. These conditions do not undermine our capacity to be compassionate, our capacity to help those who are in need, or our record of supporting those who need our help. They ensure that we have a system that is controlled and protects our country, and over which the Government can exercise their dutiful authority. These are fundamental duties and we have sought to support the Government in meeting their own objectives. I therefore hope the Minister will seriously consider these amendments as a way of empowering him and his colleagues to take action that is needed to ensure that our conditions are not optional. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“(3A) In section 15, after subsection (7) insert—“(8) The Secretary of State may take such reasonable steps as they consider appropriate to ensure that employers and other persons referred to in section 14A(1) have been made aware of the provisions of sections 14A and 15A.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the impact on businesses and employers of this section.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Tempting as it is to continue the debate we have just had, I will resist. In moving Amendment 150, I will speak also to my Amendments 153 and 203D in this group.
I first make it clear that I support the right to work, which is dealt with in a less narrow way than by my amendments. My noble friend Lord German has Amendments 151 and 152. This is something for which these Benches and many other noble Lords have argued for years, for practical and economic reasons, including using the skills of those concerned, matters of dignity and so on, and because not being able to work should not be a punishment, which is how in some places it is perceived. There are a lot of issues that we could be debating around illegal working, including how vulnerable our laws make some people to exploitation.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 151 and 152 in my name, and Amendment 154 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, which I have signed.
I will begin by explaining to the Committee the whereabouts of the other signatories. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has had Covid—caught here, I am afraid, in meetings last week. She is very unwell but recovering at the present. It is a great shame that she was not able to speak to these amendments. Perhaps more worrying, of course, was the accident that I know most noble Lords will have read about in the newspaper, which involved the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who suffered at Victoria station from the bus that drove off the road. He has some serious injuries. I am not in a position to say whether he is making a speedy recovery, but he has replied to emails, so that says something of his perseverance. The Committee might wish to offer him every best wish in recovering swiftly from that accident.
These are very important amendments for many noble Lords around the Committee, because they concern how we can do a number of things that are currently on the agenda for the Government all in one go. Tens of thousands of people are currently banned from working while awaiting an asylum decision and are made forcibly dependent on the state for support, which is often inadequate; for accommodation, which is often overpriced; and for subsistence. Spending on hotel accommodation alone costs us £8 million per day.
The Government’s policy includes five priorities: first, to reduce the asylum support budget; secondly, to reduce or eliminate the number of asylum seekers accommodated in hotels; thirdly, to reduce child poverty; fourthly, to reduce the homelessness burden on local authorities of newly recognised refugees; and, fifthly, to reduce the number of people claiming state benefits. Amendment 151 addresses all those priorities. Enabling asylum seekers to work will reduce the asylum support budget and enable people to earn money, so that they can pay their own accommodation costs. Giving people this support enables them to make the best choices for themselves and their families. It would also help cohesion between host communities and asylum seekers if they are seen to be paying their way.
Visible delivery is what the Government need, and this policy could contribute to that if communities see hotels being closed. Working will help those asylum seekers who get refugee status—which is somewhere in the region of three-quarters—to stand on their own two feet much quicker than if they had been languishing in a hotel for months or years. This would be very helpful to local authorities with their obligations to homeless people and to the DWP benefit budget.
I understand what the Government’s responses to this will be. First, I am sure that the Minister will tell us that this will be a pull factor. However, having asked this question frequently, including in this Chamber, I have found that, in reality, there is no available evidence that supports the argument that it is a pull factor—that is an assumption. All the available evidence suggests that employment rights play little or no role in determining people’s choice of destination when they are seeking safety and are largely unknown to people seeking asylum before they arrive here. Without the evidence, the UK currently has one of the most restrictive working policies compared to our European neighbours. Lifting the ban on work would bring the United Kingdom in line with other OECD member states. In countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, people seeking asylum gain the right to work much earlier—after six months, three months or, in some countries, even earlier, such as in Belgium.
The second reason that the Government push back against this policy is because they believe that we are already reducing the list of people who are seeking asylum. They argue that we are improving our processing and getting appeal times tighter, so the work will not be needed at this stage. Although the Government aim to process all asylum claims within six months—a welcome ambition in a system where many people wait for years for an outcome—we must be realistic. When the current ban was introduced in 2002, the then Government made an identical argument about processing times, and the six-month target was not met. The proportion of people waiting six months or more for an asylum decision has risen sharply over the last decade, from one in four, or 25%, at the end of 2014, to 59% at the end of 2024. No matter what the Government are doing—they may be reducing the processing time—we still have large numbers and long waits.
There is also no reason that faster application processing and enhanced working rights must be mutually exclusive policies; in fact, they should be complementary. This policy would allow people to apply for work sooner. It would not only improve their lives but enable them to contribute to the economy, reduce public spending on the asylum system and bolster community cohesion. Legal working of this sort is to be entirely separated from the idea of illegal working, which the Government of course want to crack down on. The Government can contain legal working and make all the necessary provisions for it.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 154A seeks to extend the conditions for someone subject to immigration controls by adding a proposed new paragraph (c) to Section 15(1) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. I am not a lawyer and apologise for my slowness in working out how you refer to a subsection of a section. It deals with the rules for employers or businesses using delivery riders covered by this Act. It aims to ensure that all who deliver and make their living from transporting goods, meals and other matters, whatever the vehicle they drive, have a full driving licence, and that the businesses which employ, contract or otherwise with the bikers will be held accountable if they do not have the necessary driving licence.
I tabled the amendment because, as they stand, the regulations governing e-bikes are complex and difficult to operate. They involve a level of commitment and time by the police forces of the UK which, under the stringencies, operational priorities and finances of today, they are unlikely to be able to afford. A report from the Guardian of 4 September illustrates some of these difficulties, referring to two police constables from the City of London cycle response unit. It reveals that, for e-cycles, particularly those used for delivery, there is often a breach of the conditions for using them. The report highlighted that changes are made to an e-bike to empower it to travel at speeds of up to 60 miles an hour. They are finding these and impounding them.
This is certainly a problem, but so are the routine offences committed daily by delivery bikes, which make life for people using the pavement and public spaces—whether parks, gardens, commons, greens, pieces or streets in the towns and cities of this country—dangerous. These bikes career at speed on pavements and cycleways, with no front or rear lights at night. Whether on the streets or the pavement, they continue to break the Highway Code. I have had a very instructive weekend on the Highway Code, which I recommend to your Lordships. Many, but not all, delivery riders are from overseas. We must presume that they have the right to work under Section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.
That also applies to self-employed contractors, because it makes it unlawful to employ an individual who does not have the right to work in the UK, and engaging a contractor falls under the definition of employing for the purposes of the Act. The section prohibits someone employing an adult subject to immigration control if the person has not been given leave to enter or remain, the leave is invalid or out of date or the subject has been prevented from accepting employment.
My amendment specifically adds the prohibition on employing or contracting with drivers or bikers without a full driving licence, whether delivery is made by a motorbike or an e-cycle or the normal motorised ways of doing so. The aim is to ensure that they have a full driving licence and are covered by licence rules. The law already obliges deliverers who drive a car, a lorry or a motorcycle to have a valid licence, as well as registering, insuring and taxing the vehicle and getting an MoT, and some, indeed, have the courier addition, but this amendment extends to those who ride or drive an e-bicycle to do so—to deliver goods, groceries, meals, whatever—whether the vehicle is powered by combustion engine, electric battery or hybrid.
As matters stand, the rules are that anyone over 14 can ride an electric bike without a driving licence and without the bike being registered, taxed or insured, provided it is an electrically assisted pedal bike—an EAPC. To qualify as such a bike, it must have pedals that can be used to propel. It can have more than two wheels, but its electric motor must have a continuous rated output of no more than 250 watts, and it must not be able to propel the bike when it is travelling at more than 15.5 miles per hour. That is, the battery must not be such that it can power the bike at more than 15.5 miles per hour, although, if you are a speedy cyclist, you are allowed to do so by pedalling. The bike must show the continuous rate of power output of the manufacturer.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I simply want to ask the noble Baroness whether she can explain what the very detailed description she is giving has to do with border security, immigration or asylum.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I will come to that point, if I may. Anyway, there are very stringent rules governing these bikes, and they are all available. If your bike does not meet them, you have to register for a full scooter licence.
To answer the noble Lord’s intervention, for which I am very grateful, many delivery bikers come from overseas. I said at the start that we presume that they are covered by the rules under the 2006 Act. What I want to do is to add, for those people who are specifically covered by these immigration controls who drive these delivery bikes, that their employers will face an additional requirement if they come from overseas, which I think is germane to the debate we are having on borders, because many delivery bikers come from overseas and are subject to immigration controls.
If I may conclude and explain why I think it is perhaps necessary for the Home Office to consider this and take it on board, I go back to the police constable who says that illegal bikes are, in effect, motorbikes.
“These people have passed no test, have no road training and don’t have the road skills. They … ride around without insurance, tax, the bike not conforming to lights and everything else it should conform to, it’s not registered with the DVLA, all these things”.
One of the instances he dealt with was indeed an overseas biker who came from Bangladesh and had had his engine changed. The PC said that the problem was mainly to do with delivery bikes, but it could be with other bikes.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord German, for mentioning the very unfortunate accident that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, suffered. I was not aware of that. Many noble Lords will be well aware of the fearless campaigning on humanitarian issues over many years by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, often in very dangerous situations in various countries, so it is somewhat ironic that he suffered an injury at Victoria station, I think. I hope that it was not serious, and I very much look forward to seeing him back in his place as quickly as possible.
I want to speak to my Amendment 154, and I am also happy to support every other amendment in the group apart from Amendment 154A. I do so because last year, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I was fortunate enough to serve on the committee on modern slavery to which the noble Baroness referred, which was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation and chairman of the Task Force Trust, which I will come on to later. I extend my best wishes to those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord German, who are not able to be here because of illness, and wish them well.
I support the amendments on the right to work, particularly for domestic workers and those in the NRM. I have been an advocate of this for some time. Call me psychic, but I do not think the Government will accede to this for the very reason the noble Lord, Lord German, gave: the pull factor—although that has never been proved—or whatever.
In my capacity as chairman of the Task Force Trust, we have had a very interesting set of projects through Action Asylum—I would be very happy to show the Minister an evaluation report we got from the University of Nottingham—that get asylum seekers and refugees to do voluntary work, particularly in the environment field: things such as beach cleans, tree planting and a lot of other similar things. This is so important because it has been shown that, in local communities that are not always the most keen on what they perceive asylum seekers to be, they see them as real people, they see them as families and they see them doing things. It has been great for cohesion, but also a great thing for the asylum seekers themselves, to make them feel valued and part of the community, and it has helped their mental health. I think it is something that should be looked at more. As I said, I would be very happy to pass on a copy of this evaluation report from the University of Nottingham that shows the value of it.
There are other projects I have been aware of. For example, the Marylebone Cricket Club has a foundation which has been getting asylum seekers to play cricket. The Saracens Foundation has also involved refugees and so on into sports. I cannot help feeling that this is the way forward—at a time when we know full well that there are frictions out there in our communities—to make sure that they realise we are talking about actual people.
It is a lateish hour and there are plenty more speakers. I just say to my noble friend Lady Lawlor, on her amendment, I think the question of driving licences for these people is a valid one, but it is slightly discriminatory to say it is just for overseas people. There are plenty of other people around. It may be that she thought it was a cunning way to get the issue raised, but I do not think this is really part of this. With that, I will sit down, but I am very happy to meet the Minister, or pass him this report, because I think it is a very valuable idea in terms of community cohesion.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to offer Green group support for all the amendments in this group, except for Amendment 154A, and to express the greatest sympathy with those who are not able to be with us when we would like them to be. It is also terribly disappointing given that this is such an important group of amendments for addressing essential issues affecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society, as a result of our immigration law.
I will address two related amendments: Amendment 151 from the noble Lord, Lord German, and others, and Amendment 155A, both of which address points on what is known for short as the “lift the ban” campaign. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on this. Indeed, last week, I spoke with the Minister in Oral Questions about suggestions from the Refugee Council to allow people who are most likely to be given asylum status the right to work. This is a broader step.
Giving people the right to work as they seek asylum would, of course, empty the asylum hotels. That is one way of doing it, but the arguments for it extend beyond that. I note that the Global Compact on Refugees—a UN agreement that we do not hear much about these days, but undoubtedly should—says that refugees should be included in communities from the very beginning, meaning as soon as they arrive. What better way is there to include people in communities than to allow them to work? The noble Lord, Lord Randall, was just saying that voluntary work is great, but to enable people to support themselves, support their families and contribute to societies is surely better.
I will just draw on a little history. I am coming up to six years in your Lordships’ House, which makes me not quite a newbie any more by House of Lords standards, so I can go back to the Nationality and Borders Bill of 2022. I just point out that what we are presenting here is something that the House more or less supported, voted for and sent back to the other place. Amendment 30 of the Nationality and Borders Bill on Report was to change the Immigration Act 1971 to give asylum seekers the right to work after six months. It was proposed and the vote was called by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, backed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Ludford and Lady Meacher. Ten Conservatives and 32 Labour Members voted for that amendment, so we are not really going out on a limb here with these suggestions to allow people to work after three months or at least to review the possibility of six months.
A Times leading article from 16 December 2021 also called for—I emphasise that this was the Times—asylum seekers to be given the right to work after six months. I may not say this terribly often, but I entirely agree with the Times where it says:
“Enforced idleness is a waste of initiative and wealth”.
It notes that, at the time, the Migration Advisory Committee opposed the ban on asylum seekers working and the leading article suggested that they should be able to work in shortage occupations. This Times notes that, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said:
“Britain’s policy is more restrictive than that of EU member states”.
As the noble Lord also said, it
“would have no impact on the aggregated numbers of people granted asylum”.
I finish by quoting the Times’ conclusion:
“it would help the economy, reward enterprise and better integrate migrants into British society. A policy that is humane and beneficial for all concerned ought to be grasped”.
When we think about the way in which our immigration debate is going at the moment, it is worth thinking about how far we have moved in the wrong direction. Let us head back in a humane, just and sensible direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, has set out an overwhelming case for Amendment 154, on the fishing industry. It is worth going back to some research from the University of Nottingham Rights Lab from 2021. I do not think there is any evidence that the situation has improved since then. Some 35% of fishers reported experiencing regular physical violence, including racial abuse and sexual violence. Their average pay was £3.51 an hour—one-third of the minimum wage; 19% were working in conditions comparable to forced labour; and 60% reported shifts of a minimum of 16 hours. When we think of the conditions to which the noble Lord referred, one in three were working more than 20-hour shifts, and 100% from outside the EEA were on the visas we are talking about.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I want to reiterate what has just been said on Amendment 153. Like the previous speaker, I too have had experience of dealing with domestic servitude. I chaired an inquiry for the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland which was dealing with trafficking more generally. It came as a great surprise to me, because my own experiences as a younger barrister had been dealing with domestic workers inside embassies and diplomatic circles. People would often be brought from countries other than the Emirates or Saudi; they would be Filipino, or from parts of Pakistan or India. They were collected on entry into the country, their passports were taken from them, and they were deeply exploited. I remember being involved in a number of such cases when I was a young lawyer.
As a much more senior person chairing an inquiry, it came as a great surprise to me to find that many successful business people who were running chains of Indian restaurants and all manner of businesses brought people from villages where their ancestors were from. They would say to the workers that they would be paying their parents for their services. They would be paid at the sorts of rate that people would be getting back in those countries, whether it be Bangladesh, Pakistan, or wherever. The workers often received no money—maybe just meagre pocket money. They often slept on mats in the kitchen rather than in a proper bed. They were expected to work all hours of the day and night and were not able to complain anywhere. The idea of someone with a specific visa ending up being tied, like indentured labour, to a family, and not having it made clear to them that there were other options, was quite scandalous. It was rather shocking that we made those changes to those arrangements some years back, as has already been described. Since we have this Bill before us, now is the time to put that right; we have the opportunity to do so.
Kalayaan has been doing incredible work on this front. It has done deep research into what is a form of modern slavery—a smokescreen used to deflect the transparency and accountability there should be for what is experienced by many migrant workers. The evidence that Kalayaan has compiled reports very serious abuse. I ask the Committee to take seriously the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which I strongly support.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Amendments 151 and 152 and endorse and support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, will know that there have been a number of reports in local and national media about people without settled status who are seeking determination of their asylum-seeker status who have been alleged to be working as delivery drivers for food-delivery companies. Clearly, it is a potential loophole, and it is responsible for us to respond to that sensibly by an amendment that seeks to close that loophole.
On the other two amendments, the noble Lord, Lord German, will be aware that we debated this issue in Grand Committee a year or so ago, when we had quite a good debate. I always think it is a good rule of thumb that my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge speaks good sense. I do not always agree with everything he says, but I was determined to agree with something he said in his remarks. We laboured in the Whips’ Office in the other place many moons ago, and he took a pastoral interest in my short-lived career in the Whips’ Office. I agree with him more than I disagree in that this is a point of principle about whether you should give asylum seekers the right to work. I think the challenge is that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord German, says, there is a pull factor. People come to the UK, which is a unique economy, because it is in the right time zone, we speak English and we have a dynamic, service-based economy. They travel over many countries mainly, in my view, as economic migrants—clearly, there are a number of genuine asylum seekers—and it is not possible comprehensively to disprove the idea that they are coming for work.
The problem with the proposal is that the most disadvantaged group of people in this country is poor white British boys. A situation where you encourage an economic model that brings in more people to drive down wages, keep conditions not much better than was hitherto the case, cut back on training and keep this addiction to cheap foreign labour is not a model for a successful, happy and contented country. That does not, in any sense, second-guess the merits of individual people who want to come to the country to make a better life.
That brings me on to the point that the challenge we have here, and the thing that the Government can take away from this debate, is that there is much more to be done along the lines that my noble friend Lord Randall outlined in terms of civic education around British values—an educative or didactic process for these new asylum seekers to understand what Britain is about and how they can contribute as decent, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens without working. If you cross the Rubicon and say that, if you arrive and claim asylum, you can automatically work and enter the employment market, that is a step too far. However, the Government have a duty and a responsibility, for the sake of the taxpayer and for the welfare of those people and their families, to give them the opportunity to volunteer, train and assimilate but not to work. That is the challenge for the Minister.
In many respects, I support my noble friend Lord Randall—and even, maybe, to a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord German, and others—but on a point of principle I cannot support this amendment. I hope that the Minister will set his face against it, but the Government, as the previous Government did, could do a lot more in terms of the training and development of people who aspire to be British citizens.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I would like to find that there is something on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I think his point about assisting assimilation is very strong, but it is not an alternative to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German.
The Minister knows full well that I have been boring him for years about the right to work, and he used to show some personal sympathy for the point. I am with the noble Lord, Lord German, in not believing very strongly in the pull factor. I think people come here basically to escape persecution, famine and war. I think pull factors are, to the extent they exist, much less important. I think, secondly, that the best way to deal with pull factors to the extent that they do exist is with identity cards. I am a strong believer in identity cards. We made a great mistake when we dropped the idea; we should get back to it.
I support Amendments 151 and 155A. Amendment 155A is a very modest proposal; I hope that the Minister will feel that he can consider it. I think there is much to be said for the Treasury approach to this issue. That is an unusual statement to make but, in the Treasury, the right to work would have a double benefit: it would increase the tax take, and it would reduce public expenditure. These are both quite desirable benefits; if you are in the Treasury in current circumstances, they are highly desirable. The main argument for the right to work is human dignity and assisting the assimilation process. The Exchequer arguments are subordinate arguments, but they are real. We ought to reduce the cost of the queue. Of course, the best thing—as the Government are trying to do—would be to reduce the length of the queue but, if we can reduce the cost of the queue and increase the tax take, these must be things that are worth doing.
I have long felt that this is something that we ought to be able to do something about. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate at least an open mind on the softest of these amendments, Amendment 155A—the one that simply calls for a report.
Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)
My Lords, that may be my cue to speak to my Amendment 155A. I start by pointing to my declarations in the register of interests on two matters: first, the support that I received from the Refugee, Asylum Migration and Policy Project; and, secondly, my role as a paid chair of the Mayors Migration Council, which is a voice that I want to bring into the Room today. The Mayors Migration Council is a worldwide network of mayors. I was a founding member. It includes the mayors from Freetown, Amman, Zürich, Montreal, Rio and now, once again, Chicago. These are mayors who have been incredibly frustrated with the way that national Governments and networks of national Governments have approached migration while they as mayors have tried to create the conditions within which densely packed people within their boundaries live, and the conditions in which they can build the powerful economies that the nations depend on.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, we think that this is a very careful amendment. The way that the debate around asylum seekers and immigration has been happening in the UK generally is what I would describe as somewhat falling into “fight or flight”; it is quite panicked. One of the things that I have longed for, both as a resident of the UK and now as a Member of the House of Lords, is that we can make some space to take a deep breath and engage with the evidence—and not get caught up in the frenzy and fear that has been stoked around this question.
If the amendment is passed, we would require the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament annually on the Government’s working rights policies for people in the asylum system and for both Houses of Parliament to have the opportunity to debate a Motion on the report. That deliberately avoids jumping in two-footed and saying we should just lift the ban on asylum seekers working straight away, because I am sensitive to the potential of people accidentally or deliberately misunderstanding that and making more hay with it. But if we had this in place, with our Secretary of State coming back, it would give us the space to engage with the evidence and to take a breath, reflect on it, and begin to influence policy in response to that.
Lord German (LD)
The noble Lord has reminded me that I have not declared my interest as also being supported by the RAMP organisation.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Rees and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, have said. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for reminding us that our good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been injured. We wish him a speedy recovery. He plays such an important part in our debates.
When I have talked to people claiming asylum in this country, they have had two main wishes: either they want to complete their education, which has been damaged through difficult journeys here and dangers in the countries they have fled from, or they want to work. They want to work because it is the right thing to do; they want to contribute to our society. There is this idea that they want to benefit from benefits but, frankly, I have never heard that. I am quite convinced that when they say they want to work and contribute to this country, they are telling the truth.
Then there is the argument about pull factors. I have heard that argument used about every single group of people we might be talking about. When I was discussing child refugees many years ago, I was told that if those children come, others will follow. It is the argument that Governments have used since the beginning of time, and I am just not convinced by it. There are much stronger arguments the other way.
The point about other EU countries is important. If our labour market is such that people want to come here, why is it that other EU countries which allow people to work do not appear to have a pull factor? I think we should get in line with other countries instead of being different.
The noble Lord talked about people being willing to work for lower wages. Yes, but I think that is regrettable. I believe and have argued before that it is up to the trade unions as much as anybody else to ensure that people do not work below the proper wage level for the industry they are in. It is difficult. I know that today may not be the best day to argue the case for trade unions, but I believe that it is important that people do not undercut wages. It should be done by strength and unity at the workplace.
Finally, I am interested in the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made about ID cards. It is becoming higher up on the agenda and we shall all have to consider it very hard indeed. I agree with all the amendments, apart from Amendment 154A. The denial of the right to work has been so fundamental for many years; for heaven’s sake, let us deal with it sensibly.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord German, in sending good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I wish them both a speedy recovery. They have played a very full part in debates on this Bill and, although they are not often on the same page as the Opposition, I have always welcomed their incisive arguments.
The amendments in this group are primarily concerned with granting asylum seekers the right to work, after various timeframes have elapsed, much more quickly than is currently permitted. The position of those of us on these Benches is clear and already well known. It has not changed and therefore I will not detain the House for too long, only to say that we believe that the current system, which allows those who have been waiting for a year or longer for a decision to apply for permission to work, is sufficient.
We are also clear that, if we were to allow a looser approach to those in the asylum process being allowed to work, it would create a clear incentive for people to come to the UK illegally. That is self-evident and will encourage even more people to endanger their lives and the lives of others in crossing the channel and the money will ultimately just flow back into the pockets of the people smugglers. It will encourage people to come and often to work illegally.
I note that the previous Home Secretary, who recently moved on, said that:
“Illegal working undermines honest business, exploits vulnerable individuals and fuels organised immigration crime”.
Therefore, for those reasons, despite a fascinating and wide-ranging debate—I particularly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, talk about his experience—I am afraid that these Benches will not support those amendments that seek to permit this sort of working.
I move on to the final amendments in this group, which relate to the fishing industry, brought by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. They raise some very interesting questions and I welcome them to that extent. As someone who represented the Highlands and Islands of Scotland for eight years in the Scottish Parliament, I am very alive to the issues in the workplace in the fishing industry, particularly among people from abroad working in very difficult conditions on boats for periods of time. We must do everything possible to stamp out exploitation in the workplace and in sectors such as fishing where vulnerable people can so easily be taken advantage of.
No one in this Chamber would want to see labour abuse tolerated. Where there is criminality, it must be cracked down on swiftly and decisively. I have one caveat about these amendments. This worthy objective cannot come at the expense of somehow opening up a sort of back-door route, if I can put it like that, for those who come to this country illegally to remain here. That would risk undermining confidence in the system.
We need a balanced approach—one that ensures workers are protected from abuse but preserves the integrity of our border and Immigration Rules. To do that, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, seeks, we have to understand the true scale of the problem and what practical steps can be taken to address it. These amendments are directed towards discovering and learning more about this. I look forward to hearing the Minister provide some clarity on how the Government will tackle this labour exploitation.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, this was a very wide-ranging debate on an important group of amendments. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and this discussion. I also join the words of sympathy for both the injuries of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the Covid-related illness of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We wish them both well and look forward to seeing them back to hold the Government to account, as they do so well. I will go through each of the amendments in turn and try to give some reasonable commentary on each in the time I have.
Amendment 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is intended to probe the impact on business and employees of this clause. I hope I can reassure her that the previous Home Secretary has already engaged with businesses and representative bodies on the proposed legislation. I give a commitment that the new Home Secretary will continue to do so following this week’s reshuffle. In addition, the Secretary of State intends to conduct a formal consultation with employees and businesses, which will underpin updated guidance that we intend to bring forward, so that they are aware of their obligations prior to the implementation of the legislation. I hope that assists the noble Baroness on Amendment 150.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for her Amendment 154A. It seeks to make it an offence to employ someone to deliver goods, meals or services using a vehicle if that person does not hold a full driving licence. In the UK, individuals can drive a variety of vehicles without a full driving licence, including some of the vehicles that she refers to in her amendment. There is already strong legislation in place to make sure that the DVLA, the responsible body, carries out checks to ensure applicants are not disqualified from holding a licence due to their immigration status. That is already a very strong issue for the DVLA as a whole. The Government have robust licensing and driving compliance measures in place to ensure that there is relevant driving licence regulation in force.
In this very Bill, the Government are extending the scope of employers and businesses required to carry out checks on their workers to prevent illegal working. Separately, through existing enforcement measures the Government are giving a very hard push, particularly following some examples of the type of abuse that the noble Baroness mentioned, on compliance with legislation to ensure that people are not being employed illegally, that people who have come here illegally are not being employed and that that is not undercutting legitimate businesses in their work. I think her amendment has those areas of work in mind, but we are covering that with this Bill and what is being done elsewhere.
Amendments 151 and 152, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee, seek to reduce the waiting period for asylum seekers to apply for permission to work from 12 months to three. I acknowledge the intent behind these amendments. I know where the noble Baroness and others are coming from. However, I do not think these amendments are the right mechanism to achieve the aims they are seeking. We want to ensure that those who may have been subject to human trafficking and modern slavery in particular are examined under that legislation. Therefore, I do not feel that this is the right way forward.
I will take the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to supply that information if he wishes to send it through to me—care of the Home Office, Marsham Street, London. We will certainly look at the information he has brought forward.
On Amendment 151, the Government’s current policy must strike a careful balance between maintaining the integrity of the asylum system and supporting those with genuine protection. It allows asylum seekers to apply for permission to work if their claims have been outstanding for 12 months or more through no fault of their own. Those granted permission are limited to roles on the immigration salary list only. Employers are expected to uphold fair and non-discriminatory recruitment practices for all individuals with the right to work.
Reducing the waiting period to three months could act as a pull factor—we have had a debate about that; I know some noble Lords will disagree with the use of that phrase—and would place additional strain on a stretched asylum system and divert resources away from those in genuine need of protection. Furthermore, it would undermine the established work visa routes and may act as an incentive for people to travel here illegally via dangerous routes. Again, I take on board what noble Lords have said about why people are seeking to come to the UK, but the factors before us are a real concern for the Government.
On Amendment 152, all individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. In England and Wales, as has been mentioned, this is delivered through the modern slavery victim care contract, which provides safe accommodation and financial assistance to prevent destitution. Where applicable, those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision are considered for a grant of temporary permission to stay, which includes the right to work.
There are several reasons why the Government cannot support Amendment 152, one being that expanding access to employment at an earlier stage could incentivise misuse of the national referral mechanism, which may inadvertently encourage irregular migration or exploitation by traffickers who falsely promise access to work in the UK. The current framework maintains a clear distinction and upholds the integrity of the immigration system.
My noble friend Lord Rees made a very powerful case, and I was pleased to meet him, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and colleagues to engage on this matter. I value the representations that have been made and welcome continued collaboration. There is an argument that his amendment may carry unintended consequences, particularly for wider delivery and our modernisation of the asylum system. The Government’s position has been consistently clear and introducing an additional process subject to regular scrutiny could risk diverting focus from our broader strategic objectives.
However, my noble friend made a very important case for the Government to consider, and I want to reflect on it with colleagues. There are other ways in which my noble friend can get a regular report on the impact of the concerns he has, and there are ways to put pressure on the Government, such as the very good initiative by mayors to examine this issue, whether that be through parliamentary debate, Questions, Written Statements or Commons and Lords Select Committees. I will look again at what he said today because I think there is scope to ensure that we examine some of those areas, and I thank him for his amendment.
On Amendment 153 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister—although she is not in her place today—supported by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the Government are very concerned by the links between visa arrangements for private domestic staff and instances of modern slavery. I hope all noble Lords are reassured that in the immigration White Paper, published in May, we said we intend to reconsider how this route operates. I know I regularly ask for patience on these matters, but the immigration White Paper looks at it and recognises the genuine concerns that have been raised.
Allowing overseas domestic workers to change employer without restriction is already a feature of the existing system, as they have been able to do so since 2016. The ability to change makes it very clear that overseas domestic worker status in the UK is not exclusively dependent on their current employer and gives them an opportunity to escape abuse. We do not currently require them to inform the Home Office so that they are able to move more quickly and easily. During my time as the shadow Immigration Minister in 2012, when discussions were taking place on the Bill back then, I met Kalayaan and I was impressed by the cases it made. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws that that will be looked at as part of the immigration White Paper response.
My noble friend Lord Watson, supported by the noble Lord, Lord German, tabled Amendments 154 and 203D, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which concern migrant fishers and the question of seaman and transit to the UK to join a ship leaving UK waters. The Government’s long-standing position is that foreign nationals need permission to work in UK waters; this ensures consistency between those coming to work on the UK landmass and those transitioning through it. Contract seamen who enter the UK seeking to leave or join a ship are expected to leave the UK within seven days of arrival and are not given the right to work. Seafarers wishing to come and work in the UK should apply for a work visa that gives them the right to work in the UK. It would, therefore, in our view, be inappropriate to give work rights to those on temporary visas intending to allow transit only.
There are no plans to create a bespoke visa route for fishers as the immigration White Paper has very clearly set out our strategy for reducing reliance on international recruitment. However—and I hope this helps my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—we have established the new Labour Market Evidence Group to gather and share evidence about the state of the workforce, trading levels and participation by the domestic labour market, including at devolved government and regional levels. I expect it to make recommendations shortly about sectors or occupations in which workforce strategies are needed or the workforce labour market is currently failing. I hope that my noble friend can look at what is going to happen and the gathering of information on this issue so that we can examine it further.
In response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on migrant domestic workers, all individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. It is within this framework that the fishers mentioned can seek assistance.
I cantered through those points because of the discussion we had. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment, and I will reflect on what has been said—I will certainly give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Will the Minister reflect a little more on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rees? He said that the noble Lord made a powerful case—I think we all thought that. His principal argument against accepting the amendment seemed to be that the reports called for by the amendment could constitute an undesirable diversion of resources. He also argued that the debates in both Houses that the amendment would mandate could be secured by different means.
I suspect that the commendable longevity of the Minister has a price: he has been got at by Sir Humphrey. I used to be a Sir Humphrey and I was very good at this. The undesirable diversion of resources is a very good argument; better still is “unripe time” or “dangerous precedent”. If all else fails, there is “with the ambit of the vote”. They are all excellent arguments, but what is the harm in having debates on this issue every year in the Commons and the Lords? There is no downside to it; it is a good thing. It would give us the space, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees, proposes, for a serious debate on this on the basis of the evidence. The Minister is being a little negative. He should go back and see Sir Humphrey and say, “There was a lot in this amendment. We ought to think seriously about it”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his experience. As he knows, having been there himself, the Government reflect on, take and determine positions across the board with ministerial engagement. Having started my 15th year as somebody in government, over that 28-year period, I am very aware that, when Ministers want to do something, they can.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I seek clarification on something the Minister said. He told the Committee that they were seeking to address some of the problems that my amendment raised through other ways, including through the DVLA, the Home Office and certain measures. But will they include drawing in to those other measures those categories of delivery bike that do not now require any papers or licence and may have been changed to empower them to go far beyond the permitted 15.5 miles per hour? We have no way of knowing that unless our police forces are out on the streets as a response unit, like those police in the City of London, and impounding them—which is very heavy on police time.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a number of issues. I start with the question of illegal employment and working. The Government are very exercised to ensure that, both in the Bill and in regular enforcement now being undertaken, we crack down on illegal employment, which effectively undercuts legitimate businesses, exploits individuals in that illegal employment and is not a good use for society as a whole, as a contributory factor. We are very focused on that, and the Bill focuses on a large amount of those elements.
Separately, the noble Baroness raises areas outside my direct responsibility, which are Department for Transport-related issues about enforcement and regulations. I will draw those remarks to the attention of the Transport Minister, who will be able to reflect on them and who is also exercised about the very issues she mentions.
The noble Baroness will also know, I hope, that in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will come before this House shortly, there are also measures to improve police powers on seizure of bikes, rather than prosecution of individuals, where there are digressions from the law. That means going through traffic lights, going on pavements, speeding and all those things where the police, rather than having to give a warning, will potentially now be able to seize an electric vehicle used in those ways under the Crime and Policing Bill. So the three different elements are all there.
In this current piece of legislation, the amendment the noble Baroness has put forward does not meet the requirements I am seeking to achieve. With that, I hope noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Minister, whom I thank, started his response by saying that the Bill is not the right mechanism for the amendments. I think he was applying that comment to the whole group of amendments, not just to Amendment 154A. Without being psychic, I too have had my expectations met. Including a provision for the right to work would be the right thing to do, and it would be enlightened self-interest.
I too have never been persuaded by the idea of the right to work being a pull factor; there are plenty of push factors without one having to think about pull factors. Banning the right to work—as we have done, in effect—does not seem to have been a deterrent. That may answer the point.
I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Rees, in this whole space. He made a very powerful speech, but I thought that his amendment was less persuasive than his speech. I am more ambitious: I want to remove the restrictions so that the reports to the House can be on the impact of changes in the law, not just calling for changes in the law.
Mention was made of voluntary activity. I use the term “voluntary activity” rather than “voluntary work” because a problem for so long for people who want to put a huge amount of effort into volunteering is that it has been designated as work, not as voluntary activity. I was interested to hear the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for training. That would be a good move forward—it really would be—so I thank him for that.
I will return to overseas domestic workers. They do not, in reality, have the ability to change employers. We are leaving people in appalling situations that they cannot escape. The changes made in 2016 were minimal, and we have failed people whom we should be protecting. I am very sad that we cannot move the situation forward tonight, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe whether the resources of the Tribunal and legal aid practitioners are sufficient to ensure cases are heard fairly within this 24-week timeframe.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this need not, I hope, take anything like as long as the last group of amendments. Clause 46 relates to an appeal when a protection claim has been removed, and Clause 47 relates to protection and other human rights. The issue I am probing is the scope that these clauses give for the Government or Parliament to impose deadlines on the tribunal in determining appeals—in this case, a deadline of 24 weeks from the institution of the appeal. I am not arguing that appeals should not be dealt with as speedily as possible; instead, I would like to understand the scope for the tribunal to say, “Sorry, we can’t meet this timeframe”. In particular, how far can regard be had to other cases? Is it just for particular cases?
The wording is
“where the Tribunal considers that it is not reasonably practicable to do so”.
Is that confined to a particular appeal or is it about the workload in general? I am very uneasy about a statutory deadline on how tribunals of the judiciary operate. I know that we will be given some opportunities to be briefed on and to discuss the new procedures that the Government have in mind, but we must deal with this legislation as it is in front of us now. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, at the heart of Amendment 157, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, is the fundamental principle that we must reduce the backlog, unblock the immigration system and ensure that people are not left waiting endlessly for a decision on their appeal. It is in no one’s interest that asylum seekers should be kept in hotels and HMOs for weeks on end while decisions are being made on their appeal. Delay does not serve anyone.
The present situation is intolerable. Recently reported statistics cited by the Law Society show that the waiting time for an appeal decision is, on average, nearly 50 weeks. There is almost a year of uncertainty, during which applicants remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation and support. It is in precisely this space that vexatious claims can be lodged, with the appeals process used not to seek justice but to delay removal and prolong the benefit of support. This is not acceptable, and it undermines public confidence in the integrity of the system.
Our amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State, first, to publish a clear date by which he expects appeals to be determined within a 24-week period, and then, within 12 months, to provide a report on how many cases have not met that standard; in other words, the Government would have to set out their ambition and then be held to account for whether or not they deliver it.
Amendments 203F and 203G, tabled by my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson, and the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Alton, are fundamentally about transparency, requiring that all judgments of the Upper Tribunal in immigration and asylum matters are published promptly and made accessible to the public. Why does this matter? First, it is because transparency allows us to assess the quality of the initial decision-making process. A high rate of successful appeals is a clear signal that something is going wrong further upstream, either with the application of the law or with the evidential standards being applied. Without clear and timely publication of judgments, it is difficult to see where those problems lie.
These amendments are about shining a light on the system. If the Government have nothing to hide, there can be no objection to Parliament and the public being able to see how decisions are being made. Indeed, such transparency will strengthen confidence that our border security is being upheld in the way that Ministers assure us it is. I hope that the Government will seriously consider this principle in light of the points than I and other noble Lords have raised.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I know that we will have a full discussion on Amendments 203F and 203G at a later date. I will take that as an hors d’oeuvre from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. It is important that he trails those issues because they are linked. I value that he has done that today. However, I will focus on the amendments before the Committee, Amendments 155 and 156, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. These seek to confirm that the resources of the tribunal and legal aid practitioners are sufficient to ensure that appeals are heard fairly within the 24-week timeframe.
Clauses 46 and 47 already set out that the statutory timeframe should be adhered to unless it is not reasonably practical to do so. This enables the judiciary to take into account any relevant factors when exercising its discretion and responsibility over case management and the listing of appeals. We in the Home Office are working very closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the tribunal has the resources it needs to meet the growing backlog. and we want to ensure that we deliver on that backlog as a matter of some urgency. The tribunal has been given additional funding to boost the number of days it will be sitting in 2025-26 to near maximum capacity, and we are also consulting on uplifts to immigration and asylum legal aid fees to support that capacity.
The period of 24 weeks is carefully chosen, as it balances the importance of resolving cases quickly, while the Government recognise the need for appropriate safeguards to ensure access to justice for all. To provide further reassurance to the noble Baroness, the resources of the tribunal are taken into consideration, and these provisions will not apply immediately following Royal Assent. There will be a period of implementation and operationalisation, during which the Home Office, the MoJ and the Courts & Tribunals Service will ensure the tribunals’ readiness in the coming months. I hope all that will give the noble Baroness some reassurance on those issues.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has quite fairly answered the Member’s explanatory statement to my amendments. As I say, that is perfectly reasonable, and I am grateful for that. Of course, the new Lord Chancellor will have taken an oath, as did the previous one, to provide resources to the courts. My question, which I accept was probably expressed in a slightly strangulated fashion, was about what the tribunal can take into account in saying what matters it is not reasonably practicable that it should have regard to.
Given that it is now 9.50 pm and there is a lot more we are expected to get through—which we may or may not get through, I do not know—I would be very happy if the Minister could write to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“(1A) After subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A person is convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime if—(a) the person is convicted of an offence under—(i) Part III of the Immigration Act 1971, or(ii) sections 13, 14, or 18 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, and(b) the person is not, by virtue of the conviction, a person falling within subsection (2).(4B) A person is convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime if—(a) the person is convicted outside the United Kingdom of an offence,(b) the act constituting the offence would have constituted an offence under— (i) sections 24 or 24A of the Immigration Act 1971, or(ii) sections 13, 14, or 18 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, had it been done in any part of the United Kingdom, and(c) the person is not, by virtue of the conviction, a person falling within subsection (3).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that illegal entrants and those who commit immigration crimes are included in the definition of particularly serious crime for the purposes of the interpretation of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention, meaning that they would be able to be removed from the United Kingdom.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a barrister, specialising in public law, including in immigration cases. I will speak to my Amendment 158—and I hope my amendment is not what has caused the Minister to vacate the Front Bench.
The amendment would expand the UK’s interpretation of Article 33(2) of the refugee convention and includes an offence under Part III of the Immigration Act 1971 as a “particularly serious crime”. As noble Lords who are present in the Committee this evening will be well aware, Article 33 of the refugee convention is the provision which prohibits the expulsion or return of refugees or, in the lex specialis of refugee law, the refoulement provision.
For the benefit of the record, Article 33(2) itself provides that:
“The benefit of the present provision”—
by that it means the provision of the benefits of the convention—
“may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country”.
In that provision, the drafters of the refugee convention envisaged a situation where a refugee could, as it were, avoid the benefit of the refugee convention by their own criminal action.
What this amendment seeks to do is to insert the offences in Part III of the Immigration Act 1971 into the statutory definition of a “particularly serious crime”. The concept of a particularly serious crime is contained within Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was legislation brought forward by the previous Labour Government. That Act defined what a serious criminal offence was, and Section 72(1) begins:
“This section applies for the purpose of the construction and application of Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention (exclusion from prohibition of expulsion or return)”.
It then goes on to set out what those exclusions are.
This amendment seeks to amend subsequent legislation but ultimately impacts on the meaning of Section 72 of that Act. In so doing, it adopts the same model as the Government have provided in Clause 48 of the Bill, which provides that it amends Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 by including various categories of offences as “particularly serious crimes”. The Committee will see—those who have a copy to hand—that at line 15 on page 45 of the Bill, that includes a person convicted of an offence
“listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003”,
and so on.
My amendment is very much in the same vein, and would insert:
“A person is convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime … if … convicted of an offence under … Part III of the Immigration Act 1971, or … sections 13, 14, or 18”
of this Bill once it is enacted.
Part III of the Immigration Act includes almost all immigration offences, including the offence of illegal entry into the United Kingdom. As the Committee will recall, that includes the offence, under Section 24, of being:
“A person who knowingly enters the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order … A person who … requires leave to enter the United Kingdom … and … knowingly enters the United Kingdom without such leave … A person who … has … limited leave to enter … and knowingly remains beyond the time limited by the leave … A person who … requires entry clearance … and knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance”.
It is a large list of offences, and would include illegal working, assisting unlawful immigration to a member state of the United Kingdom, helping an asylum seeker to enter the United Kingdom, assisting entry to the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation or exclusion order, facilitation offences, and general offences in connection with immigration including possession of a fraudulent registration card or immigration stamp.
The purpose of the amendment is therefore to ensure that a person who is convicted of those offences is to be treated as having committed a “particularly serious crime” for the purposes of the refugee convention, in that they would therefore constitute a danger to the community. They would therefore be able to be removed or returned in a convention-compliant way.
This amendment probes the Government’s intentions and the general approach they will adopt to perform a toughening up—as we have heard over recent days—of their immigration policy in as far as they are able in line with their international obligations. I have laid this amendment to explore what the Government suggest in this regard. It is clear, given the message we have heard in recent days about the willingness to adopt a fresh or tighter interpretation of Article 8 of the ECHR, that it may well be that the Government share my view on the proper interpretation of Article 33(2) of the refugee convention.
It is consistent with the amendment I laid on the previous day of Committee on the need to come directly and the approach that can be taken on a clean review of the obligations and commitments made when we signed the refugee convention, without the barnacles of subsequent decisions. The proposed change in this amendment would permit the United Kingdom to return and deport anyone who enters illegally, regardless of whether they are a refugee or not.
All this ties into a much overlooked provision of the refugee convention, one I am sure the Minister will be very interested to hear about: namely, the obligations in Article 2 of the refugee convention, which requires that every refugee has duties to the country in which he find himself, and that, in particular, he conform to its laws and regulations, as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order. One aspect of the refugee convention is that refugees are expected to conform to our law, and if they break our law then they cannot expect to have the protection of the convention. I beg to move Amendment 158.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I will say a few words in favour of the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. It seems to me that this is a perfectly proportionate amendment, in that it seeks to build on the Government’s own Clause 48, to amend Article 33(2) of the refugee convention, by including there offenders against the Sexual Offences Act 2003, explaining further how this would operate and be extended.
My noble friend Lord Murray’s amendment develops that further by proposing that those who commit immigration offences as now defined in the 1971 Act will be deemed to have committed a serious offence and will therefore fall under the provisions of this measure. It is a perfectly proportionate amendment and, although noble Lords may be concerned that there are loopholes which mean that some applicants will rightly be here because of their claims, they can take comfort in the refugee convention saying that they need to come directly to the UK from a country where their life or liberty is in danger. So that part of their immigration—entering the country without leave to remain—would also be deemed an offence. Therefore I support the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 159, 160 and 161 in my name before speaking in support of Amendment 158 tabled by my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. My amendments here are more technical in nature and simply seek to standardise the language used in Clause 48 with the language used in Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Section 72 of the 2002 Act, as has already been mentioned, provides for the application and interpretation of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention. Specifically, it provides a definition in UK law of what is to be considered a particularly serious crime. This permits the refoulement of refugees and asylum seekers who commit such particularly serious crimes and therefore constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom.
Section 72 of the 2002 Act was amended by Section 38 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The 2022 Act substituted the words “shall be presumed to have been” for “is” in subsections (2), (3) and (4). Consequently, rather than saying:
“A person shall be presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if”,
which was the original language used, those subsections in the 2002 Act now read:
“A person is convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if”.
That was introduced to end ambiguity regarding which presumption in Section 72 is rebuttable in court. The changes in the 2022 Act therefore alter the language such that the rebuttable presumption applies only in one instance.
However, in Clause 48 of this Bill, new subsections state that:
“A person is to be presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if”,
thereby using the old phrasing of the originally enacted 2002 Act rather than the phrasing currently in force. If this clause were to pass as it is, the language in Section 72 of the 2002 Act would not be uniform and would reintroduce the ambiguity regarding the rebuttable presumptions that was removed by the 2022 Act.
I apologise for that lengthy exposition of the technical context of the amendments, but I simply seek clarification from the Government and the Minister on why this is the case. Have the Government chosen to reintroduce another rebuttable presumption in Clause 48? Given that the Government have not stated their intent to reverse the changes made by the 2022 Act to Section 72, why is there mismatching phrasing? I do not think those changes were controversial at the time; I have checked Hansard and not a single Member of your Lordships’ House challenged those changes in the Bill in Committee or on Report. So I simply seek to understand whether the Government support the language in Section 72 of the 2002 Act, as amended by the 2022 Act, and whether there was an intention to reintroduce that ambiguity.
Amendment 158, from my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, has been amply covered. My noble friend Lord Murray made a compelling argument for seeking to include immigration offences in the definition of particularly serious crime for the purposes of Article 33(2) of the convention. As things stand, the definition of a particularly serious crime includes any offence for which a person has been sentenced to imprisonment of at least 12 months. As my noble friend has just said, his amendment would expand that definition further to encompass immigration offences.
I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a short but legally quite forensic debate. It was probably almost too forensic for gone 10 pm on a Monday night. I shall do my best to address their concerns.
I shall start by talking a bit about Clause 48 and then move on to the amendments. The Government are committed to complying with their international obligations, including those set out under the Refugee Convention. As noble Lords will be aware, a key principle of the Refugee Convention is the non-refoulement of refugees to a place or territory where there is a real risk they would be subject to persecution. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, clearly and ably set this out.
The convention recognises that there must be limited exceptions to this principle. Article 33(2) of the convention allows refugees to be refouled where they are a danger to the security of the UK or have committed a particularly serious crime and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community. Clause 48 goes further than the previous amendments made by the Nationality and Borders Act by redefining the term “particularly serious crime” for exclusion purposes to now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence included in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This is because this Government recognise the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims and our communities. We are fully committed to tackling sexual offences and halving violence against women and girls within a decade. Importantly, as it stands, Clause 48 allows the individual to rebut the presumptions both that they have committed a particularly serious crime and that, as a result, they constitute a danger to the community.
Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Davies, seeks to remove the particularly serious rebuttable presumption. This would mean that asylum seekers or refugees who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences would be considered for exclusion from the Refugee Convention with no ability to rebut the presumption that they have committed a particularly serious crime.
Similarly, Amendment 160, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Davies, seeks to remove the same rebuttable presumption for sexual offences committed outside the United Kingdom, where that offence would have also constituted a Schedule 3 sexual offence had it been committed in the United Kingdom. Their Amendments 161A to 161E seek to make a number of changes to the provision, including removing the presumption that, where an individual is considered to have committed a particularly serious crime in relation to a Schedule 3 sex offence, they constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom as a result.
There is no definition of a particularly serious crime in the Refugee Convention and no direct uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other states parties. It is open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, and that is what we are seeking to adjust with Clause 48. A good faith interpretation requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words and maintaining respect for the guarantees provided by the convention as a whole.
The rebuttable presumption mechanism provides a safeguard for individual offenders to rebut based on their individual circumstances. At the same time, it is important to note that Parliament has presumed that such offences will be considered particularly serious crimes for these purposes. Not only have those who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences failed to respect the laws of the UK by committing these heinous acts, they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public. This measure is limited by our obligations under the convention. Both the rebuttable presumptions must remain as a practical measure to ensure that we adopt a lawful approach.
In speaking to his amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke at length and in quite technical detail about the alignment of the language of the 2002 Act. Rather than trying to go into detail now, I will undertake to write to the noble Lord about the issues of language alignment that he raised, so that we can get a properly considered and more legally watertight response than I can give at this hour.
Amendment 158 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, seeks to expand the definition of a “particularly serious crime” to immigration offences. We consider this amendment to be incompatible with the refugee convention. We understand the seriousness of individuals seeking to arrive in the UK through dangerous and unsafe means, which is why we are taking robust action to prevent it. That is what this Bill is all about. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, raised Article 2 of the refugee convention. Our view is that the Bill is utterly consistent with the principle that those coming here have responsibilities to obey the host nation’s laws. That is something that we feel runs through the Bill.
In terms of the actions that we are taking, Border Security Command is strengthening global partnerships to enhance our efforts to investigate, arrest and prosecute these criminals. We recruited an extra 100 specialist NCA investigators and intelligence officers, including staff stationed across Europe and in Europol, to drive closer working with international law enforcement partners to target smuggling gangs. This Bill will give the NCA new powers to tackle organised immigration crime and protect the UK’s border. As stated previously, it is open to the UK to interpret the convention in good faith, and it is considered that immigration offences that do not carry a custodial sentence of more than 12 months cannot in good faith be interpreted as a particularly serious crime. Given that explanation and the undertaking to write to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on the technical point of language alignment, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the Minister for that considered reply, and I am glad to say that I agreed with at least part of what he said. There is much to welcome in Clause 48. I concur that it is appropriate for a person who is convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act to fall within the definition, so the Minister and I agree on that point at least. He said that, in the view of the Government, our amendment is not consistent with the refugee convention, but I did not discern particularly clearly why. No doubt, the Minister and I can explore that in correspondence prior to Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Neuberger
“Age and safeguarding assessments at the port of entry(1) A person who claims to be a child must not be subject to a visual age assessment by Border Force officials solely for immigration control purposes.(2) Any such assessment must be conducted as part of a safeguarding determination to identify potential risks and support needs. (3) A visual age assessment at the port of entry must not result in the assignment of a specific chronological age to the individual.(4) Border Force officials may only determine whether, in their view, the person is a child or an adult.(5) Where there is doubt as to whether an individual is a child, the presumption must be that the individual is treated as a child unless and until a comprehensive age assessment is conducted by local authority social workers in accordance with Merton compliant age assessment procedures.(6) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on the implementation of this section, including—(a) the training and qualifications required for officials carrying out safeguarding assessments;(b) mechanisms for independent oversight and review of age determination decisions;(c) safeguards to ensure that no child is placed at risk as a result of incorrect age assessments at the port of entry.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that visual age assessments focus on safeguarding rather than immigration enforcement, removes the Home Office’s power to assign a specific age at the border, and to strengthen independent oversight and child protection safeguards.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I will channel my inner version of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, since she is not in her place, as I introduce Amendments 162 and 163. I thank all colleagues who have signed them. I also make clear my support for Amendments 180 and 194.
Amendments 162 and 163 aim to address serious and well-documented flaws in the current approach to age assessment for unaccompanied children and young people seeking asylum. They are grounded in safeguarding principles and reflect the urgent need to prevent children being wrongly treated as adults, a practice that has led to significant harm, including wrongful detention, denial of education and even criminal prosecution. I feel like something of a broken record on this subject, having spoken on it so many times over the past few years.
The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, which is a coalition of more than 100 organisations—I am very grateful to it for its help—has repeatedly raised concerns about the Home Office’s approach to age assessment, particularly the use of visual assessments at the border and the previous push for unproven scientific methods. For too long, it and we were not listened to, so we very much appreciated the willingness of the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, to meet members of the consortium and a number of noble Lords and his patent and keen engagement with what was said. These amendments respond directly to the consortium’s concerns and propose a child-centred, rights-based framework for age determination. I will speak to each in turn.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My noble friend Lady Brinton added her name to all these amendments. I was happy that she did so. I am also happy to have the opportunity —of course, not at her expense—of expressing my support for them this evening. Inevitably, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, has said, there is rather a lot of repetition in this over a period of years.
We touched on visual age assessments—I cannot remember on which day in Committee—and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as she always has done, expressed her clear views about visual assessment being inappropriate. She said she had talked—coming from her cultural and ethnic background; I align myself with her in this—to young males whose looks raised a question in her mind as to what age they were. However hard we try, our own backgrounds leave us with a bias, I suppose—an inbuilt bias, an expectation. We have to put ourselves in other people’s shoes.
I recall being in the education centre of this House, talking to young students who I think were at the top end of primary school. There was one young student who, if you went by facial hair, would have been regarded as twice as old as he actually was. I recall also being very impressed by his presentation; the students were discussing how they would campaign for a change in the law, although I suppose I should not go into that tonight.
My noble friend also has in this group Amendments 180 and 194, supported by, among others, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. Amendment 180 deals with criminal proceedings, and my noble friend says that a mandatory referral age for age assessment in those proceedings follows from the basic argument regarding assessment for immigration purposes.
Amendment 194, as the noble Baroness has said, is about accommodation. Some people assume that everyone in asylum accommodation is a criminal and a danger to local residents. It is good that we have the opportunity to recognise that a child in adult accommodation, in adult detention, is a vulnerable child, and I just use the amendment to make that point.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
This is an important set of amendments, but I am sure it will come as no surprise to the noble Lords supporting them that we on these Benches have some disagreements with them.
Amendment 162 proposes that, where there is any doubt as to age, we should simply presume that the individual is a child. I cannot think of a more reckless approach. We all know that children are entitled to greater rights and protections under our law, but those protections exist precisely because children are vulnerable. If we hand them out indiscriminately to anyone who claims to be under 18, we risk creating grave safeguarding failures. There are well-documented cases where individuals who arrived illegally have lied about their age, and as a result adult men were placed in classrooms with teenage girls or in accommodation with vulnerable children. This amendment, whatever its good intentions, would compromise safety, weaken enforcement and put children at risk, and we cannot allow that to happen. Furthermore, Amendment 163 seems to me to be completely impractical in operational terms.
The fundamental point is this: age is one of the characteristics that we need to determine as soon as someone arrives in the UK illegally. This is innately tied to the sort of support they receive, who they are housed with, what services they can access and how they will interact with other migrants and those already in the United Kingdom.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, for becoming the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, this evening, particularly at this late hour. I am grateful for her introduction of the amendments. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for being the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am still Lord Hanson for the purposes of the discussion before us today.
Age assessment is a difficult area of work and there is no single-combination assessment technique able to determine age with precision. It has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that there are serious safeguarding risks if adults are treated as children and placed in settings with children. Similarly, there are serious safeguarding issues if children are treated as adults.
I will turn to the amendments before us and try to weave through them in a way that, I hope, assuages the concerns of the noble Baroness and gives a direction forward. On Amendment 180, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the completion of age assessments where an individual faces criminal charges, the current approach of the Home Office is that any decision on age made by the Home Office for immigration purposes is not binding on the UK courts. Where an individual is charged with a criminal offence, the CPS is advised of any age dispute issues that have arisen and will decide if it is in the public interest to pursue a prosecution. Once proceedings are instigated, should the presiding judge have doubts about the individual being a child, the courts can take a decision on the age based on the available evidence or request that a substantive age assessment is undertaken.
The Home Office has introduced additional safeguards in criminal cases to mitigate the risk of a genuine child being imprisoned in adult prison for immigration offences. This is something that none of us would want to see. Where an individual who has been assessed to be “significantly over 18” maintains their claim to be a child and is identified for potential criminal charges for immigration offences, the Home Office will provide for an abbreviated age assessment to be conducted by qualified social workers. I hope that on both those counts, the noble Baroness is able to withdraw the amendment before the Committee today.
Amendment 162 is on the suggested use of visual age assessments as part of a safeguarding determination, identifying potential risks and support needs, rather than solely for the purposes of immigration enforcement. The noble Baroness has said that the initial age assessment is an extremely important first step to prevent the detention of children generally, including any accidental detention of someone who is believed to be an adult but subsequently found to be a child, and to ensure that individuals are routed to the correct adult or child immigration process. That is key. It provides that immigration officers may treat an individual as an adult only where they have no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age, and two members of Home Office staff independently assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that the individual is significantly over 18. This is a particularly high threshold, and the benefit of the doubt remains key. Where doubt exists, individuals will be referred for further assessment.
As the noble Baroness said, a social worker may be present at the initial age decision stage. Where present, they will play a crucial role in the welfare of the individuals in their care and will support our Kent Intake Unit officers with their initial age decisions carried out at Western Jet Foil. Any views expressed by the social worker at this initial stage will be given a strong weighting, given the expertise they have in regularly working with children.
The Home Office has contractual arrangements with the Refugee Council to provide support to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who arrive by small boat and are moved to the Kent Intake Unit. That contract sees Refugee Council advisers working directly with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children providing impartial and independent information, advice and guidance to help them navigate the asylum and looked-after children system. These amendments would make it mandatory for the Home Office to publish guidance that includes mechanisms for independent oversight. I note that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration already has oversight of Home Office practices and is not short of bringing forward reports about the areas we are discussing.
Amendment 163, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendment 194 were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuburger, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. They are about whether age assessment in relation to asylum claims should rest with the local authority according to the ADCS guidance. I ask the Committee to bear with me because we need to be mindful of unintended consequences. The amendments as tabled would mean that the Home Office would be bound to immediately notify a local authority in every instance where an individual claiming to be a child has been determined to be an adult and therefore may be placed in adult accommodation. This would apply even when an individual is obviously an adult. This creates the risk that already-stretched local authorities could cause significant safeguarding risks if adults have access, along with genuine and potentially vulnerable children, to children’s services including accommodation and education.
I hope it will reassure the noble Baroness that the Home Office already takes into account best practice within the age assessment guidance issued by the ADCS and the equivalent guidance in Scotland and Wales. Where the Home Office or an accommodation provider have concerns that an individual might be a child, it is now standard practice for a local authority referral to be raised. Even where a referral is not made, this does not prevent the individual from approaching a local authority for further consideration of their age.
As I said at the outset, the Government continue to review all options for age assessment. A parliamentary Written Statement issued to both Houses on 22 July indicated that work was being undertaken in the Home Office to look at science and technology innovation and the age assessment system. We have concluded that the most cost-effective option is to pursue a likely facial age estimation whereby AI technology trained on millions of images is able to produce an age estimate with a known degree of accuracy. Again, I recognise that the noble Baroness raised some concerns about that. I hope I can reassure her that the Home Office is taking this seriously and that further testing and trialling of the technology will be conducted ahead of any integration into the system. It is important that we get that right, but it is also important that we try to find mechanisms to give greater clarity on what that age is over and above the individual eyes-on by a particular officer at the border.
I hope that, with those reasons, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Hamwee—the substitutes for the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Brinton, respectively—will not press the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
As the substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I would like to make a point about AI. It is important that the Home Office and others use AI only where it is appropriate and safe. Quite a lot of work has been done across the piece in Parliament about the reliability or otherwise of facial recognition—because that is what this is— including by a Select Committee which I chaired. I have not been satisfied by any comments from the Government Benches since, including on the need for regulation and oversight. That must apply here. I would be deeply worried if we were to go ahead with using AI as a substitute for the human brain without the proper regulation in effect.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I echo totally what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just said. In my speech, I asked the Minister whether Parliament would have the chance to look at whether AI is used. Will he reply to that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government are examining all of this, and there will need to be some further consideration. I will ensure that there is further discussion in Parliament, prior to that being undertaken.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply. That is what we wanted to hear, and I very much hope we might have informal discussions before that comes to Parliament. Like some of the stuff more generally about age assessment, the meeting with the Minister was hugely helpful.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will not be entirely surprised to hear I do not wholly agree with him. The point I was trying to make is that it is worse for a child to be in adult accommodation than for an adult to be in child accommodation. That is the point we ought to take most seriously.
At this late hour, let us leave it at that. With the Committee’s leave, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord German
“Additional safe and legal routesThe Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make regulations to—(a) provide an increased multi annual quota for the safe and legal route provided by the UK Resettlement Scheme through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully, and(b) specify additional safe and legal routes under the UK Resettlement Scheme through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes under the UK Settlement Scheme, under which refugees and others in need of international protection can come to the UK lawfully from abroad.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 164, I will speak to Amendment 173, which is also in my name. Both amendments are measures that seek to address the significant gap in this Bill: the lack of safe and legal routes for those seeking protection in the United Kingdom.
While we welcome the measures in this Bill aimed at tackling criminal gangs and reducing deaths in the channel, the Bill as currently drafted is, as described by the Minister, designed to “beat” or “smash” the gangs—depending on the language the Minister was using at any given time. The Bill is therefore heavy on the supply side, taking strong measures to deal with the smugglers and gangs, but light on actions to support asylum seekers on a safe journey to the United Kingdom, thereby denying the smuggling gangs their trade. This imbalance is concerning. We on these Benches support a controlled, humane, ordered and planned migration system that encompasses both stopping dangerous journeys and creating safe routes to asylum.
Of those who currently travel here by small boats, 74% are successful with their asylum claims—and that is before any appeals are even considered. That is evidence that many arriving via dangerous routes are genuinely in need of protection, yet they currently have a negligible or non-existent way to enter this country safely. The path to securing our border, as described in the Bill, will not by itself curtail irregular migration. Having safe routes must be an integral part of our strategy to try to divert people from the treacherous routes that they choose.
This does not mean an open border. It means that we can more effectively control the numbers who come. The Hillmore agreement with France is a currently small-scale example of a safe route. If you want to reduce the numbers of people fleeing persecution who use smuggling networks to reach the UK for protection, they need to have an alternative route that changes their calculations and decision-making. I will return to the French example later.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 203B and 203C in this grouping, which I have signed, but I am largely speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who, as noble Lords have heard, has been involved in quite a serious accident where it was very lucky that lives were not lost. It was the recent bus crash at Victoria. I know that we all wish him a speedy recovery.
I begin by declaring my interests. I serve as co-chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, I am a patron of Hong Kong Watch, and I have been working closely with the international legal team fighting for the release of Jimmy Lai, the imprisoned pro-democracy publisher in Hong Kong who is a British citizen and whose politically motivated show trial has just concluded.
This amendment concerns the British national (overseas) visa route, a scheme established not as an economic migration pathway but as a humanitarian commitment. It is rooted in our history, in treaty obligations under the Sino-British joint declaration, and in the moral promise made by this country to the people of Hong Kong when we handed over sovereignty in 1997.
When Britain created the BNO route, it did so in response to Beijing’s breach of its international obligations. Hong Kong’s freedoms, judicial independence, freedom of expression and democratic participation have been stripped away. Brave men and women who stood for liberty have been arrested, silenced and exiled, and we in Britain recognised that we had a duty to provide sanctuary and a future to those Hong Kongers who still held a form of British nationality but lacked a right of abode.
Now, however, that promise is at risk. The Government’s recent White Paper proposes doubling the standard time to settlement from five to 10 years, and it is not clear which visa routes will be affected. Without this amendment, the BNO route, which has become a lifeline for 200,000 Hong Kongers already here, could be fundamentally weakened by ministerial fiat, without proper scrutiny by Parliament.
I underline here that the BN scheme was a substitute for accountability. To this day, we have still failed to sanction a single individual responsible for the outrages in that city, which directly affect the UK and our treaty obligations. We have been scared of seeking to hold Beijing to account, and instead we created this scheme. It is, and was, the very least we could do.
Let me be plain: if we change the rules mid-way, we will be moving the goalposts for families who have already uprooted their lives on the basis of Britain’s word. We will be telling young people who came here expecting to settle after five years that they must now wait a decade, and that their children may be unable to secure citizenship until their teenage years. We will be placing unbearable financial strain on families who plan their children’s education around home fee status, only to find themselves burdened with international tuition fees beyond their means. We will be leaving pro-democracy activists forced into exile without the consular protection they so desperately need when they travel. We will be stripping Hong Kongers of a firm sense of identity, many unable to renew their SAR passports and withdraw their pensions.
BNOs are not entitled to welfare; they pay an NHS surcharge. Nobody has ever attempted to characterise this group as abusing the system. They have accepted the terms offered to them, which deny them the privileges associated with British citizenship for six years. It is wrong to dangle this carrot and whisk it away again as their home city, which the UK signed a treaty to protect, is burning.
Beyond the human cost, there is the reputational cost. Credibility is the coin of international politics. If Britain retreats from its commitments to Hong Kongers, the message to Beijing will be clear that we do not stand by our word. Our allies too will take note, and we cannot expect others to trust us on human rights, security and treaty obligations if we renege on this promise.
This amendment does not create new rights; it merely preserves the existing five-year pathway to a settlement and requires that any fundamental change be made openly through primary legislation, rather than being slipped in by secondary rules. That is not radical; it is responsible. It is Parliament doing its duty to those who place their trust in us. While there may be rumblings on the Front Bench about the legal mechanism that we have chosen here and it may seem unusual to prevent the repeal of sui generis in Immigration Rules by primary legislation, we are assured by a former Clerk of the Parliaments both that there is precedent for it and that it is good idea to prevent the use of Henry VIII powers—and I believe that the Government indicated that at one stage.
There is nothing wrong with this modest amendment, either in its drafting or timing. It is germane to the purposes of the Bill and is desperately needed to give succour to a group of newly arrived Hong Kong people, who more than deserve it. In defending the BNO route, we are not only protecting vulnerable families but upholding Britain’s honour, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 203C ensures that Ukrainians barbarically torn from their homes and given a safe haven in the UK are not forced to have that chance taken away. Without a clear pathway to indefinite leave to remain, the relief given to Ukrainians under resettlement schemes amounts merely to a false promise. The third anniversary of Russia’s tyrannical and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine passed in February. There remains no prospect for refugees to return safely, as Putin continues to bomb the country with no ceasefire in sight, despite promises to the contrary.
More than 2.5 million homes have been damaged and destroyed. Russia has chosen terror as its weapon, bombing schools, reducing hospitals to dust, shattering infrastructure, and so preventing people from returning. Russian soldiers use rape as a tool of war, turning human dignity into another battlefield, leaving scars that no rebuilding can ever erase; I know that because I have been working on the war crimes on behalf of President Zelensky and his office.
Russian soldiers also aim to destroy the fundamental fabric of society by tearing children from their families. I have led the unit that is working on the return of children. They have forcibly transferred them and trapped them in Russian-occupied territories, or deported them far into Russia itself, where they are subjected to indoctrination designed to erase their Ukrainian identity. They are told to forget their language, flag and history and are instead pressured to embrace the very regime that destroyed their homes.
This has been the reality for the Ukrainian people for over three years, and it continues each passing day. For that reason, in March 2022, the UK introduced its primary settlement scheme for Ukrainian refugees. At that point, it was unimaginable that this horrific war would continue for this long, and therefore the three-year visa period under those circumstances seemed viable. Realising that this time period was insufficient, the Ukraine permission extension scheme was introduced, allowing refugees under existing schemes to apply for an additional 18 months’ leave to remain. Although well-meaning, this programme was grossly insufficient in delivering security and stability to Ukrainians.
I know that we are short of time, but I must add that a BBC survey of 1,333 Ukrainians found that 41% of them lost a new job opportunity due to visa uncertainty, and 26% did not have their tenancy renewed. The process is a cliff edge, and it takes the future of refugees back out of their own hands. This has serious consequences, and it would be inconsistent with the Government’s condemnation of Russian despotism to make a U-turn now and deny support to the people most affected by it.
This amendment should not be viewed as creating new policy but, rather, as standard procedure when existing policy needs to adapt to changed circumstances. The war has lasted much longer than we envisaged. Three years of support to Ukrainians was not enough; with the war raging on, 18 more months will probably not be enough either. We must respond to the reality on the ground, and I have little confidence in the offers currently made by the United States of America.
In supporting a pathway to indefinite leave to remain, we domestically adapt policy to reality, we support the victims of this war, and we continue to position the UK as a global leader in standing up against despotism and in defending democracy. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I make it clear that we all recognise the importance of ensuring that those who come to this country do so safely and legally. That principle is not in dispute, and earlier today I already referred to Homes for Ukraine and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. However, I am concerned that some of the amendments before us would unreasonably tie the hands of any Government in a way that would be neither practical nor wise.
On Amendment 164, the reality is that migration flows are shaped by global crises and events over which we have little control, whether conflict, natural disaster or political instability. To legislate now for a mandatory increase in quotas and routes, regardless of future circumstances, is to commit ourselves to a policy framework that may not reflect the realities of tomorrow. We should allow the Government of the day the flexibility to respond to events as they arise, not bind them with artificial statutory requirements.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Can the noble Lord be tempted to express support for Amendment 203C? On his test of support by the British public, there can be no doubt that the British public support Ukrainians who are here.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, at such a late hour, for their contributions, and I add my good wishes for a speedy recovery to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I very much welcome the opportunity to hear from my noble friend—my very good friend—Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.
This group includes Amendments 164, 173, 174, 203B and 203C, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord German, Lord Jackson and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, relating to safe and legal routes. I begin by reaffirming the United Kingdom’s proud record of offering sanctuary to those fleeing war, persecution and oppression around the world. It is fundamental, a cornerstone of our international reputation. The UK operates global safe and legal routes for refugees, including the UK resettlement scheme, in partnership with the UN Refugee Agency, the UNHCR. As the noble Lord, Lord German, referenced, the UNHCR assesses refugees living in formal refugee camps, informal settlements and host communities and identifies who would benefit most from resettlement to the UK.
We do not seek to influence the cases referred to us by the UNHCR. This ensures that refugees from across the world can access a safe and legal route to the UK. Alongside this, we have bespoke routes to sanctuary, as noble Lords have mentioned, for those from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong. There is no provision within our immigration routes for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum. While we of course sympathise with people in many difficult situations around the world, I am afraid we could not consider protection claims from large numbers of individuals overseas who might like to come to the UK. Those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord German, has been concerned about safe and legal routes for a long time. They are an important part of the Government’s wider strategy to restore control over the immigration system. The immigration White Paper published on 12 May 2025 announced a review of refugee sponsorship and resettlement, and further details will be set out. Problems in the asylum system are hardly new, and the Government are determined to restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly.
Amendment 173, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, includes a provision that would enable biometrics to be waived. Biometrics, in the form of fingerprints and facial images, underpin the current UK immigration system to support identity assurance and suitability checks on foreign nationals who are subject to immigration controls. They enable us to have comprehensive checks against immigration and criminality records to help identify those who pose a threat to our national security, public safety and immigration controls, or those who we think are likely to breach our laws if they are allowed to come to the UK. There is, however, I reassure noble Lords, already scope to waive or defer the requirement to enrol biometrics in compelling circumstances.
It is for these reasons that the Government cannot support any amendment which would undermine those efforts and create an unlimited route, adding untold pressures on our decision-makers and accommodation and support systems, as well as the justice system. The number of people we can support through safe and legal routes depends on many factors, including local authority capacity for supporting refugees. I fear a scheme that would be difficult to control, such as this one, would quickly overwhelm our asylum system and have wider ramifications in our entire immigration system. As other noble Lords, including the noble Lords opposite, have mentioned, we worry that that would compromise public confidence.
Amendment 203B from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, seeks to amend the British national (overseas) route into primary legislation, so that any changes restricting eligibility conditions and settlement can be made only with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure, and I have noted the comments made in the Committee about the importance of the commitments we have made. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, that the Government are firmly committed to supporting members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK, and those who may yet come here in the future on the British national (overseas) visa route.
The Government recognise the concerns that the White Paper proposals on new earned settlement and citizenship rules have raised, and we are taking steps to ensure that British nationals overseas can share their views during the upcoming consultation. We appreciate how important this issue is to the Hong Kong community, and we will listen carefully to what they tell us.
Given the ambitious nature of the proposals in the White Paper, it is essential that we fully understand their impact on all affected groups before making final decisions. Following the consultation, the Government will outline how the new rules will operate, including which immigration routes they will affect and when the changes will come into force. In the meantime, the current rules for settlement under the BNO route will continue to apply.
Delivering the BNO visa route through the Immigration Rules allows the Government to make swift changes to the route when necessary; for example, should the situation in Hong Kong deteriorate further. This amendment, we on the government side fear, would limit this ability to act quickly and create unnecessary delays. Given the unique circumstances of this group of people whom we support, the flexibility of the Immigration Rules is, in the Government’s view, more appropriate.
Finally, I will address Amendment 203C from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The purpose of this proposed new clause is to make individuals under the Ukraine scheme eligible for indefinite permission to stay once their permission has expired, even if there is no further permission they can apply for under the scheme. The UK support for Ukraine remains steadfast and, together with our international partners, the UK continues to stand in solidarity with Ukraine and condemns the Russian Government’s unprovoked and premeditated war. That stance has had the very committed support of the entire House and the country as a whole.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I was fascinated by what sounded to me like illogical statements. Can I be absolutely clear? My question was whether, under the UK resettlement scheme, the quota offered to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in this year—2025—is zero. I asked how many, and no answer was given to that. If the answer is zero, it is wrong to claim that the UK resettlement scheme is open, because there is no vacancy for anybody to be coming under that scheme.
It is also incorrect, surely, to say that the UK resettlement scheme is one where people can choose to get in the queue. It is UNHCR system that will choose the people who come into that settlement scheme, in discussion with the UK Government. If I am incorrect and a quota has been issued to the UNHCR for 2025, I am happy to withdraw what I have just said, but if I am correct and there is not quota yet issued, it is wrong to say that that scheme is open until a quota has been issued, because that is the way it works.
The other thing I would like to follow through in logical terms is the agreement with France—the Hillmore treaty. The Hillmore treaty, as I understand it, requires triaging of people in France who will then come to the United Kingdom. Under our law, as the Minister said, you can come to the United Kingdom only in order to make an official claim; in other words, it is a triaging point. There will be people in France, who will triaged to find the most suitable candidates to come. They then have to come to the United Kingdom and when they do they get the final asylum claim determined. If it operates in a different way from that, I am happy to be told, but everything that has been said by the UK Government indicates triaging of the sort I have described.
The humanitarian visa scheme I have described is only an expansion of that: it is one where we would determine whether someone has a really good case to make and then they are permitted to come to the United Kingdom to make that case—for a short period. If the period is too long, that is fine. The reason it is there at the moment is because that is the time span that the UK Government set for determining an application.
With those questions deeply in my mind, I realise that we will perhaps have to rephrase how we approach this and come back to it later in the course of the Bill. If, however, I have wrongly asserted what the Minister said to me, I would be happy to receive a note saying that there is a quota and that the Hillmore treaty will not triage people in France. If I am right in those two things, I would be happy to proceed. If I am wrong, I would be happy to receive a note to say that I am incorrect. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, if I may, I first thank the new Minister for his response to the amendments that I placed before the Committee. All I can say is that one man’s flexibility is another man’s uncertainty. I raised the uncertainty for people who have disrupted their lives and are resettling their lives by coming to another place to rebuild. It is very disruptive to have no certainty, so I urge the Government to think again about this business of flexibility.
Certainly the position going forward should at least be to give security to those who have already arrived—the security of knowing that they can make plans for their children, their education and so on, and have some knowledge of what the limits are. They have always expected, after five years, to have that security of tenure.
From my contact with Ukrainian refugees here, there is absolutely no doubt that they want to return to their country. They want to see peace and justice in the settlement that reaches the end of this war, and that is the encouragement that all of us would give, but that is not what they are seeking. They are seeking the confidence of knowing that the Government will continue their commitment. I was very reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who indicated that his Government were very much there at the beginning in supporting Ukraine and were then followed by Labour in government. We are providing that strong commitment to the people and nation of Ukraine that really gives some confidence to those who are here, living in uncertainty but wanting to return, to know that they can be here for as long as it takes.