Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a proud Welsh MP I am honoured to be here for my first Welsh questions.
We fully recognise the role of farmers and the agricultural community in Wales. That is why one of the first things that I did as Minister was meet members of the Farmers’ Union of Wales at the farm of one of its members just two weeks ago. I will be meeting with the National Farmers’ Union later today to discuss important matters for its members, including inheritance tax. This Government have also made sure to protect the farm budget for Wales, ensuring that the full £337 million has been allocated to the Welsh Government.
Sarah Bool
I welcome the Minister to her place. The impact of the changes to IHT goes far beyond just farmers. Last month, a Pembrokeshire farm gathered 57 businesses from vets, machinery dealerships, and milk processors, to electricians and fencing companies, employing almost 11,000 people. Almost half of those were totally reliant on incomes from local farms. Have the Government fully considered the ripple effect of that policy on farms in Wales and across the UK, including in my constituency?
Anna McMorrin
This Government want to strike a fair balance between supporting farmers and fixing our public finances on which our communities, including those important agricultural communities, rely so heavily. The vast majority of farmers will not be affected by this change, and they will be able to pass the family farm down to their children. Welsh Conservatives voted to block the support reaching Welsh farms in March, which shows that the Conservative party just does not care for farmers and the agricultural community.
Jerome Mayhew
I welcome the Minister to her position at the Dispatch Box. I know she will be excellent at the job. I also refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Welsh farming is central to the Welsh economy—we can all agree on that—but it is now facing a double whammy from the mad sustainable farming scheme from Labour in Cardiff, and the frankly bad family farm tax that has been dreamt up by Labour in London. The Farmers’ Union of Wales tells us that more than 85% of active farms in Wales will have IHT bills that exceed their incomes. That spells economic disaster. Why is Labour so deaf to the voice of farmers in Wales?
Anna McMorrin
As I said, the Government want to strike that fair balance, and that is what they are doing. Our reforms mean that the majority of those claiming agricultural property relief will not be affected. That is a fair approach that balances fixing our public finances after the chaos of the Conservative party, and maintaining much needed support for families, farms and the wider rural agricultural community.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. Was she as shocked as I was last year that Plaid Cymru and Conservative Senedd Members voted against the £300 million funding for Welsh farmers? Will she join me in urging them to stop playing political games, put the people of Wales first, and work with the Welsh Government constructively to ensure that we do not have uncertainty for our farmers and our public sector, which we all depend on in Wales?
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to her work in this role prior to my appointment. I completely agree: the Welsh Government published their outline draft budget earlier this month, and are working with Opposition parties to ensure that it has broad support. The question everyone in Wales wants the answer to is whether the Opposition parties will vote against billions of pounds for public services, including vital support for Welsh farmers, just like they did last year.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I note that it takes three women to take me on now, but I very much welcome the Ministers to their places. Charles Rees, a fifth-generation Pembrokeshire farmer, has bravely and moving shared his battle with cancer on the BBC’s “Countryfile”, and I know this House will send him and his family our best wishes. His illness is not his only worry; he is also seriously concerned that his son, who is running his farm, could now be facing an unaffordable inheritance tax bill of £1 million, solely due to this Government’s catastrophic family farm tax. Despite Ministers saying differently, Charles and many other farmers across the country are fearing for their livelihoods, their way of life, their futures, and for food security. Will the Government scrap the family farm tax?
Anna McMorrin
I reiterate that our reforms mean that the majority of those claiming the relief will not be affected. As confirmed by the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), there will be no change and no U-turn on inheritance tax. This policy strikes a fair balance and is fixing our public finances, after the chaos that the Tories left, while protecting our rural communities.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
Economic growth is the No. 1 priority for this Government. The UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year. Wages are up, inward investment is up, inactivity is down on the year and interest rates are down. This Labour Government are delivering for working people all across Wales and the United Kingdom.
Alison Hume
It is brilliant that last month a total of £214 million was invested in communities across Wales as part of the Government’s pride in place scheme. In my patch, I was delighted that earlier this year Scarborough was awarded £20 million through the plan for neighbourhoods. These initiatives will give local people the power to decide how funding will transform our towns. Will the Secretary of State update the House on how funds such as these will boost local economic growth and restore pride in our communities?
Jo Stevens
Through the pride in place initiative, we are putting power and resources directly into the hands of local communities, from Conwy to Carmarthenshire, giving them the ability to decide the priorities that matter most and the funding to pay for visible and lasting change. In Wales, 14 communities will benefit from £20 million of investment, alongside a further £34.5 million benefiting every single local authority across Wales. Together, the investments will help revitalise high streets and improve public spaces and community facilities, which is a central part of our mission to boost the economy and break down barriers to opportunity.
Rachel Blake
As the MP for the centre of London, including Paddington station, I know how interconnected our countries and our economies are. In stark contrast to the nationalist parties of Reform and Plaid Cymru, the Labour Government are focused on job creation. Will the Secretary of State update us on the impact of Plaid Cymru’s damaging independence plans?
Jo Stevens
Plaid Cymru’s disastrous plans for independence will cost Wales £21.5 billion every year— over £11,000 for every working-age person in Wales or over £7,000 for every adult and child in Wales, every single year. The people of Wales deserve to know what public services Plaid Cymru will cut or what taxes it would raise to pay for its divisive, separatist plans?
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is not just farmers but lots of other family businesses who are terrified for their future. Under the business property relief, a company worth £20 million would have to pay £4 million in tax, yet that responsibility falls not on the business but the person who inherits it, so they will have to extract another £4 million to pay that tax, crippling family businesses, crippling investment and hurting growth in Wales. That is true, is it not?
Jo Stevens
It is certainly not. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard of tax planning, and so will the people he has been talking about. Investment is up in Wales and we have had record inward investment in Wales, with a 23% increase on the previous financial year and a 30% increase in jobs created. The UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year. Businesses are growing, developing and creating jobs under this Government.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Under the watch of the current Secretary of State, opportunities for young people are now unbelievably dire. Despite what she says, unemployment is rising and employment is falling, and that situation is not good enough for the next generation in Wales. Last week, my colleague, Darren Millar, who is the Conservative leader of the Senedd group, met the Welsh First Minister—does anyone know who that is?—offering to potentially support the Welsh Government’s budget, provided Labour Ministers agree to scrapping Welsh stamp duty. That would help young people on to the property ladder in Wales, where it is the hardest to achieve that, and boost the Welsh economy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she agrees with scrapping Welsh stamp duty? If so, what measures is she taking to persuade Baroness Morgan of Ely to scrap the tax in Wales?
Jo Stevens
I am very glad that the hon. Lady knows the name of the Welsh Conservative leader in the Senedd, because clearly her colleague the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), does not. They must have ended their fight about who is the actual leader.
We are delivering for the people of Wales. We have ended Tory austerity, and we have the largest budget settlement in the history of devolution, with nearly £5 billion extra to spend on public services over the next three years. We are creating jobs, and we have increased the minimum wage and the national living wage for 160,000 Welsh workers. We are fixing the foundations and the chaos that the hon. Lady’s party left behind.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Allow me first to congratulate Lindsay Whittle on his seismic victory in Caerphilly. In doing so, I pay tribute to the late Hefin David, whose service to his community was deeply respected. As Mr Whittle has said:
“He will be a hard act to follow. I will never fill his shoes but I promise you I will walk the same path that he did”.
The result shows that people in Wales seek real change. In her capacity as Secretary of State at the Wales Office, what is she doing to press the Labour Chancellor to include measures that benefit Wales in the autumn Budget?
Jo Stevens
I thank the right hon. Lady for her words about our late colleague Hefin David. I congratulate Lindsay Whittle on his victory and on becoming a Senedd Member; I am sure that he will work very hard for his Caerphilly constituency for the next six months. As she will know, I am not going to comment on discussions between myself and the Chancellor ahead of the Budget. She will have to wait and see what the Chancellor says on 26 November.
Liz Saville Roberts
None the less, I think we all know that the autumn Budget risks falling short of tackling the deep poverty and lack of opportunities that still scar far too many Welsh communities. We need to tax income from wealth fairly, scrap the two-child limit and ensure that families have the support they need to cope with rising costs. The Secretary of State tells me to wait for the Budget. Perhaps she is therefore prepared, for once, to meet with me to discuss Plaid Cymru’s proposals for a fairer, more ambitious UK Budget that actually works for Wales. Will she meet with me?
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
I have regular discussions with the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers on a wide range of issues, including the cost of living. This Labour Government are on the side of working people. That is why we have already taken action by increasing the national minimum wage and the national living wage for 160,000 workers across Wales. We have frozen fuel duty and extended the warm home discount. There is more to do, and we are determined to put more money into people’s pockets right across Wales.
Dave Doogan
A century of Labour taking the people of Wales for granted came crashing down last week with the sensational victory of Plaid’s Lindsay Whittle in Caerphilly, with Labour reduced to third place. Why would anybody accept any more Labour, as Labour’s cost of living soars, its Westminster perma-crisis deepens, and 700,000 people in Wales live under its poverty prospectus? The Secretary of State will not say what she is going to speak to the Chancellor about, but does she think the Chancellor is ready and willing to help the people of Wales? The people of Wales feel abandoned by Labour over the last five decades.
Jo Stevens
I am not sure whether the hon. Member has ever been to Caerphilly or even to Wales. If he has, that is good; if he has not, he needs to be careful about what he says about the people in Wales. He absolutely does not know what he is talking about. His party’s record in Scotland is nothing to boast about. Nationalists will divide the United Kingdom, costing Wales £21.5 billion every single year.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I welcome last month’s news that Newport city council and Caerphilly county borough council will each receive £21.5 million from the UK Labour Government’s Pride in Place scheme. That funding will empower communities across my constituency to invest in community assets and their local high streets, drive local growth and create jobs, thus reducing the cost of living. Does the Secretary of State agree that at last in Wales, we have two Labour Governments delivering for the people of Wales?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, is absolutely right. Our pride in place programmes, the local growth fund, the city and growth deals, the investment zones and our freeports are all the result of having two Labour Governments working together for the benefit of everyone across Wales. Taken together, they will boost the economy, draw in further investment, create thousands of jobs and raise living standards across Wales. They demonstrate this Government’s commitment to growth—practical, visible, long-term investment that empowers local communities and delivers real benefits for them.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
Overhead lines are much cheaper to build; according to the Institution of Engineering and Technology, undergrounding costs an estimated four and a half times more than overhead lines. Overhead lines are also quicker to build, cause less environmental damage, and are much easier to maintain. The cost of building this infrastructure is borne by electricity bill payers, and Plaid’s policy on undergrounding will not only increase bills, but suffocate the economic potential of Wales’s green industrial revolution.
Ann Davies
My constituency is the location of two major infrastructure projects—a network of pylons of 97 km and 60 km, alongside 248 wind turbines that are 230 metres tall. The cumulative impact of these projects is significant, occupying land that could support other development, and it remains unclear whether they will lower electricity bills or improve electricity connectivity for local households or businesses. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Government to ensure that those projects deliver genuine benefits for our communities?
Jo Stevens
I have heard what the hon. Lady has said, but we do have a policy to ensure that communities that host clean energy infrastructure can directly benefit. The new community funds guidance aims to improve the consistency and amount of funding for communities that could be used for local projects. Turning to bill discounts, we are introducing a scheme that will provide household discounts to those living closest to new and significantly upgraded transmission infrastructure projects.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I like my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies), and Plaid wants to be taken seriously as a party of government, but it fails to recognise the importance of the role that renewable energy will play. Does the Secretary of State agree with RenewableUK Cymru, which recently concluded that Plaid’s approach would cost jobs and investment in communities such as mine in Pembrokeshire?
Jo Stevens
Labour is the only party that is committed to investing in renewable energy, which will bring down bills and create thousands of jobs for people right across Wales. Plaid and Reform are against renewable infrastructure, and Plaid and the SNP do not want nuclear—Plaid’s economy spokesperson in the Senedd is anti-nuclear. Plaid is happy to see people pay higher bills, to spurn investment, and to see job opportunities slashed.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
During the second world war, over 200 people were forced to leave their homes and give up their land in the Epynt when more than half of the community was taken for use by the Ministry of Defence. The people of the Epynt understood why that sacrifice had to be made, but now, Bute Energy and its wealthy investment backers want to take the rest of the Epynt. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Epynt has already sacrificed enough, and will she work with me to defend the Welsh countryside from once again having its wealth extracted from it, with no benefit to local communities?
Jo Stevens
It sounds like the Liberal Democrats in Wales have the same position as Plaid Cymru. Our priority is to drive growth, lower bills and create jobs for people through our new green energy revolution, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Investment in his constituency is something he should be welcoming.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
We inherited a broken asylum system in absolute chaos from the Tories, with tens of thousands stuck in a system dependent on expensive asylum hotels. We are committed to ending the use of hotels as asylum accommodation as soon as possible and before the end of this Parliament, as part of a controlled, managed and orderly programme.
Rebecca Smith
Under the Welsh Labour Government, waiting lists, educational standards and opportunities for young people have all ground to an abrupt halt. It is therefore shocking that the Welsh Labour Government are not prioritising issues that would make a real difference to the people of Wales. Instead, Labour Ministers, supported by Plaid Cymru, are ploughing tens of millions of pounds into their nation of sanctuary policy, which is believed to support services for some illegal immigrants. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is high time her colleagues scrapped this wasteful, non-devolved policy and instead focused their time on lowering NHS waiting times and improving standards?
Anna McMorrin
It sounds like the hon. Member does not agree with welcoming the thousands of Ukrainian refugees that the UK Government’s nation of sanctuary has supported. The scheme has been used to welcome Ukrainian families fleeing from Russian aggression. That is a cause that I understood her party supported.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the remarks of the leader of Plaid Cymru in paying tribute to Hefin David, my friend and colleague. He was an amazing representative for Wales and a real warrior for those who are neurodivergent or find themselves on the margins of society.
I am delighted that Caerphilly is so popular today. It seems that so many people who have either only visited several times, or not visited at all and have only read about it in the press, have become experts about my constituency.
I am also pleased that the Minister has raised the plight of Ukrainians who came to Wales to seek sanctuary, running from war, because if there was one downside to the by-election, it was the talk of asylum seekers being bad people—that they are all illegal and that they do not contribute anything. Those who said such things should see the exhibition that was on at Caerphilly council and see what asylum seekers have contributed. What message does the Minister have for those Ukrainians who are still seeking asylum in Wales?
Anna McMorrin
We offer sanctuary for those who desperately need it, and we are proud of that, but we inherited contracts and a broken system from the Conservatives. Hotel use has nearly halved since the last election, and we have removed 30,000 people who have no right to be here, ensuring that those who do need to be here have the welcome and support that they need. It is not job done, but work in progress. We can compare that with the 14 years of the Tory Government.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
After wantonly scrapping the Rwanda scheme, the Labour Government are now overseeing record-breaking figures of illegal immigrants. It is reported that the scandal is now engulfing north Wales, where more than 200 illegal immigrants have tried to gain entry to the country on ferries from Dublin to Holyhead. Meanwhile, there is talk about Penally military camp in south-west Wales, which was previously condemned by the Welsh Labour Government. It appears that their policy, along with Reform’s, is from boats to barracks, as is happening in Scotland and Sussex, yet Plaid says that there is no such thing as illegal immigration. Does the Minister agree that her Government and Plaid have no idea about and no interest in how to make our borders safe?
Anna McMorrin
I fear that the Conservatives forget about the chaos that they created. We inherited a broken system after 14 years of chaos, and contracts that we have to honour, but in the past year we have halved the use of hotels. We have removed 30,000 people who have no right to be here. It is not job done, as I say, but it is a work in progress. We can compare that work in just one year with 14 years of chaos under the hon. Lady’s Government.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
We are investing at least £445 million in Welsh rail in order to right years of underfunding by past Governments. That will mean new stations and more and faster trains along the key lines, and will improve cross-border connectivity, create jobs and boost economic growth.
Catherine Fookes
I thank the Minister for that £445 million investment, which will be a fundamental driver of economic growth and connectivity in south Wales. What action is she taking with Cabinet colleagues and industry partners to ensure that a new station serving my constituents in Magor and Undy is delivered without delay, getting my constituents on track, and faster, towards their destinations?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend has been a strong champion for this rail investment, which is the key to unlock Wales’s economic potential. It includes funds to progress the five Burns stations in Cardiff East, Newport West, Somerton, Llanwern and Magor and Undy. I will continue to work with the Wales Rail Board and the Welsh Government to ensure that the community my hon. Friend represents is given the infrastructure that it needs.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The huge potential of both the north-west of England and north Wales is being held back by poor rail infra-structure. The last Conservative Government committed themselves to spending at least £1 billion to upgrade and electrify the railway lines from Crewe and Warrington through Chester and into north Wales, but this Labour Government have scrapped those transformational plans, at a time when economic growth is a priority. Will the Minister seek to reinstate the vital rail infrastructure investment in the Mersey Dee and north Wales region?
Anna McMorrin
That money just did not exist. We are investing a historic £445 million in Welsh rail to right years of underfunding by previous Governments, unleashing Wales’s economic potential. That will mean new stations, faster trains on key lines, and connecting people with well-paid and better jobs right across Wales. Two Governments are working in partnership to deliver for the people of Wales.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, may I welcome, in the Gallery, the honourable Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka and his delegation?
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The scenes of destruction emerging from Jamaica are truly shocking. Both the Foreign Secretary and I have been in close contact with our Jamaican counterparts in recent days to offer the UK’s full support. I can update the House: HMS Trent and specialist rapid deployment teams are pre-positioned in the region, and we stand ready to provide humanitarian support.
Awaab Ishak died five years ago from a respiratory condition caused by exposure to black mould in his flat in Rochdale. He was just two years old. No child should grow up without the safety and security of a decent home. For far too long, millions of people have lived at the mercy of rogue landlords and insecure contracts. Labour is ending that. Despite the best efforts of the Tories and Reform, who voted against it, our Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is now law, including Awaab’s law.
Fighting for working people: that is the difference that a Labour Government make, and on that issue, this Government have secured the biggest deal to manufacture Typhoon fighter jets in this country for almost 20 years. We secured that deal because the UK is back as a leading and trusted member of NATO. That is a timely reminder for the Green party, whose policy is to take us out of NATO; for the Putin-friendly Reform party, which would have no standing with NATO; and for the Leader of the Opposition, because you do not win NATO deals by not turning up to NATO summits.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Nick Smith
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about supporting Jamaica.
Across our country, and in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, off-road bikers are a menace. They tear up our environment, and turn our streets into racetracks. After years of Tory cuts, Gwent police are now tackling that. Does the Prime Minister agree that police forces, and communities such as mine, are seeing the difference that Labour can make in power?
The Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend’s determination that everyone should feel safe and secure in their community. Neighbourhood policing was decimated by the Conservative party, and we are restoring it with 3,000 extra officers by spring. We are also giving them the powers that they need, including tough new respect orders that allow the police to seize and destroy vehicles within 48 hours. The Tories walked through the Lobby, with Reform, to vote against our Crime and Policing Bill.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Last year, in its manifesto, Labour promised not to increase income tax, not to increase national insurance, and not to increase VAT. Does the Prime Minister still stand by his promises?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition is now finally talking about the economy. I can update the House: retail sales are higher than expected; inflation is lower than expected; growth has been upgraded this year; and the UK stock market is at an all-time high. The Budget is on 26 November, and we will lay out our plans then, but I can tell the House now that we will build a stronger economy, cut NHS waiting lists and deliver a better future for our country.
Mrs Badenoch
Well, well, well; what a fascinating answer. It is not the same answer that I received when I asked exactly the same question, word for word, on 9 July. Then, the Prime Minister replied with just one word—yes—and then he sat down with a smug grin on his face. What has changed in the past four months?
The Prime Minister
As the Leader of the Opposition well knows, no Prime Minister or Chancellor will ever set out their plans in advance. But I can say this: the figures from the productivity review that is being undertaken—which is a judgment on the Tories’ record in office—are now coming through, and they confirm that the Tories did even more damage to the economy than we had previously thought. We will turn that around. We have already delivered the fastest growth in the G7 in the first half of this year, five interest rate cuts in a row, and trade deals with the US, EU and India. The Tories broke the economy; we are fixing it.
Mrs Badenoch
The right and learned hon. Gentleman says that no Prime Minister or Chancellor will say these things before the Budget. Has he told his Chancellor? She has been out there flying kites, causing constant speculation around the Budget that is damaging the economy. All week, the Government have been briefing about tax rises. What we have heard is that he does not have a plan, so we have some ideas for him. [Interruption.] It is quite clear that they need some ideas. On the Conservative Benches, we believe in scrapping taxes on family homes. Yesterday, we voted to abolish stamp duty; Labour voted against it. Even the former Deputy Prime Minister, who resigned in disgrace for not paying stamp duty, voted to keep it. I remind them that on this side of the House we know that abolishing stamp duty is how we get young people on the housing ladder and get the economy growing. So why will he not scrap this terrible tax?
The Prime Minister
Why did the Tories not do it, then, in their 14 years in office? As I said, the productivity review figures are now coming in, and those show the true extent of the damage that they did. The Leader of the Opposition asks us to take advice from them. These figures are coming out, and we all know that austerity damaged the economy on their watch. The botched Brexit deal damaged the economy on their watch. Liz Truss’s mini-Budget damaged the economy on their watch. So we will take no lectures or advice from them on the economy. They will not be trusted on the economy for generations to come. That is why I can be clear that, at our Budget, there will be no return to austerity—that is what broke the country—and no return to the instability of their mad borrowing spree, and we will end the unfairness and low growth that squeezed living standards for working people. That is the path to national renewal.
Mrs Badenoch
The Conservatives reduced the deficit every year until the pandemic. We more than doubled the personal allowance. We left 4 million more jobs than we found from Labour. We brought inflation down to 2%; it has nearly doubled—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Tufnell, you are in my sights. The pantomime season has not arrived—do not start it too early.
Mrs Badenoch
On our record, we brought inflation down to 2%; it has doubled under the Prime Minister. We left him the fastest growing economy in the G7; it is no longer. The truth is, the Government have no ideas; we are giving them some. There is another way to get growth: cutting welfare spending and getting people into work. Last month, I offered to work cross-party with him to bring down welfare spending, because he knows and we know that he would rather dip into people’s pockets than upset the people behind him. Instead of tax rises, will he work with us to find a way to cut welfare spending and get Britain working again?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady talks about the Conservatives’ record, so let us go through it. They crashed the economy. Inflation went up to 11%. Mortgages went through the roof. Welfare spending went up by £33 billion. And they want to give us advice! They reduced the UK to a laughing stock. Because of our Budget, waiting lists have come down, wages are up, mortgage rates are down and other countries want to do deals with us. Just on Monday of this week, the Turkish Government signed an £8 billion deal for Typhoons. Earlier this year, the Norwegian Government signed a £10 billion deal for frigates. That is because of the Budget that we passed—fixing the mess that the Tories left.
Mrs Badenoch
It is not because of the Budget that the Prime Minister passed; I started that deal back in January 2024, and I welcome it. [Interruption.] It has nothing to do with the Government’s Budget; we are lucky the deal is still happening. I welcome the £8 billion deal that he has done with Turkey, but I remind him that just last month his Chancellor borrowed £20 billion. He will have to sell a hell of a lot more jets to make up for that. He will not rule out any tax rises, he cannot cut spending and he is increasing unemployment. This man knows nothing about economic growth, except how to destroy it. In his weakness, he has caved in to the unions on their regulations that will cripple businesses, costing them £5 billion every year. [Interruption.] Yes, please do speak up, because I want every single business out there to hear Labour MPs heckling when we talk about the damage that they are doing. I ask the Prime Minister: how on earth can he consider adding more burdens for these firms to deal with?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady has overlooked the fact that we had the highest growth in the G7 in the first six months of this year—and that growth has just been upgraded—and we had three interest rate cuts. We are not going to take lessons from the Conservatives. She has now introduced what I think she calls a “golden economic rule”. This golden rule that she is now putting forward—very golden!—is £47 billion-worth of unspecified spending cuts, with no detail whatsoever. Let me put that in context: that would mean 85,000 fewer nurses, 234,000 fewer teachers or cutting every police officer in the country twice over. No wonder the Institute for Government said she is on “shaky foundations”. That is exactly what caused the problem in the first place.
Mrs Badenoch
The fact that he has to stand there and make stuff up just shows what kind of Prime Minister he is. We had an itemised list worth £47 billion; £23 billion was on welfare spending, which I asked him to work with us to cut. He refuses to do so. All he knows how to do is tax, tax, tax. If you work, the Government tax you more. If you save, they tax you more. If you buy a home, they tax you more. None of these taxes were in their manifesto, which he had four years to prepare. He is raising taxes because he is too weak to control spending. He is blaming us, he is blaming the OBR. Last week, they were blaming Brexit. Is it not the truth that with this Prime Minister, it is always someone else’s fault?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives were kicked out of office because they broke the economy. They will not be trusted for years to come. The right hon. Lady cannot tell us what her position is on the last Budget, and she has a phantom £47 billion with no foundation as we go forward. That is exactly the mess that they caused, and they have not changed one bit. Meanwhile, we are fixing their mess: 5 million extra NHS appointments, five interest rate cuts, and growth and wages are up. That is the change a Labour Government make.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point. I am deeply concerned by the strikes. This underlines the fragility of the ceasefire deal. All sides need to uphold President Trump’s peace plan. It is the only route to long-term peace for Israelis and Palestinians. We are of course in close touch with the US and regional allies pushing for de-escalation. The scale of destruction in Gaza is unimaginable. The immediate priority remains getting aid in at the speed and the volume needed.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with what the Prime Minister said about Jamaica, and indeed all the islands and countries affected by Hurricane Melissa? Our thoughts and prayers are with them all.
I am sure the whole House will also want to join me in paying tribute to Prunella Scales. I suspect I am not the only Member of the House with a “Fawlty Towers” DVD box set. She will be greatly missed.
Across Europe, in countries like Poland, Germany and France, we have seen evidence of dangerous Russian political interference. Last month, the former leader of a major party in Wales pleaded guilty to taking bribes to make pro-Russian statements. The evidence shows that Nathan Gill was a close confidant of the current Reform party leader for years. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is time we had an in-depth investigation into Russian meddling and money in British politics?
The Prime Minister
I join in the right hon. Member’s comments on Prunella Scales.
On the question of Russian interference, it is a serious problem in countries across Europe, including in our country, where it is a constant threat. For NATO allies, the conflict in Ukraine and dealing with Russian aggression is the No. 1 issue. That is why I have to say the Reform party would be an absolute disaster for our defence. We are a trusted member of NATO; we would not be a trusted member if we were Putin-friendly. We are leading the coalition of the willing, giving security and comfort to 30 other countries. That would collapse under Reform because it is Putin-friendly, and it would be a real threat to our defence and our security.
Ed Davey
I am grateful for the Prime Minister’s reply, and I agree with him on Ukraine, but I do hope he will look to have an investigation into this Russian interference in our politics.
Last week, I questioned how the Prime Minister can accept the damage of Brexit while refusing to do anything meaningful about it. The damage is clear, with the Financial Times reporting that lower productivity growth alone has blown a £20 billion black hole in the public finances—just part of the Brexit black hole that the Conservatives and Reform will not apologise for. Last week, he rejected my plan for a new customs union, so can I ask him what action he will take to change the Brexit deal, or is he just planning to complain about it?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member must have overlooked the fact that there was a UK-EU summit earlier this year, in which there were 10 strands to the change that we have already agreed in relation to the relationship with the EU, including closer trading relationships and closer work on defence and security; that is an iterative process that we will continue into next year. But he is absolutely right about the botched deal of the last Government and the damage that has done to our economy. We are just seeing some of the figures coming through in relation to that. That is one of the factors behind the way they crashed the economy.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Can I start by wishing Hartlepool United the best for this season? My hon. Friend will appreciate that the structure of the leagues is a matter for the leagues themselves, but I commend his campaign and everything that he is putting behind it. I also pay tribute to the staff, fans and players of Sheffield Wednesday at this difficult time. We have delivered the Independent Football Regulator to stand up for fans and to make sure that clubs have fit and proper owners. The Conservatives used to support that, but now they oppose it.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Prime Minister has a deep understanding of policing in Northern Ireland and its importance. He knows about the ongoing national security threat and about the additional costs of dealing with the legacy of our past. He knows that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been underfunded, and that the Northern Ireland Executive have rightly brought forward a stability programme for it. He also know that it is under strength; in 2020, New Decade, New Approach suggested that there should be 7,500 police officers in Northern Ireland, but today there are 6,200.
Does the Prime Minister know, however, that the Treasury did not look favourably on a request to draw on the reserves for a data breach that cost £120 million? Does he recognise that, in Treasury terms, the incident was “unforeseen, unaffordable and unavoidable”, and therefore matches the Treasury’s criteria? To set aside that money in-year would be 10% of the PSNI’s overall budget—it is not affordable. Can I ask him to think about this issue again, in engagement with the Chancellor, and to ensure that our Police Service of Northern Ireland and the national security threat that it faces are not hampered by in-year financial rules?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue, which I know is of real concern to him. I reassure him that I am in regular contact with Chief Constable Jon Boutcher and the PSNI on it, as he would expect. As he is aware, we provided a record settlement of £19.3 billion a year on average for the Executive, and we invested £113 million in additional security funding for the PSNI to help to address specific security challenges. While it is for the Executive to set the PSNI budget, I reassure him that our commitment is to keeping people safe in Northern Ireland.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that tragic case. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that we send our sympathies and thoughts to Hudson’s parents, Shannon and Tyler. I will make sure that they get the meeting that he has asked for. This is exactly why we are working to improve access to face-to-face appointments for those who want one. To enable that, we have delivered the largest cash uplift for GPs in a decade, have put over 2,500 GPs into general practice, and are upgrading 1,000 surgeries to deliver 8 million more appointments.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue and for the two examples that he has given. The downgrading of Basildon hospital is deeply disappointing. The Care Quality Commission has set out immediate actions for the trust leaders to deliver improvements. Our decisions in government have seen a £26 billion boost for our NHS, helping to deliver over 5 million extra appointments. I gently point out that he was elected to represent a Reform party that would dismantle our NHS and charge people to see their doctor.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am proud that we have delivered the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation—which the Tories and Reform have voted against at every turn, as they always do with any form of workers’ rights and protections. The deal that we struck on Monday with Turkey is worth £8 billion, 20,000 jobs and 10 years of work in manufacturing the Typhoons. It was possible only because we are a trusted member of NATO. Reform would be an absolute nightmare on defence—it would not be a trusted member of NATO because it is Putin-friendly.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, which I know is personal to him. We are investing £600 million to improve diagnostic capacity and are rolling out new radiotherapy machines, including, I am pleased to say, in his local trust. We have seen real improvements, with 148,000 more people now having cancer diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days, but I acknowledge that there is more to do. The national cancer plan will set out how we will go further and deliver the best care for every patient.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I know how important face-to-face banking is on our high streets. As my hon. Friend says, we have committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs across the United Kingdom, and over 180 are already open. However, I want to reassure him that 350 is not the limit; although decisions over hubs are taken independently, they can be rolled out wherever a community needs one. I am happy to make sure the relevant Minister follows up with details for him.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. The problem is, one or two of you are trying to catch my eye. If we don’t get through this, you won’t get a chance.
Mike Wood
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The triple lock was a great achievement of the previous Government, and we will be keeping it. From April, pensioners with private pensions as low as £2 a month will be paying income tax for the first time. At last year’s Budget, the Chancellor was clear that extending the freeze on personal allowances would breach Labour’s manifesto commitment. Will the Prime Minister prove the media speculation wrong, keep his promise and guarantee that there will be no extension to the freeze on personal allowances?
The Prime Minister
The freeze was introduced by them. That is why it is coming in next year.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Yes. She is bearing down on the challenges at the Home Office—most of them inherited from the last Government. We will make the changes necessary, and I have every confidence in the Secretary of State to do so.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I agree. I thought that the King and the Pope praying together sent an incredible message to the world and was very powerful. I agree that if we all work together, we can bring people together, notwithstanding the very many difficulties and challenges around the world and in our own country. It is why we should, so far as we can, unite on national patriotic renewal in this country, rather than have the toxic division we see from some on the Benches opposite.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend’s constituency is just one example of why the United Kingdom is a world leader in educating and attracting the brightest minds. Our immigration White Paper includes changes to make sure that more of the world’s best graduates and entrepreneurs start their careers and businesses here. We are also boosting our research and development sector with more than £86 billion, to ensure that we continue to attract the best and the brightest.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Our small business plan was widely welcomed by small businesses across the country, not least because of their input into it. The hon. Lady complains about the measures we had to take at the last Budget, including national insurance—[Interruption.] The Conservative Front Benchers are saying that we chose to take them, but they still cannot say whether they would reverse them. They know nothing about the damage they did to our economy.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I am wearing all black today to demonstrate my sorrow over a fatal stabbing that took place in my constituency yesterday. We all know that one death is one death too many, but I have had two deaths in my constituency in the last few weeks. My community needs reassurance. Knife crime must end. Will the Prime Minister say what more his Government are doing to tackle knife crime?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising these tragic cases, which have a huge impact on families, friends and communities. I know that she is a passionate and dedicated campaigner on this issue. Every single life lost to knife crime devastates communities. That is why we banned zombie knives and ninja swords and are strengthening controls on online knife sales. We are also giving stronger powers to the police in our Crime and Policing Bill, which both the Conservatives and Reform voted against.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that. I think the broken SEND system has been raised with me more frequently than any other issue at Prime Minister’s questions. We need to review it because it is not working for any of those involved, particularly children and parents. It is important that we get it right and, in so far as we can, that we get a consensus on how we go forward. That is what we are attempting to do.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
A fourth patient has entered the glioblastoma drug trial set up in memory of my late sister. Today, we are joined by Ben Trotman, a patient of a similar trial in 2022 that was funded by the Jon Moulton foundation. Since then, Ben has married Emily, and in March they welcomed beautiful baby Mabel. When will the National Institute for Health and Care Research spend the £40 million given in 2017 for trials on brain tumours, or will glioblastoma patients always have to rely on the grief stricken or the philanthropist for life and hope?
The Prime Minister
I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend’s sister Margaret, who was a guiding figure in the Labour party and left a powerful legacy in helping us to tackle brain cancer. We are determined to improve cancer survival rates and hit all NHS waiting times in relation to cancer so that no patient waits longer than they should. That is why we are investing £1.5 billion in new surgical hubs and diagnostic scanners to help deliver over 30,000 more procedures and over 1.2 million diagnostic tests.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I recently met about 20 independent local traders in Totnes who are furious that the last bank in town will close in January and that Link has refused to consider a banking hub. My businesses and constituents—1,100 of them have signed a petition—deserve better. The Prime Minister just told the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) that a banking hub can be rolled out wherever a community needs one, so will he now back my campaign, ask his Ministers to write to Link and instruct it to grant a banking hub to Totnes, and review the eligibility of rural towns for such hubs so that we can keep our vital high streets alive?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising that. She will have heard the answer I gave a few moments ago. I will ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister so that she can put the case for the banking hub in question.
Gaza and Hamas
(1 day, 9 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
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if she will make a statement on the actions taken to secure the elimination of Hamas from Gaza and the preservation of the ceasefire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
The House will be aware of events over the past 24 hours in Rafah, including reports that Israeli strikes took place last night. Estimates of the death toll vary, but the suggestion is that up to 100 people in Gaza have been killed. We understand that these strikes followed an attack yesterday afternoon, where responsibility remains unclear.
As the Prime Minister said earlier, we echo the Americans in calling for urgent de-escalation and for all parties to keep the commitments they have made in the ceasefire agreement. We are clear that Hamas must release the bodies of all remaining Israeli hostages. The immediate priority is to ensure the unrestricted flow of aid into Gaza. The Israeli Government must urgently lift restrictions on aid entering, and international non-governmental organisations must be permitted to operate in Gaza to provide the scale of support that is needed. Civilians cannot wait.
This Government are working closely with our partners to do everything we can to support the transition from the ceasefire to phase 2 of the peace plan. This includes the disarmament of Hamas, the deployment of a ceasefire monitoring mission, an international security force and the implementation of transitional governance arrangements in Gaza. We are clear that there can be no role for Hamas in the future governance of the strip. In recent days, the Foreign Secretary has spoken to the UN Under-Secretary-General for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief co-ordination, Tom Fletcher, the Egyptian Foreign Minister and the Israeli Foreign Minister about the importance of opening more crossings and removing restrictions on aid. As I told the House yesterday, the Foreign Secretary and I will be heading to the region shortly.
On 13 to 15 October, I co-hosted with the Egyptian Government and the Palestinian Authority the first conference to look at how we can leverage sustainable support to Gaza’s reconstruction. Britain will continue to play our full part in support of the ceasefire and the wider peace initiative. There is not a moment to lose to get relief at scale to those in need and to make progress on the pathway to a lasting peace.
Priti Patel
The situation in Gaza is fragile. We all want the ceasefire to hold and endure, and for it to transition into a sustainable end to the conflict, but that requires the terms of the ceasefire to be adhered to. The scenes of masked Hamas gunmen carrying out summary executions is sickening. Their continued hoarding and disruption of aid to starve Gazans is shocking. Their refusal to disarm is disturbing, and their failure to return the bodies of the deceased hostages is distressing. The hostages and their families deserve the dignity of a proper burial. Their loved ones have already been through terrible pain and suffering. No more coffins should be released with the wrong remains. This is a disgusting game that has to end immediately.
Can the Minister explain what pressure is being exerted on Hamas by the UK Government to ensure that they comply with the full terms of the agreement and release all the deceased hostages? Yesterday it was reported that Hamas gunmen killed an Israel Defence Forces soldier, violating the ceasefire and leading to the targeted IDF action in response. What is the Minister’s assessment of the threat that Hamas pose, and what practical steps is the UK taking to support the disarming and elimination of Hamas and the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza?
Yesterday, the Secretary of State told the House that
“the UK has been proposing different ways in which we can help in the process of decommissioning and disarming Hamas, using expertise that we have built up over very many years.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 150.]
Can the Minister now say what Britain’s specific role is? This is a unique situation regarding Hamas, with terrorist infrastructure and threats funded by Iran across the region. What actions are the Government taking to rebuild their relationship with Israel, given the important partnership that we have with Israel?
On aid, what steps are being taken to increase getting aid into Gaza? Given the remarks by the US Secretary of State about the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and its role in Gaza, what discussions have taken place with the US Administration about UNRWA’s future and the implications for the UK following the Government’s decision to give it millions of pounds, despite knowing some of the risks?
Mr Falconer
We track events in Gaza incredibly carefully. I do not intend to give the House a running commentary on each and every individual incident that takes place. The situation remains volatile and messy. I hope not to disappoint hon. Members if I avoid giving very specific answers on very specific incidents. Structures are now being put in place, including the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre, which plays a role in seeking to verify the facts on the ground where we can. That work obviously takes some time. The UK is making a contribution to it, but I do not wish to get ahead of that process from the Dispatch Box.
What I will say is that we have been absolutely clear on the threat that Hamas poses to Palestinians, Israelis and the wider world. That is why it is sanctioned as a terrorist organisation here. We are taking a range of measures with our partners to work through the very complicated but necessary steps, whether that is about transitional governance in Gaza, the security arrangements that need to follow, the international security force, or a whole range of other questions. I assure the shadow Foreign Secretary that we are deep in those discussions. We have been having them over the last few days, and we will have them in the region, too. This is an incredibly complex piece of work, and we remain very focused on it.
Just quickly on aid, I would like to inform the House that there appears to have been quite a significant uprating of the aid going in, particularly through Kerem Shalom, which is welcome, but the House will know of the centrality of the other crossings, particularly Rafah and the Allenby bridge. They are not yet fully open. Aid cannot therefore flow in the volumes that we would wish to see. We continue to work with all our partners to try to see them reopen.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from my hon. Friend. It is fairly clear that the Israeli Government agreed to the peace deal only because they felt they had to, not because they necessarily wanted to. After all this time, we still have not got aid flowing into Gaza in the way we would all want to see. What further action can the Government take to put pressure on the Israeli Government to ensure that all the aid that is needed actually gets in, and gets in quickly?
Mr Falconer
That is a vital question from my hon. Friend, who follows these things closely. As I said in my last answer, to get to the volumes that we need, we will need both Rafah and the Allenby bridge to be reopened. It is welcome that there appears to be an increase of aid through Kerem Shalom—both UN aid and private trucks. It is vital that the Palestinian private sector, particularly in Gaza, can get goods in, restart the market and enable people to go about their normal lives. We will, as he would expect, continue to work with all our partners until we see the reopening of those crossings.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The ceasefire was a rare moment of hope despite the challenges ahead, so we share the dismay that extremists on both sides continue to look for opportunities to restart the war. We feel the distress of the hostage families being tortured by Hamas cruelty, and the grief of those whose family members—women and children—die under IDF bombs. The fake recovery of bodies by Hamas, as evidenced by the Red Cross, is a cruel and despicable act. Yet we can also see that extremists in the Netanyahu Cabinet, who have no interest in peace nor in the rights of Palestinian civilians, are straining at the leash to retaliate. It is this cycle of violence and suffering that we must break.
What steps have the Government taken to work with regional partners to force Hamas to find and return the remaining hostage bodies and to disarm? Given the importance of maintaining President Trump’s interest and attention, what conversations has the Minister had with US counterparts to ensure that the White House does not lose focus on the prize of peace through a two-state solution?
Mr Falconer
I can reassure the House that the British Government remain in very regular contact at the highest levels with the American Government on these questions. The American Government, as I think has been clear in recent days, remain very focused on these issues, which is to be welcomed and supported, as the hon. Member says. He raises important points about the recovery of bodies. I can confirm that I have been in talks with many of my opposite numbers across the region—most recently my Qatari opposites yesterday—as has the Foreign Secretary, and we continue to make these points with force.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his answer to the urgent question. He has done a great job over time updating this Chamber—he has been terrific through this difficult period. Will he say more about the type of aid that he thinks our country needs to send into Gaza to support the people there?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. There are two areas in which aid will be particularly vital. Of course, there are the immediate needs of the Gazan people. Most recently at Sharm el-Sheikh, the Prime Minister announced a £20 million contribution to the humanitarian programme to meet those needs, which will be focused on water, sanitation and health. There is also a need for the sustainable reconstruction of Gaza. The message that we hear so often from Palestinians is that they wish for their own companies and private sector to be engaged in that endeavour, and do not simply wish to see the World Bank or the United Nations leading the charge. They, too, want to take agency in those questions. That was one reason we involved them so closely in the conference that I held in October.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Once again, it is the children of Gaza who seem to bear the brunt of the violence, with reports that 35 of them were liquidated overnight in the casual dropping of bombs in retaliation. Equally as shocking is the realisation that there will be absolutely no accountability whatsoever for those deaths, likely no investigation into the targeting or intelligence used, and no sense of any punishment for what is very obviously a significant crime. Allied to that is the fact that it has proven quite a handy distraction from the significant violence and brutality taking place daily in the west bank. Given that we have now recognised Palestine as a sovereign nation, will there be any further measures to deter Israeli aggression on Palestinian soil?
Mr Falconer
We have spoken in this House on a number of occasions about events in the west bank, and we have announced three waves of sanctions—including at the most senior levels—against the Israeli Government. I reassure the House that we remain very focused on settler violence. We are moving into the olive harvesting period, which, as the right hon. Member will know, is a period in which violence is often particularly high. Regrettably, we are seeing similar trends this year. I will have more to say about that later in the day.
In relation to the right hon. Member’s first point on individual incidents, I refer him to my previous comments. It is important, at such a delicate moment for the ceasefire, that we are as precise as possible. That is why the CMCC is engaged in the way that it is.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The International Court of Justice has called on Israel to allow aid into Gaza, denounced its occupation of Palestinian territories as unlawful, and demanded the removal of troops. Does the Minister understand that as long as there are boots on the ground and UK arms are still sold to Israel, and unless Palestinians are allowed to determine their fate and be free of the violence that they continue to face, they will not have the peace that they need?
Mr Falconer
I think my hon. Friend refers to the ICJ advisory opinion in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As the House will be aware, there has been another advisory opinion from the ICJ more recently in relation to aid accessing Gaza. Assuming that she is asking about the former, we have made significant decisions since that advisory opinion—not least on the recognition of the Palestinian state. I clarify once again for the House that no British weaponry is used either in Gaza or in the west bank, other than subject to the messages relating to F-35s that we have discussed previously.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Minister quite rightly said that Hamas must disarm and that there can be no place for Hamas in the future of Gaza, yet the White House appears to be licensing Hamas to conduct internal security operations. What conversations is he having with his US counterparts to reconcile the UK position, which he clearly outlined, and that of the US?
Mr Falconer
As the right hon. Member knows, disarmament is usually a process. It takes time and requires serious and greatly complex technical work. We want to ensure that Gaza is free of Hamas and that Hamas are disarmed. That will take time, and it is the work that we and the Americans are engaged in.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Both in Gaza, where grassroots peacebuilders will face the immense task of reconciliation, and here at home, where debate has become dangerously polarised, the peace plan and the two-state solution remain the only credible path forward, and we must all be absolutely clear in condemning Hamas, who have no place in the future governance of a free Palestine, and the atrocities that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s far-right Government continue to commit. Put simply, two wrongs do not make a right. I urge the Minister to make a statement calling for unity at this fractious time.
Mr Falconer
There have obviously been innumerable wrongs in the region in recent months. It is important that we now continue the work, move forward with the ceasefire into phase 2, and see the wider peace plan fully implemented.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Throughout these horrific two years, I have kept trying to make the case for the innocents—for the people who did not choose any of this and who are not responsible. It is completely unacceptable that Hamas have not released all the bodies, and it is equally unacceptable that the Israeli authorities released 100 Palestinian bodies with just numbers. What are the Government doing to help the Palestinian authorities to identify all the bodies that have been returned, in both Israel and Palestine, so that families can grieve and the dead can have the dignity that they deserve?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Member speaks with personal experience, real force and a long track record on these issues. My heart goes out to families on both sides. Mortuary processes are difficult at the best of times; one can only imagine the agonies that they are facing. We are not aware of specific requests for support in mortuary services, but if they are any, I am very happy to consider them.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Let us be clear: peace cannot exist under impunity. Weeks into the ceasefire, Israel has once again bombed Gaza, killing over 100 Palestinians, including 35 children, as it continues its genocide. Our Government have shamefully yet to reply more than a year and a half after the substantial ruling by the International Court of Justice, which made it absolutely clear that any Government who allow trade with Israel’s settlement economy are complicit in sustaining the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories. British companies continue to trade in goods and financial services with the settlements, undermining our obligations under international law. When will the Government suspend the UK-Israel trade deal and end all trade linked to the settlements, or will the Minister continue to sit back and allow this complicity?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Member refers to the ICJ advisory opinion. I would not want the House to have the impression that the British Government have done nothing. At the centre of that advisory opinion is the question of the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We have been clear, subsequently, in recognising the status of that territory.
The hon. Member raises important questions about the trade in goods with settlements. We do not accept trade with settlements on the same basis as trade with Israel. Where British companies are doing so, they are in breach of the trading arrangements, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will take an interest. They must ensure that they know who they are trading with and in which territory. If people in settlements wish to falsely label where the thing is produced, it is difficult—as a whole range of nations and states have found—for others to determine.
I know that the hon. Member follows these issues closely. He will no doubt be interested in the efforts of the Irish Government to try to pass exactly the kind of legislation that he is describing, and in the very many difficulties that they have encountered in so doing. We are not in breach of our international obligations. If he could point me to legislation that is in operation and does what he says, I would be grateful to see it, but I think this is one of those questions on which we must continue to work with our partners to ensure that the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories—part of the Palestinian state—is understood by all.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that, on top of the absolute imperative of Hamas releasing the remaining hostage bodies and not only completely disarming but being removed from all governance in Gaza, there must be a widespread deradicalisation programme to undo the damage done by innocent children in Gaza being taught in their textbooks, some of which were funded through the UNRWA—an uncomfortable truth—to hate Israel and Jews? That deradicalisation must happen too.
Mr Falconer
Much work has been done in recent months, including under this Government, in relation to the curriculum in Gaza, and I am aware of the concerns that have been raised. The funding to UNRWA that we have provided, which the shadow Foreign Secretary referred to, included specific provision for ensuring that all reforms identified in the Colonna report, including on curricula, were followed through, and we continue to engage with UNRWA on those questions.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
My colleagues have already asked about the current horror in Gaza, so I will pivot to the longer term. Before this crisis, we saw decades of illegal settlements on Palestinian territory, so I welcomed the Government’s sanctions on extremist settlers and Israeli Ministers. I do not want us to lose sight of that issue, so will the Minister consider what further steps he can take, including trade restrictions, to combat illegal settlements?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there has been a significant increase in settlements and in violence associated with those settlements. This is a continued problem, and we will continue to work at it, alongside our partners, to try to see that terrible trend reversed.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I get the impression that the Minister shares my despair at what feel like constant impediments to real progress that are being put in place by the impunity of both Hamas and of Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocidal regime. The United States of America has indicated that Israel’s response last night was proportionate, and it backed the action. I am curious: is that view shared by His Majesty’s Government?
Mr Falconer
For the reasons I gave earlier, I am reluctant to be drawn into a day-by-day commentary on the actions of both sides. What is key is that we keep the ceasefire going, and that is what the Americans have been clear is still in place. This is going to be difficult. The events of the last 24 hours have been difficult, and I am sure that we will have further difficult days ahead. This is not a straightforward path, and if the right hon. Gentleman doesn’t mind, I will not be drawn on an individual instance today.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is now 19 days since 10 October, and there are still hostage families who cannot grieve for a loved one, and still people starving in Gaza because there is not enough aid, and now we are seeing the west bank deteriorate. In the last 24 hours, Vice-President Vance has argued that “skirmishes” are somehow inevitable. With the greatest will in the world, the death of 35 children and possibly more is not a “skirmish”. If the international community can do anything, it is to be involved in the detail of ensuring that the ceasefire holds. If the Minister will not tell us what the Government’s response is, will he at least say what possible justification the Israelis have given for the latest incident?
Mr Falconer
I do not wish to spend too much time at the Dispatch Box repeating the statements of others. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who follows this issue closely, will have seen what the Israeli Government provided as justification, the statements from Hamas denying that they were involved in the shooting in Rafah, and the considerable uncertainty that has surrounded some of those events. The key question for the British Government is whether or not we think the ceasefire can hold, and whether we think we can make all the progress, that my hon. Friend describes, on reopening the aid crossings, disarming Hamas, and transitional governance arrangements. I am not for one second taking away from the gravity of these incidents—lives have been lost, children have been killed—but the role that stands before the British Government at the moment is to ensure that the ceasefire does not break down. That does not mean that we do not get into the detail. We have a major general in the Civil Military Co-ordination Centre who is part of the efforts to ensure that when violence and threats to the ceasefire occur, we understand the who and the why, but I will not give a running commentary from the Dispatch Box until we are in a position to do so.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Minister has already acknowledged that it is olive harvest season in the west bank—a harvest that supports approximately 100,000 farming Palestinians—yet we have seen more than 150 attacks by settlers against those farmers. How are the Government holding the Israeli Government to account to stop those settlers acting with impunity?
Mr Falconer
As the hon. Member rightly identifies, this is a period of particular danger. We have repeatedly condemned the increase in violence that is associated with settlements, and we have made sanctions against that. We will continue to make those points strongly in this harvest season as we did during the last.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
All Members have been appalled by the scenes that emerged from Gaza in the wake of the ceasefire, showing Hamas executing people in the streets as they seek to reassert control over the area. Does the Minister agree that such scenes simply reinforce that Hamas are nothing but terrorists and murderers, and that they must have nothing to do with the future governance of Palestine?
Mr Falconer
I agree with my hon. Friend. The scenes we have seen, which the shadow Foreign Secretary referred to, are chilling. Hamas are terrorists and they can have no role. The work to remove and disarm them will not be easy, but it is the vital and necessary next step.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Yesterday it emerged that Hamas do know where the bodies of the remaining hostages are, as video evidence emerged of them playing games with one body, removing it from a building, burying it, then bringing along the International Red Cross and pretending that they had found it and dug it up. Do the Minister and the Government condemn that, and what more can they do with our international allies and the Gulf nations to put pressure and leverage on Hamas to return all the remaining bodies immediately?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Member is right: Hamas must return all the bodies immediately. We have made that point to our regional partners with force, and we will continue to do so.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The war crimes carried out by Israel last night, including the killing of 35 children, are a continuation of the horrors that we have seen over the last two years visited on the people of Palestine by a state led by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is currently wanted for war crimes. The Government rightly brought wide-ranging sanctions on Russia for its unlawful invasion of Ukraine and its war crimes, but is it the truth that unless there are real consequences for Netanyahu and Israel for these war crimes, they will carry on? A lack of action and sanctions is giving the green light and treating them with kid gloves, so is now the time for extensive widespread sanctions on Israel? Why is Israel treated differently from Russia, and why is Netanyahu treated differently from Putin?
Mr Falconer
We have discussed sanctions in this House many times, including the three waves during my time in government, and including against two Ministers. The priority now has to be to make the ceasefire work, to move to phase 2, and to get through all these incredibly important and complex questions, and that is the focus of this Government.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Over the past decade there has been a stark absence of diplomatic efforts to address the core issues of the conflict, and the continued advocacy for a two-state solution. Civil society organisations have played a vital role during this time in entering that chasm. Will the Minister outline how the Government are providing help to those organisations? For example, will it be through the recently announced international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace?
Mr Falconer
We remain focused on supporting the whole range of civil society. The hon. Member will be aware of some of the proposals in the Knesset, which we have opposed and to which I referred in my opening remarks. We will continue to conduct that work and will have more to say about the fund she refers to in the coming days and weeks.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The ceasefire has been one of the few positive achievements in what has been an unending tale of misery, violence, and horrific suffering, and all those involved in achieving that ceasefire deserve the gratitude and recognition that has been received. Now as Israel continues to kill Gazan children, and Hamas refuse to disarm, will the Minister reassure us that everyone involved in achieving a ceasefire in the US, the UK, and the middle east is equally concentrated and focused on keeping the peace and making the ceasefire work as a beginning of a peace process? Can he further reassure us, given our recognition of Palestine, that the Palestinian voice will be heard?
Mr Falconer
I reassure the House that I am absolutely certain that everyone in the UK who is working on this is focused on ensuring that the ceasefire sticks in the way that my hon. Friend describes. Indeed, I can tell from our many contacts with the American system that they remain similarly focused. They want this ceasefire to stick, and they are working to try to ensure that it does.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Will the Minister give assurances to the House that this Government are utterly committed, along with our international allies, to eradicating Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure, and that they will not cease until Hamas have been fully dismantled and obliterated, and the remains of those hostages murdered in captivity have been returned?
Mr Falconer
As I said to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), we are committed to ensuring that those bodies are returned and that Hamas are disarmed. The infrastructure of Hamas is not just heavy weapons and small weapons, as has been the case in other conflicts; there is also a network of tunnels under Gaza that have posed a very significant threat to Israel. Dismantling them is a difficult and complex engineering and military task, but it needs to be included as part of the process.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Minister’s commitment to work to support Chevening scholars to leave Gaza, particularly the decision to extend that support to students with full scholarships. Will the Minister update the House on the latest steps that the Government have taken to support Gazan students who wish to study in the UK, particularly those I have been arguing about who have dependants who they understandably do not wish to leave in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
If you will permit me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say a little bit about the wider evacuation operations. Evacuations have continued, including on Monday and Tuesday this week, both for students, who my hon. Friend has been so doughty in pursuing, and for highly medically vulnerable children who can benefit from UK support. That work continues, and I have been working alongside the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). We have been able to help many people to get to the UK to transform their lives by getting vital medical assistance and educational opportunities, which I hope will allow all of them to make a real contribution to the future of Palestine.
The operations to get people in and out of Gaza have been incredibly complex, not least given the most recent closures. I am afraid that there are very strict limits on how many dependants anyone can bring out. We have made an update to our policy in relation to students who are fully funded, which says that we can support a very small number of dependants to leave. I know that many hon. Members with an interest in this have engaged with me directly, and I reiterate that these operations remain incredibly complex. I am happy to talk to all hon. Members who have an interest, but there is neither infinite capacity in the UK to support people, nor, even with our partners, unlimited capacity to get people out. We have made an announcement and I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend and many others across the House, but I wish to keep people’s expectations suitably focused on the very many constraints that remain on these operations.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Renewed violence in Gaza continues against a backdrop of unimaginable human suffering. Millions remain in desperate need of food, water and medical supplies, yet aid convoys continue to face unacceptable obstacles. The UN reported yesterday that many of the 177 aid trucks that entered Kerem Shalom were limited by congestion on coastal roads, in part because of damage to that aid route, meaning that they were forced to limit their supply of aid far below what was agreed. As yet, aid routes are not fully open, but Gazans cannot wait any longer. Aid restrictions should never have been there in the first place. What specific pressure are the Government exerting on Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli authorities to get the routes fully open and the aid in?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Member asks an important question. As I said earlier, it is welcome that there has been an increase in Kerem Shalom, but there is congestion too. The UN, the private sector and a number of donors who are not using the UN are all trying to get aid through Kerem Shalom, so the congestion that she describes is perhaps to be expected. It is vital that other routes, including the Allenby bridge with Jordan and the Rafah crossing, which has already been the subject of much discussion, reopen too. We are working with our partners on these questions. We want to see progress soon—I would like to see it in days—but this has proved to be more complex than I had hoped and talks are ongoing.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I place on record my thanks to the Minister for his tireless work on the issues in the middle east. The devastation continues for Palestinian people living in Gaza, whether from the murderous intent of Hamas or from further strikes from Israel, which reportedly killed 104 people, including 46 children, overnight. Alongside that, Gaza’s healthcare system has been decimated, and it is always women and girls who end up being the worst victims in such circumstances. Does the Minister agree and will he update the House on how further aid can be directed to support women and girls in particular, and to rebuild healthcare systems in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
These are vital questions from my hon. Friend, who I know has remained very focused on the issues. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West, who has kindly joined me on the Front Bench, and I remain focused on the issues. As access to Gaza becomes easier, as we all hope that it does, among the most urgent actions are ensuring that medical supplies, personnel and infrastructure are in place to meet the very significant needs of Gazan people. We will continue to work closely on that.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Every day since the ceasefire took place, at least 20 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by the IDF. There have been numerous other breaches of the ceasefire and continued military activity in the west bank. Will the Minister assure the House that Britain no longer flies RAF aeroplanes over Gaza, no longer co-operates with Israel on its security arrangements, and no longer supplies any weapons to Israel, because of its frequent breaches of the ceasefire and its continued abuse of the people of Gaza and the west bank?
Mr Falconer
I have set out our arrangements in relation to arms and the very significant suspensions that we made from the Dispatch Box a number of times—they remain in place. The right hon. Member asks about RAF flights; I think he refers to the RAF flights that were attempting to find hostages in Gaza. Those flights have stopped. The hostages have been released, so there is no further function for those flights and they have ended.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
One crucial factor in achieving the current ceasefire was the unprecedented declaration at the end of July by all 22 members of the Arab League, calling on Hamas to release the hostages, lay down their arms and give up power in Gaza. That was hugely important in showing Hamas that they had run out of road. What role do the UK and our partners have in influencing that declaration? Does the Minister agree that our strong diplomatic relations, led by our excellent diplomats, have a positive impact?
Mr Falconer
I associate myself very much with my hon. Friend’s comments. He knows that neck of the woods well. Our diplomats are excellent. I was pleased to be in New York in July when the declaration he describes was made. It was part of a declaration that included our own commitments in relation to the Palestinian state, which led to our recognition in September.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
We all hope desperately for a just peace in Gaza. I served alongside the Minister as a diplomat in the middle east and as a soldier. Given that, I particularly welcome the proposed international security force, but it is essential that such a force includes troops from Arab countries and possibly from western countries too, in order to reassure the Israelis, and that it is there for the long term and ready to take casualties. Will the Minister update the House on what progress there has been on the composition and the mandate of the potential force?
Mr Falconer
My friend the hon. and gallant Member is right to focus on some of these practical questions. He, like me, served in countries where peacekeeping forces were unable to keep the peace and unwilling to take casualties, and were therefore unable to fulfil their mandate. These are some of the most central and most delicate questions around the ISF. I hope he will forgive me for not giving a detailed commentary at this time, but I expect to return to the House to provide more detail when I am able.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
There have been recent press reports that the Israeli Government have been arming factions within Gaza in order to destabilise Hamas. Can the Minister comment on any of those reports? What is the position of the British Government on that?
Mr Falconer
As I said earlier, I will not provide extensive commentary on reports, but clearly safety and security for Gazans will involve Palestinian authorities able to ensure law and order. Those who have been living in Gaza have suffered terribly; there has been widespread looting and violence. I am sure many will pore over the question of who those factions and criminals are and who is supporting them. The key thing now is that security needs to return to Gaza, and that security cannot be provided by the masked Hamas gunmen that the shadow Foreign Secretary rightly referred to at the outset, so that work continues.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Minister has rightly emphasised the importance of securing the swift and urgent supply of aid to all those in need in Gaza, but he has also mentioned that some of the crossings remain disrupted or fully closed. What reasons have been given for the continued delay in reopening all the crossings?
Mr Falconer
There has been some public reporting of Israeli concerns about the Allenby bridge, particularly after the violence there. Rafah is a subject that we have discussed many times in this House, and it remains an absolutely critical artery. It is true to say that in both the Allenby crossing and Rafah there will need to be agreement between both countries. I hope that agreement can be secured quickly, that Israel removes the restrictions in place, and that we see the free flow of aid through those crossings very shortly.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and his focus on maintaining the ceasefire. I stand in solidarity with the many ordinary Palestinians living under Hamas and with the families in Israel waiting for their loved ones to be returned, but I cannot conclude that what Netanyahu has done in the last 24 hours was proportionate in any way. I continue to hope and pray for peace. With peace will come the opportunity to rebuild Gaza, but I do not see how that can be done when Israel holds so many people without charge, particularly healthcare workers. My constituent Eman is really concerned about Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, who is being held. Does the Minister agree it is really important that people, particularly healthcare workers, should not be held without charge? Is he having negotiations with Israel on their release?
Mr Falconer
Due process is incredibly important. I have raised this specific case with the Israeli authorities. It is important that adequate explanations are provided where people are detained, particularly doctors who are providing vital, lifesaving work. We will continue to take this matter up with the Israelis.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Overnight, more than 100 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli airstrikes. Once again, innocent civilians are suffering a collective punishment, this time imposed for breaches of the ceasefire by Hamas. Unless this Government believe that all Palestinian civilians are Hamas and are therefore legitimate targets, the Minister must unequivocally condemn these attacks on innocent civilians. Will he unequivocally condemn those attacks and call them what they are: an egregious breach of international humanitarian law?
Mr Falconer
I think I have covered those questions already in this session, but let me be absolutely clear: all Palestinians are very clearly not part of Hamas. So many Palestinians want to see an alternative. They want to see this process succeed and to see the ceasefire hold, and that is where our focus is.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Israel Defence Forces said this morning that they had
“renewed enforcement of the ceasefire”.
The strikes are reported to have killed 20 women and 46 children following the death of one IDF soldier. President Trump’s peace plan makes provision for Arab states to commit stabilisation forces. I appreciate the Minister’s point that he cannot provide a running commentary on such a stabilisation force, but does he share my view that after a ceasefire, the protagonists are the least well-placed to enforce peace?
Mr Falconer
I am not sure that I totally follow. The composition of the ISF is not yet determined, as I said to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague. We will no doubt discuss this matter further in the House once we are in a position to provide a fuller update. A number of states have indicated some willingness to provide troops to the ISF. I will clarify for the House that we have provided military personnel into the region, but it was into the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre, which has a different tasking to the ISF. These are all complex questions that are very much in negotiation at the moment. When some of those matters are more clear and finalised, I am happy to return to the House.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
It is horrifying that Netanyahu has bombed Gaza in a clear violation of the ceasefire. The suffering in Gaza is unimaginable. To move forward, we must demand justice and reparations for all victims of atrocity crimes and hold to account the perpetrators. What are the Government doing to uphold UK obligations under international law to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide? What are the Government doing to push for journalists to be allowed in, given the Israeli Government’s outrageous restrictions, which prevent them from documenting the horrors?
Mr Falconer
International justice and accountability are of vital importance. That is why this Government removed the block on the International Criminal Court and continued to support that very important body, and that is why we continue to support the International Court of Justice. They are the competent courts and the process by which justice will be secured, and we continue to support them in those endeavours.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Are we expected to believe that in the months and years ahead, the Government will stand by their promise that Hamas must be fully disarmed and play no part in the Government in Palestine? I ask because a previous Labour Government, under Tony Blair, with the present National Security Adviser by his side, promised the people of Northern Ireland that the IRA and other terrorists would be totally disarmed through decommissioning. That did not happen: supposedly decommissioned weapons continued to be able to be used to kill, and we ended up with the surrogates of the IRA in government. Will it be any different in Gaza?
Mr Falconer
One thing I have learned so far as a politician is not to make comparisons between the middle east and practically anywhere else, and certainly not with Northern Ireland. I will allow the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman’s particular questions about the current arrangements. Clearly, peace is possible—we have demonstrated it here and in many other places. That has to the be the work of the Government, and that is what we are focused on.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It appears that this ceasefire is going in the same vein as previous announcements on ceasefires—primarily one side, the Palestinians, cease; the other side, Israelis, continue to fire. Some 20 Palestinians have been killed every single day since this so-called last ceasefire. Last night was the most violent, with more than 104 Palestinians killed and the targeting of a cancer patient camp. We all appreciate the Minister coming in week in, week out to answer these questions—I certainly do—but given that the UK has not stopped arming Israel since the genocide began, can he confirm how many export licences to Israel have been granted in Labour’s time in office?
Mr Falconer
I hope the hon. Member will forgive me, but I do not have the numbers precisely to hand. I did an extensive hearing in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee in which we went through the numbers in some detail, but let me focus on the key point. We have suspended all arms that could be used in this way; we are not selling bombs or bullets that could be used in Gaza or the west bank. The munitions that he and so many others in this country saw exploding last night on their television screens were not British.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers, his tone and his well-chosen words; we appreciate them. The moment that there were reports of shots fired at Israeli soldiers in Rafah and of an IDF soldier being murdered, my heart sank—as the hearts of many others probably did—because I knew that the tenuous peace had been broken by Hamas. Does the Minister accept that retaliation is inevitable? What role can the Government play, along with our allies, to rebuild the fragile peace process and disarm Hamas, remove their weapons and destroy them? Real and lasting peace can then actually happen.
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Member for his important question and his as ever courteous tone. The work is important. The threats to the ceasefire are many and varied, and we will continue to work with our partners in exactly the way that he describes.
Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing
(1 day, 9 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 Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the planned use of MOD barracks to house asylum seekers.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
The use of hotels to house asylum seekers is a disgrace. As Members on both sides of the House know, it is a practice that became widespread long before this Government entered office, and it is one of the clearest indicators of the shambles that we inherited last summer. People across the country are frustrated, if not furious. We wholeheartedly agree, and that is why since the general election we have been working to address the chronic issues in the asylum system that have been allowed to build up over several years. At their peak under the previous Government, there were 400 hotels in use; now, the number is around 200. That reduction has been achieved despite what the Home Affairs Select Committee has called a “dramatic increase in demand”. Under this Government, decisions on asylum applications are up, as are asylum-related returns, while system costs are down.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, we must go further and faster. That means moving at pace to fulfil the Government’s commitment to close every asylum hotel. Work to facilitate this exit is ongoing, and the asylum accommodation taskforce is working across Government to deliver alternative asylum accommodation. I can confirm to the House that plans are under way for the temporary use of Ministry of Defence sites at Cameron barracks in Inverness and at Crowborough training camp in East Sussex for the purpose of asylum accommodation. Under the plans, a total of around 900 people will be housed across both sites.
Those two sites are among a number of options that we are looking at as we seek to alleviate the pressure on the system and drive down hotel use, and while this is a complex and fast-moving operating environment, there is a strong understanding within the Home Office of the importance of local engagement. My officials have been engaging directly and regularly in advance of this announcement with the Scottish Government, the relevant councils and local service providers, and will continue to do so. Whatever decisions are made regarding specific locations, we are clear that the impact on communities must be minimised. The safety and security of people living and working in the surrounding areas is paramount.
A crisis of the scale we were left with was always going to take time to correct, but we know that the British people are impatient for change, as are we. This Government will do whatever it takes to end hotel use, fix the broken asylum system, and secure our borders.
Mr MacDonald
I thank the Minister for his answer, and the Speaker for allowing me to ask this urgent question.
I got a call yesterday at 7.10 in the morning from the BBC, who asked, “What is your comment on the Cameron barracks being taken over and used to house migrants?” I know that place well, because I was based there when was in the Army. It is residential—it is surrounded by housing that is very close by—and what is more, it is only 10 minutes from Inverness city centre. I asked for a briefing from the Home Office and got one, which was wonderful. What I learned is that there are going to be up to 309 single male asylum seekers there, who will move in at the end of November. I have a few questions arising from that.
First, why was I not engaged in any discussion? Why were the Scottish Government not engaged in conversation, and why were Highland council and other authorities just informed, rather than engaged, which is the word that the Minister used? Secondly, did Home Office officials consider the fact that the site is in a city centre before they agreed to take it on? Why is it okay to close town centre migrant hotels in the south of England, yet plan to house 300 migrant men in Army quarters in Inverness city centre? It is effectively the same thing. Thirdly, will the Minister meet me to discuss the Home Office halting its plan to utilise Cameron barracks to house migrants?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for those questions, and recognise the anger that the hon. Gentleman has conveyed. I am sorry that he heard in the way he did, and of course I will have that meeting with him. It can be difficult to sequence these things correctly; as all colleagues know, we live in an age of misinformation and disinformation, and trying to sequence who hears what and when can be sticky. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman should not have heard in the way he did. The same is true for the hon. Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), whose duties as Deputy Speaker preclude her from taking part in these proceedings. I recognise the strength of feeling that she has conveyed to me in no uncertain terms about her views and the views of her constituents, and their opposition to these plans. I will continue to engage with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady, and I encourage her local authority also to do so. Again, I recognise the strength of feeling.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s other questions, of course the location of the site has been considered. We are looking at all sites in that way; whether it is a hotel or dispersed accommodation, the local context is always considered. I would gently say that both sites have been used recently for the Afghan resettlement scheme, so there is a clear understanding across Government of the capabilities of those sites and their locations.
However, I want to be very clear about what is at stake here. The hon. Gentleman talked about the closure of hotels, and we know that hotels are an exceptionally challenging issue in this country. Too many people come to this country having been sold the dream that they will be housed in a hotel and will be able to work illegally in our economy. Today, we have announced that we have had our best ever year for illegal work raids, with 1,000 people deported as a result, but we have to break the model that says, “You’ll get to live in a hotel and work illegally.” Closing the hotels is a really important part of that work.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Since this Government entered office, the illegal immigration crisis has gotten seriously worse on every front. The number of people arriving in this country illegally is up, and not just by a little bit; arrivals are up by more than 50% compared with the same period before the election. Before the election, the number of migrants staying in hotels had fallen by 47%. It has now gone up, and fewer of the people breaking into this country illegally on a small boat are being removed.
We are now in a position where the Government are putting forward a proposal that, in opposition, they described as “an admission of failure”. The Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), is unable to say whether the plan will save us money or cost us more. We also hear that this proposal will involve accommodation on a site that is directly next to homes provided to the families of our brave armed forces personnel. Have the Government consulted those families about this plan?
All this demonstrates that we need much stronger proposals than the weak efforts the Government are presiding over. That is why we have put forward the borders plan, which goes beyond tinkering with the system. If we want to stop the use of this accommodation, we need to change completely how we approach this problem and ensure that all illegal immigrants are removed within a week. It is a comprehensive plan based on our proposals to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, reform how our asylum system operates, and remove the blockages that have prevented the removal of illegal entrants. It is a proposal that is not only practical, but fair, as those who come to the UK illegally should not be housed at the taxpayer’s expense in ever greater numbers. People need to know that if they break into this country, they will be detained and deported. That is how we will solve this crisis.
I will finish by asking the question we are all wondering: when will the asylum hotels close? Will the Government commit to closing all asylum hotels within a year?
Alex Norris
What an optimistic effort by the hon. Gentleman! He invites us to believe that he and his colleagues have worked out in 14 months how to fix a system that they broke over a period of 14 years. The British public saw through that in July 2024, and I suspect that they will see through it again.
The hon. Gentleman talks about removals. Of course, removals are up—over 35,000 since we took office. When it comes to the question of why we have hotels in the first place, what was the original sin? It was that Conservative colleagues stopped assessing claims. That is why we have hotels, and it is why we have made the efforts to shift the backlog.
The reality is that the system is broken. It is a very simple equation—it is a complicated issue, but a simple equation. We are a very popular country and people want to come here. Of course we are popular—we are the greatest country in the world, with brilliant institutions—but that popularity is also due to the fact that people are sold a dream that they will be able to come here, live in a hotel and work illegally. Until and unless we attack those two fundamental factors, nothing will change. We know that the Conservatives do not oppose the plans we are debating today, because after all, they used two military sites themselves.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Home Affairs Committee this week released a report into asylum accommodation and it is utterly damning. In 2019, the Conservative Government bound the country into asylum contracts that have been disastrous for local communities, disastrous for asylum seekers themselves and disastrous for the taxpayer, but they have been brilliant for private providers who have made tens of millions of pounds of profits. It is right that the Government are looking at alternative ways to house asylum seekers that will be better for communities, asylum seekers and the taxpayer. Scotland is a welcoming, tolerant country, and we are willing to play our part, but will the Minister give us assurances that he will learn from the mistakes of the previous Government and work with local communities, local authorities and devolved Administrations to make sure that this works and solves the problems we have seen?
Alex Norris
I have studied that report closely. There have been more than a thousand lessons learned from the previous Government’s attempts to solve this issue. We are taking those in hand to make sure we do it right. My hon. Friend talks about the cost. I am pleased that in our time in office we have reduced the cost to the taxpayer of the asylum system by £1 billion, including £500 million across the hotel estate, but it is clear, including from his Committee’s reports, that we have to go further, and that is what we are doing. We are, within the parameters of the contracts we inherited, sweating things. Where there is money to be recouped, we will recoup that for the taxpayer, but it comes back to the fundamental question that if we want to spend less money on this type of activity, we have to have fewer people in the estate. That starts with breaking the attraction that they have to come to this country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
We share the Minister’s concern about the approach of the official Opposition. Clearly, they left us with this mess and now they feign outrage. It appears that this Government’s proposal, sadly, is to decant asylum seekers from one kind of unsuitable and costly accommodation to another. Instead, they should be tackling the real issue: speeding up asylum decisions so that those with no right to stay are returned and those with a valid claim can work, pay tax and integrate.
I will pick up the Minister’s point about the difficulty of sequencing communications. As a Member of Parliament who had an asylum hotel opened in his constituency, I was informed several weeks in advance. I offered a much better alternative form of accommodation somewhere else nearby. As I found out, the Home Office was determined to open a hotel, because that alternative was not taken up. The alternative accommodation would have been more appropriate, and my constituency feels let down.
The Government have promised to end the use of hotels by 2029, yet they have put forward no credible plan to achieve that. The Lib Dems have set out a plan for ending hotel use in just six months by declaring a national emergency and setting up Nightingale processing centres to bring down the backlog. Will the Home Secretary match the Lib Dem plan by declaring that national emergency today? Will the Minister confirm whether the plan that he has put forward means speeding up decisions and returning those with no right to stay, or does it simply mean shifting large numbers of asylum seekers from one form of accommodation to another? Will he share what assessment has been made of the relative merits of Army barracks that are in or next to urban areas, as opposed to those in rural areas? Finally, will he concede that cutting overseas development spending will drive more people away from conflict zones to seek safety in Europe and onward unsafely on to boats in the English channel?
Alex Norris
I recognise the spirit with which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues speak, and I share their zeal. Indeed, I think we can demonstrate it through our actions to speed up decisions. That is why we have made such a significant increase in decision making. Our commitment to speeding up removals is a matter of record. That is why we have seen well over 35,000 people with no right to stay removed since we took office. I gently say to him that as we deal with the backlog left by the Conservatives, we still have a significant cohort of people who will need to be housed and accommodated while their claims are processed.
Additionally, there is an attraction. We see that in the numbers who seek to cross the channel to come here. Until and unless we address that element, the suggestions from the hon. Gentleman alone will not create that deterrent. What we offer today is a significant and real deterrent to break that pull factor. On his point on overseas development, he will know the commitment made by the Prime Minister. We want to return that spending to 0.7% as soon as we can, because it makes a huge impact across the world, and we want to continue to do that.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I have visited the hotel in Newcastle where up to 400 asylum seekers are living. I have listened to local community concerns. I have spoken to the asylum seekers, the hotel owners, the programme managers, the police, and local stakeholders. It is clear that the policy of housing asylum seekers in hotel accommodation, instituted by the last Government, is failing everybody concerned, except for possibly the private providers profiting from the contracts. Newcastle city council is in discussions with the Home Office about alternative models for accommodation that better meet the needs of the city and of asylum seekers. Can the Minister tell us how those discussions are going and when we can expect to see progress?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend will know that in the spending review, £500 million was set aside for working with local government to try to identify those exact sites that she is talking about and to bring them forward for use. In the spirit of what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) said, and in the spirit of what other colleagues have said about early engagement, there may well be better ways to build public confidence in what is being provided and that it is in the right locations with the right support. Those conversations with the city of Newcastle are ongoing, and we will be working hard to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Let me begin by making it crystal clear that Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), is doing everything she can to object to proposals to house illegal migrants at the Crowborough training camp in her constituency, just over the border from mine. The site is not suitable. It was previously considered by the Home Office and rejected, but it seems that we now have a council willing, for ideological reasons, to roll over to the suggestion that it is used. Councils can object to these proposals, so what objections has the Green and Liberal Democrat-led Wealden council made to the proposals to use the Crowborough training camp to house hundreds of asylum seekers?
Alex Norris
As I have set out, we have had significant discussions with local authorities. They challenge our assumptions, and they challenge scale and location, as is always the case. Nevertheless, I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that when he says, “No, it is not the right location”, he should be clear about what he is saying yes to. Is he saying yes to the continued use of hotels, or is he simply saying they should be somewhere else? I know those conversations will continue, and I encourage the local authorities to engage with local Members of Parliament.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I am often asked on the doorsteps what we are doing to tackle this issue. Will the Minister please set out more information on what the Government are doing to stop small boat arrivals in the first place, so that we can close more hotels more quickly?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend raises the crucial part of the equation. Over the past year, we have made significant inroads in our efforts to disrupt organised crime and the people who use this model to prey on others. We have done 350 disruptions—an increase of 40% on what we inherited. These are embedded gangs who have had a six-year head start on this Government thanks to the Conservatives. That work is vital, but underpinning the gangs’ business model is the attraction of this country. We have to remove the hotels and illegal working to make sure we are not so attractive.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
My colleague on the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) made an excellent point. The asylum accommodation contract signed under the previous Tory Government gifted scandalously high profits to private providers. Frankly, it is a PPE-type scandal. Clearsprings’ profits soared from £6,000 per employee in 2020 to £300,000 per employee in 2024, with its owner Graham King entering the Sunday Times rich list. Vast sums are still being wasted on asylum hotel accommodation under those same flawed arrangements, despite this Government having been in power for 16 months, and the numbers housed in hotels has increased by 8% over the past year. Will the Minister please explain how any new asylum accommodation will be provided in a cost-effective manner that does not allow private companies to make further obscene profits on the backs of the UK’s hard-working people?
Alex Norris
We have to work within the parameters of the contracts that we inherited from the Conservatives, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we have reduced that bill by £1 billion, including £500 million from hotels. We are looking further at the profit-sharing elements of those contracts, and are recouping money for the taxpayer by making sure we get the best deal possible.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
As the Minister pointed out, and as Shaun Fraser, the Labour candidate for Inverness, said yesterday, this situation has arisen because of the broken asylum system that the Labour Government inherited from the Conservatives, but it must be handled sensitively. While I sympathise with my friend, the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), given how he heard this news, I must caution him against leaning into language about Army patrols, security fences and the security of young women. As I have said, this must be handled sensitively, and it falls to us all to set a reasoned tone when expressing reasoned concerns.
May I ask the Minister how he will deal with the situation locally, and what talks he will have with Highland council, and other councils, when it comes to dealing with this proposal?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend has made an important point about the effectiveness of these sites. We have engaged with the local authorities, the health services, the police services and the fire services to ensure that the impact on the community is as light as possible. The experience from Napier barracks and from RAF Wethersfield is that if it is done thoughtfully it can be done well, and that is our commitment.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
My constituents are increasingly concerned about the rising number of houses in multiple occupation. Can the Minister assure me that any overflow from these bases will not lead to an increased reliance on HMOs in our towns and cities, including Walsall, and may I ask what further powers the Government will give councils to protect the private rented sector from being squeezed out as a result of this?
Alex Norris
The right hon. Lady has alighted on an important point. There is, of course, an option open to the Government: if we want to close the hotels, we can simply pull the lever of houses in multiple occupation and change the character of communities across the country, but we are clearly not doing that. We want to find the right balance, and dispersed accommodation is an important tool that local authorities have in relation to people fleeing violence, people with substance abuse and, in this instance, people who are seeking refuge. As I have said, we must find the right balance, and that is the choice. Opposition Members want the hotels to be closed, and they apparently do not want us to use military barracks, having done so themselves. They also do not want us to use houses in multiple occupation. That is an unserious approach to what is a very serious problem.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Conservatives left our asylum system in an absolute mess, and now they claim to care about consultation and community impact. Where was that when my community got two asylum hotels more than 10 years ago? This Government, by contrast, are bringing the number down while increasing the number of people with no right to be in the country who are returned, which shows how seriously we take the issue. Can the Minister please tell my constituents what more the Government are doing to close every single asylum hotel?
Alex Norris
I can give that clear message to my hon. Friend’s constituents form the Dispatch Box. We will close every single asylum hotel, as we committed ourselves to doing at the time of the general election.
My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and I acknowledge the shortcomings in this exercise that were raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) and also by Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani). We want to reset the Home Office’s relationship with local government, which is why we have had those conversations, but we need to ensure that local decision makers and local leaders are wired into these decisions earlier so that we can collectively ensure that they are a success.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
My colleague Shirley-Anne Somerville, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice in the Scottish Government, wrote to the Secretary of State about this issue on 26 September, seeking an urgent meeting with Highland council and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. No reply to that letter was received, and the first she knew of the decision was when she heard about it on the radio, as many of the rest of us did.
Asylum seekers, by their very nature, are fleeing conflict and persecution. Many require wraparound support, having suffered significant mental and, in some cases, physical trauma. If there is no support package in place, things are not going to go well. The arrival of 300 people in Inverness in such a short space of time puts a huge strain on local services. What is the Minister doing to address those issues with the Scottish Government and with Highland council?
Alex Norris
That point about wraparound support is very important as well. The point of using these sites is that we are able to provide local amenities and vital services for that cohort without having to rely on the local health services. We are having those conversations with health authorities, police and fire services and the local council to ensure that that support is in place, so that, as I said earlier, the impact on the existing community is as light as possible.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
I welcome the urgency with which Ministers are seeking to end Tory-created asylum hotel use—which does not work for those fleeing persecution, or for local communities such as those in Falkirk—while also lowering the cost of the asylum system and speeding up processing. Will the Minister elaborate on the criteria that the Department will apply in deciding the sequence of asylum hotel closures, and on how they will be applied fairly and equitably across all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend tempts me, as he has tempted me on multiple occasions—this time to give him details on the sequence. I know of his vigour in closing hotels in his community. As I have said, we will close every single one of those hotels, and none will be open a day longer than they have to be. My hon. Friend will have to bear with us a little longer in respect of the sequence, but we will be clear about the decisions that we make when we make them.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Well, what a bolt from the blue! There has been huge concern throughout the Wealden district since the news broke of a “boats to barracks” plan in Sussex. The council leadership urgently needs to speak to local MPs, as do many other councillors, to assuage deep concerns about hundreds of asylum seekers coming to a very rural part of Sussex. Does this simply mean that people living in the Copthorne hotel will move to the barracks? Will the Minister kindly try to work with the Wealden district council leadership, so that public meetings can be held locally to discuss the significant issues that have arisen and the discussions that have taken place? What is happening about the planning process, and the community and police support? Many people need to understand these matters, given the unexpected choice of such a countryside location.
Alex Norris
The hon. Member has raised a number of important questions. Of course we want to work with the local authority to ensure that the public are giving the information and the reassurance that they need; as I have said, there is always a great deal of misinformation and disinformation, and I can give that commitment to her. She will have heard what I said about the timeliness of engagement with colleagues, and I reiterate my sadness in that regard. We will do better for her and her colleagues in securing the answers that they need as leaders in the community. Let me also reiterate, to her and her community, that we intend this to have the lightest possible impact on them. It has been proven to be done at Wethersfield and at Napier, and I have no doubt that we can do it again.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
The number of boat crossings has risen from 800 in 2018, before we left the European Union, to 40,000 a year because of Brexit. Can the Minister provide some clarity on the measures that he is taking to help solve this immigration crisis at its core, without falling back on yet another fake silver bullet—leaving the European convention on human rights, which some Opposition parties are suggesting—which would get rid of not only the rights of asylum seekers but those of my constituents?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend has made an important point about the global nature of this challenge—[Interruption.] It is like being at a party you were not invited to at the moment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend, and other Members, will know of the work that we are doing with France, our most immediate neighbour, and the importance of scaling up our returns pilot. She will also know of our engagement on the continent with regard to organised crime. These are highly sophisticated global networks, and a global response is required to break them.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Minister ensure in future that Members are given some notice of the Government’s plans relating to MOD accommodation? Will he ensure that the gross discourtesy that has been visited on the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) in this particular case is not repeated, and that communities may even be able to suggest to the Government alternatives, where alternatives exist? As for the pull factors to which he rightly alluded, will he ensure that accommodation that is offered up by the Ministry of Defence is at the more austere end of the spectrum? It is certainly the case that the men and women of our armed forces, families and veterans are heartily fed up with seeing people not being put in accommodation that apparently is not fit, but that apparently was fit to hold soldiers, sailors and airmen.
Alex Norris
These sites are austere accommodation. The whole point is to change the narrative that is sold to people on social media—that they can come here, live in a hotel and work illegally. The accommodation will be functional and it will be humane, but it will be basic. I can give the right hon. Member that assurance, because the point is exceptionally important.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about engagement with colleagues, I hope he will know, from the short time I shadowed him in opposition, that I would never knowingly be discourteous to colleagues—I value colleagues across this place, of all parties and none. I have reflected a lot on what has happened in this case, exactly as he says, and yes, certainly with regard to colleagues, I need to do more directly. I have taken that on board as part of those reflections.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The Refugee Council has a clear proposal that would allow the Minister to close asylum hotels within a year without resorting to barracks: a one-off scheme to give a time-limited permission to stay, subject to rigorous security checks, to people from countries that mean they are almost certain to be recognised as refugees if it were not for the backlog. Will the Minister adopt that sensible solution, and also provide safe and legal routes so that people are not pushed into the hands of people smugglers in the first place?
Alex Norris
The hon. Lady mentions an important proposal, and it is a reasonable thing to mention. We are talking about capacity in the system, and one way to resolve that, of course, would be to let significant numbers through the system without processing their claims in the normal way. I cannot support that. As she has heard me say on a number of occasions, the root of this is not just the strong day-to-day administrative running of the system; the reality is that we have managed to really improve the performance of it and reduce costs. But that alone will not stop what is happening, due to the significant pull factor to this country. I believe that doing as she suggests would merely turbocharge that, which I cannot support.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Minister has given us the usual Government lines on returns under this Government, when the majority of them are obviously voluntary returns. When it comes to enforced returns, the numbers are lower than in nine of the 14 years of Conservative Government, and 15% lower than the Tory average.
I want to raise the case of Hadush Kebatu. The Home Secretary said that she had “pulled every lever” to deport him, but when it emerged that he was paid £500 after threatening to disrupt his departure, we were told that was actually an operational decision. Can the Minister confirm that Kebatu withdrew his asylum claim and forfeited appeal rights, and admit that we will not be able to deport foreign criminals in sufficient numbers unless we cut off the endless routes for human rights claims and legal appeals?
Alex Norris
I can say to the hon. Gentleman that returns are up by more than 10% under this Government. I think the British public care about that. I make no apology for doing that in the quickest, cheapest and most expeditious way, which is what we pursue in many cases.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Hadush Kebatu, a convicted sex offender who had no place on our streets and no place in our country; it is right that he has been removed. He was forcibly deported and a team of five escorts accompanied him on that flight. We turned down an application regarding the facilitated return scheme—which, under successive Governments, has offered grants of up to £1,500—but, given the very real threats to disrupt the flight, an operational decision was taken to provide a £500 payment. That was taken because the alternative would have been slower and more expensive for the taxpayer, and it would have included detention, a new flight and, no doubt, subsequent legal claims. That decision was not taken at the ministerial level, but I am not going to second-guess what is a difficult operational environment.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
This is a really difficult issue. The Minister spoke about people wanting to come to the UK because they had a dream. I want to be clear: I welcome people who want to come to the UK and live in a way that is reflective of our values, but so often we ask the most of communities who have the least. Does the Minister agree that the continued use of public money for asylum hotels poses a risk not just to our politics, but in terms of value for public money and social cohesion?
Alex Norris
I would start by saying that I share the hon. Lady’s spirit on that, and I believe that the British public do too. Whether it is regarding Syrian refugees, Homes for Ukraine, the Afghan resettlement scheme, or British nationals overseas, the British public meet the moment when people need shelter, and show extraordinary capacity for compassion. But there has to be a limit on that, exactly as she says. I can assure her that we will break the pull factors, so that those who do not have a legitimate claim—more than half of those assessed do not have a legitimate reason—will no longer have a reason to come. In the meantime, in exactly the spirit of what she said regarding public confidence, we have removed £1 billion of spending from this area for exactly that reason.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The UK is spending a fifth of its official development assistance budget on hotel bills. Some of that money was previously used to prevent conflict and to help refugees find refuge in their own regions. I served with an Army training regiment at Crowborough, one of the two sites, and I consider that if it was good enough for us, it is good enough for some of the refugees who are seeking asylum. But can the Minister assure the House that this move to use decommissioned barracks will cost taxpayers less than hotels currently do?
Alex Norris
The reality is that the unit cost per night is broadly similar. The point is that we have to reduce the number of people in that accommodation. That is how we get value for the taxpayer and how we will not need the accommodations at all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers and his dedication to finding the answers that we need. While it was good to hear that there is a plan to house asylum seekers more cost-effectively, the Government must ensure that those areas do not become states within this state. What steps have been taken to ensure that law and order is upheld in any designated large areas, such as those proposed by the Minister?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that question, and I would start by acknowledging the hon. Gentleman’s Herculean work throughout my time in Parliament, and before, regarding Christians persecuted abroad, so that people do not have to leave their homes. That is important work, and that opinion is shared across this place. I want to be clear: the rule of law has primacy; it is absolute in this country, and it is the same for all of us. People who come here and want to make their homes here, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said, must embed themselves into communities, reflect our values and behave in those ways.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just been debating the important matter of asylum seekers in MOD accommodation. Could you confirm, as I hope Hansard will, that in the nearly 37 minutes that we have spent debating this important matter, no Member of Reform has been in the Chamber or, indeed, made any contribution whatsoever?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. However, he will know that it is not a matter for the Chair.
UK-Türkiye Typhoon Export Deal
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on the UK-Türkiye deal to sell 20 British-built Typhoon fighter jets.
On Monday, the Prime Minister travelled to Ankara with the Defence Secretary, where he finalised an agreement with President Erdoğan for Türkiye to purchase 20 British-built Typhoon fighter jets. That deal is worth £8 billion and is our biggest fighter jet export contract since 2007. This is a massive boost for our defence industry, for our economy and for our country. It confirms that defence is an engine for growth.
This deal will support 20,000 jobs across 330 UK companies across the country. In particular, it will support jobs in Lancashire, Bristol, Luton and Scotland for many years to come. That includes nearly 6,000 jobs directly supporting the Typhoon programme at BAE Systems sites, particularly at Warton and Samlesbury; more than 1,100 jobs in the south-west, such as at the Rolls-Royce facility in Bristol, producing modules for the EJ200 jet engines that will power these new Typhoon jets; and over 800 jobs in Scotland, including manufacturing cutting-edge radar systems at Leonardo in Edinburgh. Those are high-value, well-paid, good, unionised jobs—the kind of jobs that put money in working people’s pockets, help revitalise communities, and help deliver on defence as an engine for growth.
This deal also preserves our sovereign skills, which underpin our national security and prosperity, so that they can be handed down to new generations. But it goes far beyond the procurement of Typhoon jets alone; it represents the leading edge of our enhanced strategic partnership between the UK and Türkiye. This agreement between our two countries is emblematic of a growing defence and industrial partnership, and will serve as a springboard for deeper collaboration in future.
Türkiye is a key NATO ally in a strategically critical part of the world and the gatekeeper to the Black sea. By equipping it with top-of-the-range Typhoon fighter jets—the best fourth-generation all-round fighter in the world—this deal strengthens NATO’s collective deterrence in a crucial region. It boosts interoperability between our air forces and makes us all safer and more prosperous.
This deal comes just weeks after Norway chose the UK to supply it with at least five Type-26 frigates in a £10 billion deal—the biggest ever warship export deal by value in our history. That contract alone secures 4,000 UK jobs, including more than 2,000 in Scotland, and supports over 400 British companies right across our supply chain. Both deals, worth a combined £18 billion, are proof positive that other countries want to invest in Britain. When allies choose our capabilities, it leads directly to greater interoperability and investment back into our technology to achieve warfighting readiness. The deals are clear evidence that this Government’s defence industrial strategy is delivering.
Here is what we are doing differently. This Government are going further and faster to back British industry, British jobs and British innovation. We are working more closely with allies around the world to strengthen our collective security. We are bringing forward the biggest sustained increase in UK defence spending since the cold war to make Britain secure at home and strong abroad—£5 billion extra in the defence budget this year, achieving 2.5% of GDP by April 2027 and 3% in the next Parliament. And we are making defence an engine for economic growth for the next decade and well beyond, driving renewal and opportunity up and down the country.
As we set out in our defence industrial strategy, our armed forces are only as strong as the industry that stands behind them. We are fortunate in this country to have a world-class industry and a world-class supply chain, but we are making them even stronger by opening up defence to innovators, overhauling our procurement system, cutting contracting time, and increasing foreign direct investment in our defence sector by more than eight times over the past year.
Last week, before I visited BAE Systems in Warton and Samlesbury, I launched a consultation on an offsets policy, which will ensure that every pound spent on defence will make our armed forces stronger and the British public better off. The proposal would mean that when the UK buys from international partners, the winning contractor would be required to create jobs, know-how and investment opportunities here in the UK, strengthening the UK economy.
To the workers, managers and apprentices I met last week in Warton and Salmesbury, but also to those in Bristol, Edinburgh and across the UK, let me say this: this Government promised that we would have your back, and we are delivering on that promise with this deal. Your hard work, dedication and commitment helped deliver this deal, just as much as diplomacy and negotiation did. Thank you.
The UK and Türkiye may be positioned at opposite ends of Europe, but our partnership is helping to protect the continent at a time of rising threats, and the deal that we have announced this week only reinforces that partnership for the future. Work on the new Typhoon jets begins immediately. The first British-built Typhoon for Türkiye will be delivered in just five years’ time, so the benefits will be felt immediately too: more jobs for working people, more investment in the supply chain, more confidence in the UK economy, defence as an engine for growth, security at home, and strength abroad. That is what this Government are delivering, and that is why I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for providing advance sight of his statement. I strongly welcome this very important news for UK fighter production. Combat air has historically been the largest component of UK defence exports, and few nations can hope to sustain such an advanced industrial base purely on domestic sales. I stressed throughout my time as the Minister for Defence Procurement the critical importance of exports, and this deal is very positive for the workforce in Warton—but also, as the Minister said, in Bristol, Edinburgh and elsewhere in the UK—for the wider small and medium-sized enterprises supply chain, for our NATO ally Turkey and for the Royal Air Force, which requires a domestic base of highly skilled workers to maintain our ability to deliver sovereign competitiveness in the air domain.
At the very well-attended global combat air programme event in Mr Speaker’s state rooms, I said that defence exports were like a baton passed between Administrations, because the biggest deals take years to pull off and require teamwork within and across Administrations. As with the Norwegian frigates, there was a massive and concerted effort under the previous Government to engage constantly with Turkey in support of Typhoon exports. In my time as a Minister, Typhoon exports were a top priority in the MOD and I chaired a weekly cross-Government committee that was focused in particular on persuading our German allies to change their long-standing position of opposing Typhoon sales to Saudi Arabia and Turkey. That work irrefutably helped pave the way for this deal.
I note that the Trinity House agreement with Germany, which I welcome, builds on the proposal to restore large-calibre barrel production to the UK, which I initiated from scratch. Does the Minister agree that Germany’s change of position on Typhoon exports underlines the strength of our bilateral relationship with the Germans and the welcome stiffening of their military disposition more broadly, given the common threat we face?
Of course, we should also recognise the important role of other long-standing defence export partners in this announcement. I note that it has been reported that the deal involves Qatar and Oman giving Turkey up to 24 existing Typhoons. Can the Minister confirm whether either will be buying replacement Typhoons? I note that Qatar has the option on 12, which I understand is still outstanding. Can the Minister update us on progress on Typhoon exports to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?
That brings me to the very relevant matter of GCAP, the programme that is developing the Typhoon’s successor. I have previously spoken of how GCAP is, like AUKUS, effectively two pillars: the Tempest platform is pillar 1, and pillar 2 includes critical elements such as loyal wingmen and electronic warfare, with significant potential benefit to the RAF’s immediate lethality. While appreciating the complications in inviting new nations to join pillar 1, and having given strong hints about the German position in relation to its SCAF partnership with France, has the Minister considered inviting Germany to be a pillar 2 partner of GCAP? Does the deal include any movement on complex weapons for integration into Typhoon, given our industrial strength in that area?
The MOD has now retired some 30 RAF tranche 1 Typhoons. Does the Minister plan to order any further Typhoons for the RAF to replace those, and if so, when?
E-Scan radar for the RAF’s Typhoons, which is led by Leonardo in Edinburgh, has been successfully developed, but no production orders have been placed. I have previously urged Ministers to accelerate procurement to boost the lethality of our existing Typhoon fleet. When will E-Scan radar be in service for the RAF? The Typhoon needs an associated electronics upgrade known as P4E—phase 4 enhancement—to fully exploit the capabilities of E-Scan radar, but I understand that no contract for that has been placed yet either. When is P4E intended to be on contract?
Finally, it would be wrong of me not to welcome the Minister to his newly named position as the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry. Personally, I think it is a shame that there is no longer a Minister for Defence Procurement, but perhaps that should not be a surprise, given how little procurement is going on in the MOD. Is it not the reality that, for all the boasts about defence spending, Labour is prioritising penny-pinching in the MOD and forcing a deep freeze in procurement? Specifically, can he confirm or deny reports in The Telegraph that he is demanding that the armed forces make in-year cuts this year of £2.6 billion?
Luke Pollard
I was nearly going to say that I warmly welcome all the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but I am afraid that the good news had to be tempered with a little bit of partisan attack. First, let me welcome his welcome for this deal. It shows that when there is good cross-party work, we can achieve things well. I am very proud that it is this Government who have landed this deal. We know that when we took office, a substantial amount of work was required to improve the MOD’s export offer, and we have undertaken that work. It has shown benefits in the Norway deal, and now in the Türkiye deal, and we are working on a number of other contracts with our allies that I hope will produce similarly good news for workforces up and down the country in due course.
The hon. Gentleman asked about approvals from our allies. I can confirm that all Eurofighter nations have indeed signed off this export, including Germany. It is right that he raised the Trinity House agreement that was signed between this Government and Germany, which provides a huge amount of opportunity. Last week, to mark the one-year anniversary of the signing of that deal, Boris Pistorius and our very own Defence Secretary were in a P-8 flying from RAF Lossiemouth, which underlines our commitment to have German P-8s flying from Lossiemouth and to have German aircrews participating with our RAF jets in a really important international mission that flies from Lossiemouth.
GCAP is an essential part of our future combat air offer. That was reinforced in the strategic defence review that we published earlier this year, and the Typhoon order for Türkiye helps fill a gap in the production line between our current Typhoon orders and the production of GCAP platforms in the future.
The hon. Gentleman will know that all our spending announcements will be made as part of the defence investment plan towards the end of this year. The radar he mentions is an incredible piece of technology, which is of benefit not only to the RAF, but to other Typhoon nations.
I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that, since taking office just over a year ago, we have signed 1,000 major deals in the MOD. We continue to procure not just traditional aspects, but cyber, drones and other capabilities for our armed forces. We will continue to work with our allies because the change we need in our armed forces is not just about renewing the kit and equipment for our forces, but about buying equipment alongside our allies, cutting research and development costs, increasing interoperability, moving towards interchangeability and strengthening our warfighting resilience.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for this deal, and I hope he will join in thanking all the workers for their tireless efforts in supporting our national security and that of our NATO allies.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
This deal will support 20,000 jobs and make sure we have the skills we need for future combat air programmes. Defence supports 37,000 jobs across the south-west. What steps are the Government taking to support skills across the whole defence sector and to support the space, satellite and drone sectors that are so strong in Cornwall?
Luke Pollard
As a fellow south-west MP, I know how important defence is to our region, and how important it is that we not only continue the investment in our armed forces, but renew those capabilities. Space has a critical part to play in our future capabilities and, indeed, the ability of our armed forces to deploy with effect today.
On skills, my hon. Friend will know that, as part of the £773 million package in the defence industrial strategy, we are looking to open a number of defence technical excellence colleges across England, which will provide an increased boost in the skills base we need. Our challenge to all defence companies, large and small, is to grow the skills base so that we have greater resilience and a greater ability to direct more of that increasing UK defence spend at British companies delivering for our armed forces.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let me begin by warmly welcoming the announcement of this deal. It will generate jobs for a skilled and dedicated workforce here in the UK and generate much-needed growth, while contributing to the security and deterrence capability of the NATO alliance. The Government are right to see Türkiye as a key strategic partner in the Black sea and, as a NATO member, as an essential partner in our collective efforts to contain Putin’s imperial ambitions by defending our eastern flank.
Yet even as we recognise our shared security interests, we must be clear on Ankara’s actions when they depart from our values and standards. The continued detention of Istanbul’s mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu, which is widely believed to be politically motivated, remains egregious and speaks to an alarming trend of democratic backsliding in Türkiye. Can the Minister confirm whether he or the Prime Minister raised concerns about Mayor İmamoğlu’s continued detention while concluding this deal, and if not, will the Minister call on the Foreign Secretary to raise this with her Turkish counterpart at the earliest opportunity?
This deal speaks to the strategic imperative of deepening ties with our security partners across Europe and our alliance network. In May, the Government trumpeted their new security framework with the European Union—a move that the Liberal Democrats welcomed. However, five months on, it is not clear what progress, if any, the Government have made to flesh out the substance of the framework. Can the Minister please provide an update on what steps have been taken since May to strengthen security ties with the EU? In particular, will he commit the UK to membership of the European Defence Agency to support a joined-up approach to collective rearmament with our European allies?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome of this deal. The message that goes out loud and clear to the workforce of not just BAE Systems, but the entire supply chain, is one of cross-party support for their work that this statement has announced.
On the question of the Istanbul mayor, it is not for the Ministry of Defence to comment on individual legal cases in other countries. Our defence engagement with Türkiye is focused on shared security interests and NATO co-operation. However, I recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will ask the Foreign Office, which leads on that matter, to update him.
I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister, at this Dispatch Box during Prime Minister’s questions today, remark on the importance of the EU reset deal, our commitment as part of that deal to defence and security arrangements between the UK and the EU, and the progress we are seeking to make in forming closer ties with the EU. The hon. Gentleman will know that those negotiations are ongoing with our EU friends, and we hope to have updates shortly. However, let me say very clearly that our EU friends are also our NATO allies, and there is real common cause and a common opportunity to strengthen our collective defence by working together.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
I had the privilege of being at BAE Systems in Warton yesterday with the Prime Minister, and it is fair to say that the workforce are utterly buzzing about this announcement. It is the first new order of aircraft since 2017, as the Minister said, and the largest order since 2007. It was hard-won against the likes of the US, the Swedes, the French and other allies, but guess what? Lancashire won. It is for 20 aircraft signs now, with an option for a further 20, worth £8 billion. Generations of my constituents in South Ribble have worked or still do work in Samlesbury and Warton, and this deal has secured thousands of jobs for at least a decade, or even more. Can I please urge the Minister to still prioritise the Typhoon and to get us more orders as quickly as he can?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for the important work he has been doing alongside other Lancashire MPs not only Labour Members, but on a cross-party basis—in support of the workforce at Samlesbury and Warton. He says that Lancashire won, but I should place on the record that a key part was played by the Yorkshire Defence Secretary, and I think that when they each play nicely with their neighbours, they can achieve great things together.
My hon. Friend is exactly right that the Typhoon offers an incredible platform. As part of the Government’s efforts to promote British industry and our products around the world, we will continue to promote the opportunities that the Typhoon presents to our allies, given the interoperability and close partnerships that Typhoon nations have with the RAF in particular, but also, as we move towards GCAP and the opportunities that it provides, the importance of saying that cutting-edge British innovation, especially in the combat air sector, keeps us and our allies safe.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I welcome this announcement, and I congratulate the Minister and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and their Conservative predecessors on the team effort in getting us to this point. Following this announcement, what next steps are the Government planning to take to build on it and further strengthen the UK’s hugely important defence, diplomatic and economic relationship with our close NATO ally Turkey?
Luke Pollard
I thank the right hon. Member for his welcome, and for his thanks to my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle).
The partnership we are seeking to develop and which we are enhancing with the signing of the Typhoon deal between the UK and Türkiye is not just about a jet and a platform, but about the ongoing support and training arrangements for that provision. As we come together across a number of workstreams in support of NATO security, there will be more opportunities for military-to-military co-operation with our friends in Türkiye, but also for aligning our political objectives in what is an incredibly important part of the world. Türkiye is the gateway to the Black sea and our friends in Ukraine, and it is also an important regional player in the middle east, particularly in Syria. There are huge opportunities to work together with our friends there that this deal will help to reinforce.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Many of my constituents in Pendle and Clitheroe work at the BAE site in Samlesbury, and they are delighted at this news, so I thank the Minister for his work and everyone who has worked on the deal. This deal is good for our national security, high-skilled jobs and local economies such as mine in Lancashire. Will the Minister outline what these contracts mean for opportunities for apprenticeships for young people?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome, and for the support he has provided to the workforce at Samlesbury, and indeed in the wider supply chain. I was at Warton and Samlesbury last week to see and hear from apprentices, especially at the BAE Systems skills centre, about the opportunities that an apprenticeship has opened up for them.
Importantly, those opportunities are not just for those leaving school and directly taking up an apprenticeship. I was struck that one gentleman has left the Parachute Regiment to pursue his skills with BAE Systems at Samlesbury, and is using the skills he learned in the armed forces and putting them to good use in support of our national security. We want to expand the number of apprenticeship opportunities in defence and to expand the skills base, because there are good opportunities in defence for more of our young people—and perhaps those people who are still young at heart—to make sure that we are enhancing our national security. That is at the heart of the defence industrial strategy.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Ever since I was elected, it has been a critical part of my work to push to secure Typhoon orders at the Warton site because of the impact those orders would have not only on jobs across Fylde and Lancashire, but on our sovereign capability to build our own military aircraft. I massively welcome this announcement and the work that has been done by Ministers on the Front Bench and former Ministers on the Opposition Benches. I was touched that the Minister invited me to join him on his visit to BAE Systems last week, although the Prime Minister did not invite me to the announcement in my own constituency yesterday—perhaps he has been taking my questions at PMQs too personally.
The deal is welcome, but it means that we are now the only major partner in the Eurofighter project that is not ordering the aircraft that we are trying to sell to other countries. We are trying to sell aircraft abroad that we are not buying ourselves. I am sure it would be a great aid to future export deals—for getting that extra 20 further down the line and for looking at Saudi and other places where we are trying to sell them—and equally, it would continue to boost our sovereign capability in military aircraft and maintain jobs across our country if we placed that order for more Typhoons for the RAF. I would happily heap praise on the Minister if he did so.
Luke Pollard
I am heaping praise on the workforce in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across Lancashire. It makes it so much easier to sell our products when we have a world-class workforce producing world-class products. I am sorry that he was not able to join me on my visit, but I know that he is a regular visitor to those facilities, so he will have heard about the importance of this order and why it has been such a priority for the Government to get it over the line.
The hon. Gentleman will know that all our spending commitments will be made in the defence investment plan that will be published towards the end of this year, something that I spoke to the workforce and the trade unions about when I met them on my recent visit. There are enormous opportunities in the export market to help to support the supply chains in the meantime, and they are not just about the end product—although his constituency really values that. This is a good news day for the 330 companies across our country for which there will be more orders to sustain good, well-paid jobs.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome this deal, which is the biggest of its kind in a generation. As the world is becoming more unstable, this ambition should turn world-class defence deals into growth that we can feel in workshops, factories and communities across the country. In Calder Valley—or valve valley, as it is known because of its specialist valve manufacturers—businesses tell me that they want to play a bigger role in that success, but small and medium-sized firms feel locked out of defence procurement and supply chains. Worse, the big companies that dominate the field sometimes poach skilled staff from companies that cannot access the process. Can the Minister make sure that the procurement system is more open and competitive so that more communities such as Calder Valley can benefit from that investment?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend, who I will have to refer to as the Member for valve valley from now on. He raises an important issue about the ability of small and medium-sized enterprises to access defence. Over the last decade, the amount of direct MOD spend with SMEs has fallen from 5% to 4%. We have set an ambition to spend an additional £2.5 billion directly with small businesses by 2028. As part of that, we will be opening our office for small business growth at the start of the new year—a one-stop shop for small businesses to access MOD contracts and navigate the procurement system. At the same time, we are seeking to cut the contracting time, which favours large companies with bigger contract teams over small enterprises, to give more small businesses a shot at some of the increasing defence spending that the Government are making available.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
For over 20 years, the Eurofighter Typhoon has showcased the merits of European co-operation and the marvel of UK aerospace engineering. I commend the Government on this deal with our Turkish allies, which will secure British jobs, maintain our expertise in this field and park a squadron of multi-role-capable strike aircraft just south of occupied Crimea. I register my disappointment that the Government’s press release neglected to credit the contribution of many of my constituents who, working with GE Aerospace in Bishops Cleeve, have supported the programme since its inception. Will the Minister take this opportunity to recognise them now?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for championing his workforce. One of the things that makes this House stand in contrast with some other places around the world is that we can, on a cross-party basis, support our defence industry and the people who are working hard to keep our nation safe, including those who work at GE Aerospace. I will be happy to work with him to thank not just his constituents, but all those in the supply chain who have made such a big difference to securing this deal. I also thank all those people working in sub-prime areas—not in one of the large defence companies—without whom we would not be able to produce the cutting-edge capabilities that our armed forces and our allies rely on. Millions of parts go into each of those platforms and every single one is important. Without them, we would not be able to fly those Typhoons, so the contribution of companies big and small is so important.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Many UK manufacturers are part of international groups and have the opportunity to transfer UK-generated profits to overseas entities via internal pricing mechanisms and management fees. Can the Minister confirm whether those profit-shifting mechanisms are assessed and dissuaded as part of UK defence procurement practices?
Luke Pollard
I suspect that I will need to meet my hon. Friend to get to the bottom of that question, but I am very happy to do so. As a nation, we certainly welcome the investment of overseas firms in the UK. The UK is a good place to invest in defence and to start a defence company. We need to make sure that all our contracts, big and small, return the value to the taxpayer. It is our intention that, where possible, intellectual property and profits should be held in the UK to support our growth mission. I am happy to meet him to discuss that further.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The news is welcome, but the future is unmanned, as the Minister knows. With that in mind, what UK equity have the Government secured in the drone joint venture that was signed in June between Leonardo and the Turkish company, Baykar?
Luke Pollard
I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about the precise details of that deal. I politely say to him that the future is crewed, uncrewed and autonomous. That is what the strategic defence review set out, and that is why the platforms that we are looking at, such as GCAP, will start as a crewed platform but have the ability to spiral develop into an uncrewed and autonomous platform. That is a key part of staying ahead of our adversaries by making sure that we can increase the lethality of our crewed platforms by having uncrewed and autonomous platforms alongside them. That is the spirit not just in the combat air domain, but on land and at sea as well.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Minister knows that I took part in the armed forces parliamentary scheme this year and last year, and I had the great privilege of visiting the NATO airbase in Poland where I saw Typhoons scramble to the skies to protect us from Russian aircraft. He rightly points out that Türkiye is an important NATO ally, and I am proud that Labour played an important part in founding NATO. Does he agree that it is shameful and wrong to suggest that NATO’s presence in eastern Europe was provocative to Putin, as the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has previously asserted?
Luke Pollard
The armed forces parliamentary scheme is a brilliant opportunity for parliamentarians with or without defence knowledge to learn more about our platforms and, perhaps most importantly, about our people. The RAF crews that we forward-deployed to Poland to help to support our eastern flank allies did a superb job, as are the Typhoon crews leaving RAF airbases in the UK to support our eastern flank allies as part of our commitment to Eastern Sentry.
Let me be clear: our national security would not be helped by Putin-friendly policies or Putin-friendly politicians. That is why we all make a strong case about our support for NATO and our pride in being a party and a Government with a NATO-first defence policy. I encourage all those toying with the idea of siding with a Putin-friendly Government to look at what is happening in Ukraine, with the theft of Ukrainian children by Russia, the unprovoked illegal attack on civilian infrastructure, and the threats that Putin and his illegal war machine make not just to our friends in Ukraine but to our NATO allies, and come to the firm conclusion that being Putin-friendly is certainly un-British.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that Türkiye was removed from the F-35 programme following its acquisition of the S-400 Russian air defence system amid concerns that it could compromise the F-35 technology. Can he say whether Türkiye has agreed to return the S-400, and if not, is he confident that our technology will not be similarly at risk?
Luke Pollard
I am comfortable that we have adequate measures in place on that matter. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right that Türkiye does not participate in the F-35 programme. As part of our work with Türkiye, there is a strong opportunity to ensure that the procurement opportunities that Türkiye has face firmly west rather than east, and that is an important part of the strategic relationship that the UK is seeking to build with our friends in Ankara. If we can find more opportunities to procure British and allied technologies into Türkiye, with it then having less of a reliance not just on combat and sensing systems, but on oil, where it may look elsewhere, that will help to improve all of NATO’s security, as well as supporting our friends in Ukraine.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, in particular the 8,000 jobs in the east of England resulting from the deal. Does the Secretary of State agree that this further demonstrates this Government’s commitment to being a key NATO ally, which will inevitably keep residents in my constituency safe? I will briefly also pay tribute to my workforce—the Minister will be aware that Raytheon is based in Harlow, and we have a lot of expertise there.
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend not only for the promotion that he has offered me twice in his question, but for the support he has shown for his workforce. In these times of increased threats, as we are living in a new era of threat, it is important and incumbent on all parliamentarians of all parties to not only become more familiar with the brave men and woman serving in our armed forces who come from our constituencies, but champion the defence opportunities for industries and companies big and small in our constituencies. I know that my hon. Friend does so in Harlow, as do other Members across the House. Please keep that coming—that is how we increase our resilience and our warfighting readiness.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I am pleased to hear the announcement of the order for 20 Typhoons from Turkey. Having met with representatives from the workforce at Warton in Parliament earlier in the year, I recognise that maintaining those crucial skills was balanced on a knife edge. I want to ask today about the European Common Radar System Mark 2, which is forecast to achieve an initial operating capability on our Tranche 3 Typhoon aircraft by the end of the decade. Given the Turkish Typhoon order will be Tranche 3 or 4, we can assume it will be specified with the ECRS MK2 and the wider Phase 4 Enhancement programme. Given that we are looking at the same staff, what impact will the Turkish order have on the timeline for the enhancement programme of our Typhoon fleet?
Luke Pollard
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the full details, but having another Typhoon partner nation using UK radar technologies provides the opportunity for us to get greater value out of the R&D costs that the UK has put into the development of those new technologies, but also provides more opportunity for the workforce and the companies, especially Leonardo in Edinburgh, to be able to deliver that as well. It is not just radar, of course; as the shadow Minister suggested, it is also the software upgrades that are required to do so. I am very happy writing with the fuller details, and will share the letter with the House for Members who may be interested.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I warmly welcome this Typhoon export deal not only for entailing the strengthening of the NATO alliance, but for the jobs it will bring to the south-west of England. Plainly, these expensive Typhoon platforms will not be subject to re-export and are bound for Türkiye. However, given that UK manufactured arms have been found in the hands of the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan in recent weeks, how satisfied is the Minister with the integrity of the UK’s arms export regime to states in eastern Europe and the middle east?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s welcome of the good-value platforms that we are exporting to Türkiye; it is really important that we have a strong relationship with Türkiye. He will know that the arms exports regime is run by the Department for Business and Trade. I have to say that the risk of diversion from some locations is real, and that is why before any arms exports licence is agreed by DBT, there is input from not just the MOD but other sources across Government to assess the risk of diversion or the equipment being lost or used in a way that does not accord with international humanitarian law. Where we think there are such risks, we do not grant those export licences. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to take up the matters he has raised further with DBT colleagues.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement, of course. It is interesting that the Minister comes to the House with good news, but has to be dragged here when there is less good news. Nevertheless, this is welcome news and a real boost for defence jobs in this country. The Minister mentioned that some of our Eurofighter allies had signed this off and were happy with the deal. Would he like to comment on whether the White House is happy with it? Of course, anything that weans Turkey away from the Russian defence industrial complex and supply chain is to be welcomed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) outlined. When the Prime Minister met the Turkish President on Monday in Ankara, did he also discuss Turkey being weaned off Russian oil and gas and being used as a conduit for Russian oil and gas going into some parts of the European Union—up at 36% at the moment, I think—which, of course, is funding the Russian war effort in Ukraine?
Luke Pollard
There are a number of nations across Europe and Asia with complex energy dependencies on Russia. This Government and our partner nations have been very clear that there needs to be a fast and smooth transition away from using Russian oil and gas, and it is something we continue to work on with our allies. We encourage all those that are using Russian oil and gas for their own economies, and, in doing so, effectively supporting the coffers of the Russian regime, to move at pace to get away from that. I can confirm that all partner nations and allies that were required to sign off this deal have done so.
Points of Order
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On two separate occasions in July and September, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), made some very dubious claims from the Dispatch Box about water quality in Scotland, which were repeated in writing to a Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government, on social media and in broadcast interviews. I wrote to the Office for National Statistics to seek clarification. It has confirmed that the statements lack verifiable transparency and that the broad evidence does not support them, saying that:
“without appropriate discussion of the limitations of some of the more specific figures quoted”,
they run the risk of “misleading the public”.
I believe this to be a clear breach of public trust by a Minister and a Government who have staked their reputation on restoring trust in politics. I therefore ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it is in order for the former DEFRA Secretary repeatedly to make clearly misleading statements in this place that are not supported by the facts, as demonstrated by the ONS, and whether you will call the right hon. Member to this House to apologise.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for what Ministers say or the way in which they use data, but the hon. Member’s point of order is on the record. Those on the Government Front Bench will have heard his concerns, and, if a correction is necessary, I am sure one will be forthcoming. I gently remind the hon. Member that I am sure he meant to say “inadvertently” misleading.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Cabinet Office guide to parliamentary work is very clear that
“Every question should be approached with a predisposition to give relevant information fully. There should be no inconsistencies between the provision of information in answers to written questions and information given”
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If
“information would be released under FOI, it would also be released in response to”
a written parliamentary question. This position was confirmed by the then Leader of the House in October last year when she stated that if information would be released under freedom of information legislation, it would also be released in response to a written parliamentary question.
This guidance appears to have been breached in relation to questions about representations on the Government’s plans to hike up parking fines. On 10 July, in answer to parliamentary question 64511, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), refused to publish the material. On 19 August, the Department released the same information under the Freedom of Information Act, explicitly referencing the unanswered parliamentary question. When asked again to publish the released material, on 16 October, in answer to parliamentary question 77651, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), once again refused to do so.
We now have a situation where Parliament is being treated with contempt and information is being provided to members of the public under FOI but withheld from Members of this House. This is a direct breach of the Government’s own guidance and of the principle of accountability to this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, will you consider communicating to the Leader of the House and to the Departments that such inconsistencies are wholly unacceptable and that information that would be released under FOI must also be released to Parliament? Should the two Ministers not now correct this affront and place the information in the Library of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I respond to the right hon. Member’s point of order, I say for the benefit of all Members that points of order should be concise. There is an increasing tendency to use them to make points that should be properly made in debates. I remind all Members that points of order should be limited to matters relating to the business before the House or the rules and conventions of the House.
On the point raised by the right hon. Member, he will know that it is Ministers, rather than the Chair, who are responsible for the responses that they give to parliamentary questions. However, he raises a serious point that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard. Members of this House play an important role in scrutinising the Government, and written parliamentary questions have an important role to play. I know that the Procedure Committee takes an interest in these matters, so the right hon. Member may also wish to raise the issue with that Committee.
European Convention on Human Rights (Withdrawal)
15:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 96 / Noes: 154 - Question accordingly negatived.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, and to make further provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from that Convention.
In many ways, this is unfinished business. On 23 June 2016, in the biggest democratic exercise in the history of these islands, the British people—[Interruption.] Despite what they were told by all the businesses and all the trade unions and much of the press and most of this House, the British people managed, despite everything—[Interruption.] Children, be quiet.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will be responsible for maintaining order in this Chamber.
Nigel Farage
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will allow me the opportunity to continue to try to say something despite such constant interventions.
The British people voted clearly, by a massive margin, to bring back the sovereignty—[Interruption.] By the way, what makes me laugh about this is that it is not just about the sovereignty of this country; it is about the sovereignty of this very Chamber and the people within it. It is about bringing power back to this very place, and that is what we voted for.
One of the biggest reasons why the vote happened was the deep alarm at the huge numbers of people coming into our country and the fact that we effectively had open borders, making us poorer in every way. Of course, our membership of the Council of Europe and the European convention and its writing into British law in 1998 kind of enshrined that, and I think it is what Tony Blair wanted us to do.
I believe that Brexit cannot be complete all the while we are subject to a foreign Court and a piece of legislation brought in by the Blair Government on which judges can choose their own political interpretation. We are not sovereign all the while we are part of the European convention on human rights, the Council of Europe and its associated court. It is as simple as that.
Nigel Farage
It is marvellous to see the intellectual levels of debate in this place—it really is.
Is it any wonder—[Interruption.] Is it any wonder that out in the country there is growing frustration—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Can I remind Members that the hon. Gentleman has a ten-minute rule Bill in front of this House and should be listened to without interruption?
Nigel Farage
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was talking about fear and anger growing in the country—and I sense there is also a bit of that growing in this Chamber.
When it comes to controlling our borders and to who should be able legally to live, work and settle in this country, and, indeed, to who should not be allowed to stay in our country, I do not believe it is right that that should be under the remit of judges in Strasbourg—who by the way are jurists, most of them not even legally qualified—and under the political control of judges in this country, who now can make their own interpretation of what we have understood for many, many years to be British common law.
This Bill intends to restore the power of this Parliament—the power of all of you as MPs to actually be in control of the things that matter most to all voters, whether they supported you or not. This Bill intends to bring back British common law and some ideas—rather than state-given rights, those of birthrights of liberty and freedom. These are things that over centuries served our country far better than any other nation in the European continent.
This is about liberty, it is about freedom, it is about democratic control. Just think, whatever the election result, even if 650 of us wanted to change rules on who can come across the channel and stay, we could be overruled by a convention that we signed up to in 1998—[Interruption.] Members shake their heads, but we could literally be overruled. This is about sovereignty—sovereignty of the country, sovereignty of our Parliament. It is about our voters being able to choose the future course and direction of our own country. That is why this matters.
Let us remind ourselves briefly of some of the worst examples of the ECHR taking away our democratic rights. Interestingly, it was the last Conservative Government who decided to put in place the Rwanda legislation. It was, in theory, very good, as it would act as a deterrent—[Interruption.] Unless people support the criminal gangs, yes it was a very good idea. The trouble was that it could not happen. Why could it not happen? In the case of the 2022 Rwanda deportation flight, at 10 pm a single judge in Strasbourg, without any legal qualification, decided on the basis of article 3 that the flight could not take off.
We have since seen horrendous stories, particularly under article 8 on the right to family life. Well, whose family? The families of British people, or the families of those who have come into Britain, in some cases illegally, and been waved through? Some of it is disgusting beyond belief. A Pakistani child sex offender dodged deportation on the basis that his removal would harm the children he had had in this country. The list goes on and on—Brazilian murderers, rapists and many others who claim the right to a family life under article 8. Well, what about British families? What about their rights and their freedoms? What are the priorities of Members of this place?
Of course, we will be told that by leaving this completely outdated, 75-year-old convention—[Interruption.] By the way, I fully understand why it was signed up to in the 1940s—the other European countries did not have constitutions or democracies that could prevent them from going into extremism—but we are not Russia and we are not Belarus. Nobody in the Chamber would say that countries like New Zealand, Australia and Canada are barbaric or backward; they defend freedoms. But I do not defend state-given human rights, because they can be taken away by the very states who has given them in the first place. [Interruption.] I have never seen so many Liberal Democrats in all my life—it is absolutely marvellous. [Interruption.]
Nigel Farage
I ask the Liberal Democrats and others in this place: what is wrong with you? Do you not believe that this country is good enough to make its own laws? Do you not believe in the country that since Magna Carta has developed the principle of common law—which, with its faults, has been perhaps the best ever developed by civilisation? Do you not believe we are good enough to make these rules? Should we stick with outdated conventions preyed on by human rights lawyers in this country? This Bill would restore democratic trust and faith in this once great nation.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The speech we just heard totally misrepresents the European convention, and the failure of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to mention the huge benefits and rights that the European convention has brought to millions of British people says it all. Let me give those attracted by the argument we have just heard one strong reason to think again. Russia under Vladimir Putin is the only country to have withdrawn from the European convention on human rights. Maybe that is what attracts the hon. Member—after all, he said that Putin is the world leader he most admires.
Russia: a country where those who oppose the regime are mysteriously pushed off balconies, and where, if it is not enough to murder a political opponent like Alexei Navalny, Putin has even jailed lawyers who dared to represent him—things not allowed under the European convention. As we have seen Nathan Gill, a leading political ally of the hon. Member for Clacton, imprisoned for taking Russian bribes, perhaps we should not be surprised that the Reform party is so keen to follow Russia.
Besides Russia, where else are people’s hard-fought-for rights under attack? Trump’s America. Of course, the US is not part of the European convention, yet its citizens have benefited from something similar: the US constitution, which was designed to check the power of tyrants and protect the individual from the state. Just as the hon. Member for Clacton desires to remove people’s rights here, his hero Donald Trump is doing the same in America, attacking the courts and the rule of law, and even inciting a violent mob against the US Congress to overturn an election. But of course, the hon. Member has called President Trump “an inspiration”. If we want to know the hon. Member’s intentions for British people’s basic rights and freedoms, we only need to look at Putin’s Russia or Trump’s America. That is not patriotic. It is deeply un-British, and he should be ashamed.
Unlike the hon. Member for Clacton, I am proud of our country; I love our country. I am proud that Britain helped to create the European convention on human rights, championed by Winston Churchill himself. The convention protects the very people who need it most: our elderly and most vulnerable, so that they may live and grow old with dignity; and our children, so that those facing horrific abuse have better protection. It also upholds our freedom of speech so that the press and public can criticise those in power without fear, and it protects our right to peaceful protest.
Seventy years ago, Britain became the first country to ratify the convention, as a leading voice on the global stage for human rights and the rule of law. That is our history. That is who we are. That is Britain at our best. Yet the hon. Member for Clacton wants us to forget our history, dump British values, undermine the rule of law and row back on people’s hard-won rights. I say no.
To help get across how wrong the hon. Member, the Reform party and the Conservatives are on this, let me give some examples. When people died because of poor care at Stafford hospital, their families secured change—because of these laws. When British troops died in Iraq because of poor equipment, the Supreme Court ruled that the Government were accountable—because of these laws. After 96 people were killed in the Hillsborough disaster and the victims themselves were blamed, their families finally got to the truth—because of these laws. When the Metropolitan police failed to properly investigate the horrific assaults of John Worboys, his victims were able to take the police to court—because of these laws.
Time and again, the European convention and its British twin, the Human Rights Act, have brought justice for our people, and protected them from gross misconduct and unfair treatment. These laws help individuals hold the powerful to account—to hold Governments to account. These laws can get justice when the elite and powerful cover up and abuse their power. So it is clear, is it not, that the hon. Member for Clacton is not about standing up for the individual—for the ordinary person, for the people with no voice—but that he is the friend of the elite and the powerful?
If we do not defend our human rights here at home, how can we possibly persuade other countries of the importance of human rights for their own people? If we do what Reform wants, the biggest cheers will come from the Kremlin, from Beijing, from Tehran, from Pyongyang, and from dictators and authoritarian regimes the world over. That would be a betrayal of everything our country stands for. The hon. Member’s plan would damage our country’s ability to shape our world.
Leaving the convention would be another nail in the coffin of Britain’s unique soft power. We have so often influenced world events for the better by being part of international agreements, by upholding international law and by leading. Of course, the hon. Member for Clacton has made his career by damaging our country and our influence. Remember how he led the campaign for Brexit with his Conservative friends? We know what a total mess that has turned out to be. He and his friends argued that Brexit would cut immigration, but immigration has gone up. Just look at how badly he has betrayed the people he claims to speak for. Brexit made the small boats crisis possible.
Before Brexit, we effectively had a returns agreement with every EU country: the Dublin system—a deterrent that worked. Now, undocumented migrants are trying to reach the UK because they know they cannot be returned. Thanks to the hon. Member, his Brexit ripped up Britain’s rights to return people with no right to be here and people who should have claimed asylum elsewhere in Europe. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may shout—they caused it!
Let us look at one of our closest allies, the Republic of Ireland, and a vital part of our country, Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement references the European convention seven times. The guarantee of basic rights and freedoms in the convention was fundamental to securing the Good Friday agreement, to ending the conflict, to stopping the bombs and to getting peace, yet the hon. Member for Clacton stands here today prepared to risk peace in our country—how utterly shameful.
As we approach Remembrance Sunday, let us never forget the sacrifices made for our freedoms today, and let us never forget the lessons that that greatest generation of British people learned and passed on to us— Interruption.] I think the veterans will notice this barracking. Our greatest generation showed us that we needed these laws to protect people from state abuse, to stop authoritarian Governments and tyrants, and to defend people’s rights. The post-war generation knew how costly far right-wing populism had been for our country and our people, so for our greatest generation, for British people today and for our democracy, I urge Members to vote against this Bill.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
Sentencing Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 170 / Noes: 328 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 82 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:21 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 323 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 321 / Noes: 103 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—
“(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements for, and relating to, the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving IPP sentences within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) Those arrangements must include arrangements relating to the establishment of a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).
(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.
(4) A court that imposed an IPP sentence has the power to re-sentence the prisoner in relation to the original offence.
(5) But the court may not impose a sentence that is a heavier penalty than the sentence that was imposed for the original offence.
(6) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (4)—
(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under the Sentencing Code (see section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020);
(b) the Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).
(7) In this section—
‘IPP sentence’ means a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act (including such a sentence of imprisonment or detention passed as a result of section 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);
‘original offence’ means the offence in relation to which the IPP sentence was imposed.
(8) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.
New clause 3—Use of funds raised through income reduction orders—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits and costs of directing the funds raised from income reduction orders into a fund that provides support for victims.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under subsection (1) before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of using the monies raised through income reduction orders to fund support for victims.
New clause 4—Probation caseloads—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations to commence the provisions in this Act, establish maximum caseload limits for probation officers supervising individuals subject to—
(a) licence conditions;
(b) community orders; or
(c) any other form of court-imposed supervision by the probation service.
(2) The Secretary of State must, each year, lay before Parliament a report on compliance with the caseload limits set under this section.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set maximum caseloads for probation before implementation of the Act, and to report annually on compliance.
New clause 5—Access to rehabilitation and support services—
“(1) The probation service must ensure all individuals subject to licence conditions, community orders, or other court-imposed supervision have access to—
(a) NHS mental health and substance misuse services,
(b) education, training and employment support, and
(c) approved behaviour change or offender behaviour programmes.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on the availability and use of the services provided under subsection (1).”
This new clause would require the probation service to ensure people under its supervision can access mental health and substance misuse services; education, training and support; and approved behaviour change or offender management programmes, and to report annually on the availability and uptake of those services.
New clause 6—Digital systems for tracking offender progress—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the benefits and costs of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals who are subject to supervision by the probation service.
(2) The assessment must consider the following potential functions of a sentence management system—
(a) tracking offender progress,
(b) providing for the sharing of information between the courts, probation service, and other relevant agencies, subject to the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018,
(c) monitoring compliance with rehabilitation programmes, and
(d) any other functions that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of implementing a digital sentence management system for prisoners and individuals subject to supervision by the probation service.
New clause 7—Specialist teams for high-risk or complex offenders—
“(1) The probation service must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise—
(a) high-risk offenders,
(b) offenders with complex mental health needs,
(c) offenders with substance misuse needs, and
(d) young offenders who are transitioning to adult supervision.
(2) The assessment must consider the potential benefits of specialist probation teams having lower average caseloads per probation officer.
(3) The assessment must consider the potential arrangements for specialist probation teams accessing support from other relevant agencies.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the probation service to assess the potential benefits of establishing specialist probation teams to supervise offenders who are high-risk; have complex mental health or substance misuse needs; and young offenders transitioning to adult supervision.
New clause 8—Domestic abuse aggravated offences—
“(1) A court must treat an offence committed in England and Wales as domestic abuse aggravated, if—
(a) the offender and the victim are personally connected to each other; and
(b) the offence involves behaviour which constitutes domestic abuse.
(2) In this section—
‘domestic abuse’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and
‘personally connected’ has the meaning given by section 2 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”
This new clause would require a court to treat a domestic abuse offence as aggravated.
New clause 9—Rehabilitative programmes for offences relating to violence against women and girls—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for—
(a) assault;
(b) battery; or
(c) actual bodily harm
when the victim is a woman or girl.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about women and girls, for individuals sentenced for certain offences.
New clause 10—Screening for traumatic brain injuries—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of screening all prisoners for traumatic brain injuries at the start of their custodial sentence.
(2) The assessment should consider—
(a) how screening for traumatic brain injuries could inform the management of a prisoner’s sentence,
(b) the health services and rehabilitation programmes available for prisoners with traumatic brain injuries, and
(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, lay a copy of the assessment made under this section before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of introducing standardised screening for traumatic brain injuries for prisoners starting a custodial sentence.
New clause 11—Suspension of driving licences during bail for driving related offences—
“(1) This section applies where an individual has been granted bail in respect of one of the following offences—
(a) dangerous or careless driving;
(b) drink driving; or
(c) drug driving.
(2) The court may suspend the driving licence of the individual, pending the outcome of any criminal proceedings.”
This new clause would allow the court to suspend the driving licence of an individual charged for certain driving offences, pending the outcome of the trial.
New clause 12—Access to rehabilitation programmes and education for individuals held on remand—
“(1) Where an individual is held in custodial remand pending sentencing, the probation service must provide access to the same rehabilitative programmes that are available to prisoners after sentencing.
(2) Where an individual is held in custodial demand pending trial, the probation service must provide access to the same—
(a) education;
(b) therapy; and
(c) any other support that the probation service deems appropriate,
that is available to prisoners after sentencing.”
This new clause would allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence.
New clause 14—Under-18 anonymity for cases involving serious crime—
“(1) This section applies where a person (‘P’) aged under 18—
(a) has been convicted of an offence; and
(b) will receive a custodial sentence of four or more years.
(2) Where this section applies, prior to delivering sentencing remarks, the court must lift any reporting restrictions identifying P.
(3) This section applies notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter IV of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.”
This new clause would require reporting restrictions to be lifted at the point of sentencing for young offenders who have received a sentence of four or more years.
New clause 15—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—
“(1) All transcripts of sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.
(2) All published sentencing remarks must be made freely available, including online.”
This new clause would require all sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court to be published and made available to all.
New clause 16—Sexual offences: Offender Personality Disorder Pathway—
“(1) The Prison Rules 1999 are amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 20 (Health services), after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
‘(1A) Provision under subsection (1) must include access, for all eligible prisoners serving custodial sentences for sexual offences, to services provided under the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway.’”
This new clause would require the Government to provide access to the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway to all eligible prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences.
New clause 17—Sexual offences: chemical suppression—
“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on how most effectively to introduce mandatory chemical suppression for certain individuals serving sentences for sexual offences, with appropriate legal and clinical safeguards.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on mandatory chemical suppression for certain sex offenders.
New clause 18—Sentencing Council: abolition—
“(1) The Sentencing Council (established under section 118 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) is abolished.
(2) The Secretary of State may prepare—
(a) sentencing guidelines which may be general in nature or limited to a particular offence, particular category of offence or particular category of offender;
(b) sentencing guidelines about the discharge of a court's duty under section 73 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentences for guilty pleas); and
(c) sentencing guidelines about the application of any rule of law as to the totality of sentences.
(3) The Secretary of State may prepare sentencing guidelines about any other matter.
(4) When developing sentencing guidelines, the Secretary of State must—
(a) promote understanding of, and public confidence in, the sentencing and criminal justice system;
(b) consult Parliament on all draft guidelines; and
(c) publish the reasons for proposing any guidelines that could result in an offender receiving a shorter sentence than that set out in an Act of Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State may report, from time to time, on the impact of sentencing guidelines on sentencing practice.
(6) The Secretary of State must monitor—
(a) the application of the sentencing guidelines; and
(b) the impact on victims of sentencing decisions.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”
This new clause would abolish the Sentencing Council, give the Secretary of State the power to publish Sentencing guidelines, and impose various requirements linked to consultation and monitoring.
New clause 19—Whole life order: murder of a police or prison officer—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 21 (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after ‘duty,’, insert ‘or if the motivation for the murder was connected to the police officer or prison officer’s current or former duties,’”
This new clause would expand the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply a whole life order for murdering a prison or police officer, to include murder motivated by the victim’s current or former duties.
New clause 20—Child cruelty offences: notification and offender management requirements—
“(1) A person (‘relevant offender’) is subject to the notification requirements of subsections (2) and (3) for the period set out in subsection (4) if the relevant offender is convicted of an offence listed in subsection (6).
(2) A relevant offender must notify to the police within the three days of the time of their conviction or their release from custody, and annually thereafter, providing—
(a) the relevant offender’s date of birth;
(b) their national insurance number;
(c) their name on the notification date and, where using one or more other names on that date, each of those names;
(d) their place of residence on the date of notification;
(e) the address of any other premises in the United Kingdom at which, at the time the notification is given, they regularly reside or stay; and
(f) any information that may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.
(3) A relevant offender must notify to the police, within the period of three days beginning with the event occurring, about—
(a) their use of a name which has not been notified to the police under subsection (2);
(b) a change to their place or residence; and
(c) any other prescribed change of circumstances as defined in regulations made under this section.
(4) The dates of discharge from notification requirements under this section are the same as those set out in Section 88B of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
(5) The information required by subsections (2) and (3), once received, must be—
(a) monitored regularly by the police and probation service; and
(b) retained for the purposes of offender management.
(6) The relevant offences are—
(a) causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, or allowing them to suffer serious harm (section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004);
(b) child cruelty, neglect and violence (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933);
(c) infanticide (section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938);
(d) exposing children whereby life is endangered (section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);
(e) an offence under sections 4, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1860, if the victim is under the age of 16;
(f) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—
(i) female genital mutilation (section 1);
(ii) assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2);
(iii) assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia (section 3); and
(g) cruelty to children (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933).”
This new clause would create notification requirements for people convicted of child cruelty, analogous to the Sex Offenders Register. Their information and personal details would be kept on record by the police for the purposes of offender management, with the aim of reducing the risk to children from future offences.
New clause 21—Lifetime driving ban for death by dangerous driving—
“(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under section 1 the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(2) Where this section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Sentencing Code (Driving disqualification), the driver must be banned from driving for life.”
This new clause would mean that anyone who causes death by dangerous driving would be banned from driving for life.
New clause 22—Review of sentence following a change in law—
“(1) Where a person is serving or subject to a sentence imposed for an offence, and—
(a) the offence has been abolished, or
(b) there has been a change in the law which materially alters the sentence that would be imposed for the same offence following that change in the law,
that person may apply to the sentencing court, or to such other court as may be prescribed, for a review of the sentence.
(2) On such an application, the court may—
(a) quash the sentence and resentence the person in accordance with the existing law; or
(b) make such other order as necessary in the interests of justice.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the procedure and eligibility criteria for applications under this section.”
This new clause would allow a person still serving a sentence under a law that has changed to seek review or resentencing in line with the existing law.
New clause 23—Review of the impact of a change in the law on unspent convictions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report reviewing—
(a) the effect of changes in the criminal law, whether legislative or judicial, on those serving sentences for offences that would attract a different sentence following the subsequent changes to the criminal law; and
(b) the adequacy of existing mechanisms for addressing any perceived injustice arising from such changes.
(2) The Secretary of State must thereafter lay a further report under subsection (1) every three years.
(3) A report made under this section must include—
(a) recommendations for legislative or administrative steps to prevent any instances of injustice arising from changes in the law; and
(b) data on the number of persons serving sentences in the scenario set out in subsection (1)(a) and, of those, the number who remain imprisoned.”
This new clause would create a statutory duty for the Government to review, on a recurring basis, how changes to the law affect those already convicted or sentenced.
New clause 24—Deportation of foreign criminals: European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—
“(1) Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) At the start of subsection (5), insert ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7A of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and Article 2 of the Windsor Framework,’.”
This new clause would seek to disapply section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended under the Windsor Framework) to the deportation of foreign criminals, with the aim of preventing the courts from disapplying those provisions to Northern Ireland if they are deemed incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
New clause 25—Electronic monitoring: oversight—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In Part 14 of Schedule 9, in paragraph 31 (Electronic monitoring: person responsible for monitoring), after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
‘(3) Regulations under this section must ensure that—
(a) electronic monitoring is overseen by the Probation Service;
(b) the fitting of necessary apparatus for the purposes of electronic monitoring may only be undertaken by those in the employment of an organisation with responsibility for delivering electronic monitoring; and
(c) the fitting of necessary apparatus may not be undertaken by an employee of HM Prison and Probation Service unless the responsibility for the delivery of electronic monitoring is held solely by HM Prison and Probation Service.’”
This new clause would ensure that the probation service oversees electronic monitoring, and that prison officers would not be responsible for fitting tags unless tagging contracts are brought into the public sector.
New clause 26—Unpaid work requirements: community work—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 9 (Restriction on imposing unpaid work requirement), after sub-paragraph (1)(b) insert—
‘(c) that the unpaid work is work undertaken for a non-profit organisation, social enterprise, voluntary organisation or local authority.’”
This new clause would prohibit private sector involvement in unpaid work as part of a community sentence.
New clause 27—Probation capacity: independent report—
“(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act, a report must be published and laid before Parliament by HM Inspectorate of Probation (‘the Inspectorate’) determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service to meet provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service.
(2) If the report under subsection (1) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, provisions of this Act anticipated to increase levels of demand on the Probation Service may not come into force until a further report determines that the Probation Service has adequate capacity.
(3) Following a report under subsection (1), the Inspectorate must publish and lay before Parliament a further report, no less than once every twelve months, determining whether there is adequate capacity in the Probation Service.
(4) If a report under subsections (1) or (3) determines that the capacity of the Probation Service is inadequate, the Inspectorate may direct that a prioritisation framework must be issued to the areas in which the capacity concerns apply, in order to provide local services with guidance about which activities to deprioritise.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within two weeks of the laying of a report under subsections (1) or (3) with a finding of inadequate capacity, make a statement to Parliament setting out how probation capacity will be increased to an adequate level.”
This new clause would ensure that the provisions of this Bill likely to increase demand on the Probation Service cannot be implemented until HM Inspectorate of Probation determines that there is adequate capacity to address those demands, and would enable the Inspectorate to trigger the issuing of a prioritisation framework to help local areas to identify which activities to deprioritise.
New clause 28—Management of offenders: devolution to Wales—
“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In Paragraph 175 (Prisons and offender management)—
(a) omit sub-paragraph (2); and
(b) in sub-paragraph (3), omit ‘probation’
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”
This new clause seeks to devolve probation services and offender management to Wales, by removing it from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006.
New clause 29—Foreign criminals: risk assessments prior to deportation—
“(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert—
‘32A Deportation following stalking offences: risk assessments
(1) This section applies where a foreign criminal—
(a) has been convicted of an offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; and
(b) is subject to a deportation order under this Act.
(2) Where this section applies, prior to deportation, a risk assessment must be prepared to assess the likelihood after deportation of the foreign criminal—
(a) committing an offence which, were it to be committed in England or Wales, would constitute a further offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; or
(b) contacting or seeking to contact the victim of the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted in England or Wales.
(3) A risk assessment prepared under this section must be shared, subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018, with the relevant authorities in the country to which the foreign criminal will be deported.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.’”
This new clause would require the preparation of a risk assessment for any foreign criminal being deported after a stalking conviction, and for the assessment to be shared with the authorities in the country to which the offender is returning.
New clause 30—Foreign criminals: potential stalking offences following deportation—
“(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 32 (Automatic deportation) insert—
‘32A Potential stalking offences following deportation
(1) This section applies where the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) apply.
(2) Condition 1 is that a foreign criminal—
(a) has been convicted of an offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; and
(b) is subject to a deportation order under this Act.
(3) Condition 2 is that they have—
(a) committed an offence which, were it to be committed in England or Wales, would constitute a further offence under sections 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; or
(b) they have contacted or sought to contact the victim of the offence for which the foreign criminal was convicted in England or Wales.
(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to the relevant authorities, setting out—
(a) a police point of contact in the country to which the offender is returning;
(b) steps to protect and safeguard the victim in the UK; and
(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.’”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance in dealing with foreign criminals who have been deported after a stalking conviction, and who seek to continue to stalk the victim.
New clause 31—Exclusion from automatic release following fixed-term recall for specified serious offences—
“(1) An offender shall not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed-term recall where they have been convicted of any of the following offences—
(a) rape;
(b) assault by penetration;
(c) rape of a child under 13;
(d) assault of a child under 13 by penetration;
(e) inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity;
(f) paying for the sexual services of a child aged under 13;
(g) kidnapping or false imprisonment with the intention of committing a sexual offence;
(h) creating or possessing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children;
(i) grievous bodily harm (under section 18 or section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);
(j) grooming (under section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003);
(k) stalking (under section 2A or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997);
(l) causing or allowing the death of a vulnerable child or adult (under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004); or
(m) causing death by dangerous driving (under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988).
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person shall also be ineligible for release following a fixed-term recall if they have been convicted of an attempt, conspiracy, or incitement to commit any of the offences listed in subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations add or remove offences from the list in subsection (1).”
This new clause would mean offenders who had committed certain serious offences would not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed term recall.
New clause 32—Powers of the probation service to impose and vary conditions of supervision—
“(1) Where an offender is—
(a) subject to a community order, a suspended sentence order, or a period of probation supervision; and
(b) required to reside at a specified address as a condition of that order or supervision,
the Probation Service may, in accordance with this section, direct that the offender reside at an alternative address.
(2) A direction under subsection (1) may be given where—
(a) it is necessary to protect another person (including a partner, former partner, or family member) from risk of harm;
(b) it is necessary for the effective management or rehabilitation of the offender; or
(c) it is otherwise in the interests of justice.
(3) Where the probation service has made a direction under subsection (1), it may recommend or determine other terms of supervision, including—
(a) restrictions on contact or association with specified individuals;
(b) requirements relating to participation in programmes addressing offending behaviour; or
(c) curfew or exclusion requirements, subject to approval by the sentencing court.
(4) Where a direction or variation made under this section materially alters the conditions imposed by the sentencing court, the probation service must—
(a) notify the court and the offender as soon as possible; and
(b) seek confirmation by the sentencing court of the varied terms within 14 days.
(5) Any direction or variation made under this section shall have effect as if imposed by the sentencing court, until it has been confirmed, revoked, or amended by the court.
(6) In this section, “the probation service” includes any person or body authorised to supervise offenders under the Offender Management Act 2007.”
This new clause would give the probation service the power to change the residence requirement of an individual subject to supervision in certain circumstances, and to make other changes to the terms of supervision, subject to confirmation by the sentencing court.
New clause 33—Mandatory dependent support orders upon sentencing—
“(1) Where an offender is known to have dependents who rely on them for financial or other material support, the court shall, at the time of sentencing, inquire into the circumstances and reasonable needs of those dependents.
(2) In addition to any sentence imposed, the court must make an order requiring the offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependents (‘dependent support order’), unless the court determines that such an order would be manifestly unjust or impracticable.
(3) The amount, frequency, and method of payment made under subsection (2) shall be determined by the court having regard to—
(a) the offender’s financial means, earning capacity, and assets;
(b) the reasonable living costs and needs of the dependents; and
(c) any other relevant circumstances.
(4) The court may direct that payments be made—
(a) through a designated collection authority; or
(b) directly to the dependent’s guardian, caregiver, or other appointed representative.
(5) An order made under this section shall remain in effect—
(a) for such time as specified by the court; or
(b) until it is varied or discharged by the court on application by any interested party.
(6) A failure to comply with an order made under this section shall constitute a breach of the sentence.”
This new clause would create a power for a sentencing court to require an offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependents.
New clause 34—10-year driving ban for death by dangerous or careless driving and related offences—
“(1) This section applies where a person is convicted of an offence under sections 1, 2B, 3ZB, 3ZC or 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(2) Where this section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Sentencing Code (Driving disqualification), the driver must be banned from driving for 10 years.”
This new clause would mean that anyone who causes death by dangerous or careless driving (or related offences) would be banned from driving for ten years.
New clause 35—Causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving: statutory aggravating factor—
“(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3A, insert—
‘3B Causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless of inconsiderate driving: aggravating factor for sentencing
In considering the seriousness of any offence committed under sections 1, 1A, 2B, 2C, 3ZB, 3ZC, 3ZS or 3A for the purposes of sentencing, the court must treat failure to—
(a) stop at the scene of the accident;
(b) call the emergency services; or
(c) administer first aid, where it is possible to do so;
as an aggravating factor, and state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.’”
This new clause would create statutory aggravating factors, for the purposes of sentencing, of failure to stop, call the emergency services, or administer first aid where it is possible to do so, in cases of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, careless of inconsiderate driving.
New clause 36—Earned progression for prisoner release—
“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 244, after subsection (4), insert—
‘(5) The duty to release under subsection (1) is subject to the prisoner demonstrating compliance with the earned progression scheme during the course of their custodial sentence.
(6) The Secretary of State must issue regulations, under section 267 (alteration by order of the relevant proportion of sentence) setting a higher requisite custodial period for prisoners who have not demonstrated compliance with the earned progression scheme during their sentence.
(7) In this section, ‘the earned progression scheme’ must include—
(a) compliance with prison rules;
(b) engagement in purposeful activity;
(c) attendance at any required work, education, treatment or training obligations, where these are available; and
(d) any other factors that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further guidance to prisons on the operation of the earned progression scheme.’”
This new clause seeks to implement the recommendation of the independent review on sentencing for the release of prisoners at the one third point of their sentence to be subject to their compliance with an earned progression scheme.
New clause 38—Sentencing Council—
“(1) The Sentencing Council of England and Wales is abolished.”
New clause 39—Deportation of foreign criminals—
“(1) A foreign criminal who has been sentenced to—
(a) a custodial sentence of at least 6 months; or
(b) a community sentence of at least 6 months,
must be the subject of an immediate deportation order, subject to subsection (2) below.
(2) The Secretary of State may determine, in exceptional cases, that a deportation order under subsection (1) does not apply.
(3) In this section, ‘foreign criminal’ means a person who—
(a) is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen, and
(b) is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence.”
This new clause would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six month community sentence.
New clause 40—Criminal cases review—
“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 36 (Reviews of sentencing), insert—
‘Part IVB
CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW (PUBLIC PETITION)
36A Scope of this Part
(1) A case to which this Part applies may be referred to the Court of Appeal under section 2 below.
(2) Subject to Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under section 36B shall be exercised by the criminal division of the Court, and references to the Court of Appeal in this Part shall be construed as references to that division.
(3) This Part applies to any case—
(a) of a description specified in an order under this section; or
(b) in which sentence is passed on a person—
(i) for an offence triable only on indictment; or
(ii) for an offence of a description specified in an order under this section.
(4) The Secretary of State may by order provide that this section shall apply to any case of a description specified in the order or to any case in which sentence is passed on a person for an offence triable either way of a description specified in the order.
(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) In this Part, ‘sentence’ has the same meaning as in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, except that it does not include an interim hospital order under Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983, and ‘sentencing’ shall be construed accordingly.
(7) In its application to Northern Ireland, this section shall have effect subject to the modifications set out in subsections (8) to (11).
(8) Subsection (2) shall not apply to Northern Ireland.
(9) In this section—
‘offence triable only on indictment’ means an offence punishable only on conviction on indictment;
‘offence triable either way’ means an offence punishable on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction; and
any reference in subsection (4) to the Secretary of State must be construed as a reference to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
(10) For subsection (5), in Northern Ireland an order under subsection (4) shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (and not a statutory instrument), and any such order shall be subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).
(11) References in subsection (6) to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Part III of the Mental Health Act 1983 shall be respectively construed as references to Part I of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 and Part III of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
36B Criminal cases review (public petition)
(1) If it appears to any adult British citizen aged 18 or over—
(a) that the sentencing of a person in a proceeding in the Crown Court (‘the person sentenced’) has been unduly lenient or unduly harsh; and
(b) that the case is one to which section 36A applies,
that British citizen (‘the petitioner’) may refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (‘the Commission’) for it to review the sentencing of the person sentenced, in accordance with section 36C below, and if the Commission refers the case to the Court of Appeal, upon such a reference the Court of Appeal may—
(a) quash any sentence passed on the person sentenced; and
(b) in place of it pass such sentence as they think appropriate for the case and as the lower court had power to pass when dealing with the person sentenced,
provided that the petitioner has filed the reference with the Commission in writing, signed by at least 500 signatures (‘the co-petitioners’) including his own.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations stipulate the information and form that the petitioner must provide when filing the reference.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the condition specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection may be satisfied whether or not it appears that the judge—
(a) erred in law as to his powers of sentencing; or
(b) failed to comply with a mandatory sentence requirement under section 399(b) or (c) of the Sentencing Code.
(4) For the purposes of this Part, any two or more sentences are to be treated as passed in the same proceeding if they would be so treated for the purposes of section 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
(5) Where a reference under this section relates to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code, the Court of Appeal shall not, in deciding what order under that section is appropriate for the case, make any allowance for the fact that the person to whom it relates is being sentenced for a second time.
(6) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of, or shall determine any application in proceedings incidental or preliminary to, a reference under this section of a sentence passed by himself.
(7) Where the Court of Appeal has concluded its review of a case referred to it under this section, and given its judgment thereon, the Court of Appeal, the petitioner or the person sentenced may refer a point of law involved in any sentence passed on the person sentenced to the Supreme Court for its opinion, and the Supreme Court shall consider the point and give its opinion on it accordingly, and either remit the case to the Court of Appeal to be dealt with or itself deal with the case.
(8) A reference under subsection (6) shall be made only with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and leave shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Court of Appeal that the point of law is of general public importance and it appears to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court (as the case may be) that the point is one which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court.
(9) For the purpose of dealing with a case under this section, the Supreme Court may exercise any powers of the Court of Appeal.
(10) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland—
(a) subsection (2)(b) shall read as if for the words after ‘failed to’ there were substituted ‘impose a sentence required by—
(i) Article 70(2) of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004,
(ii) paragraph 2(4) or (5) of Schedule 2 to the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006,
(iii) Article 13 or 14 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, or
(iv) section 7(2) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015’.
(b) the references to sections 11 and 35(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 shall be read as references to sections 10(2) and 33(1) of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, respectively; and
(c) the reference in subsection (3A) to a minimum term order made under section 321 of the Sentencing Code shall be read as a reference to an order under Article 5(1) of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001.
36C The Commission
(1) The Commission under section 36B is the same body as that established under section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and the provisions of section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to the role of the Commission under this Part.
(2) Sections 9, 10, and 12A to 25 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 shall apply to this Part.
(3) The Commission must review all cases referred to it within 8 weeks of receiving any such referral and must, within that time, make its decision.
(4) If the Commission decides that the case should be referred to the Court of Appeal by reason of an unduly harsh sentence then, immediately upon receipt of the referral, the Court of Appeal must make an order that the person sentenced be released on temporary licence (‘ROTL’) until further order of the court, and the Court of Appeal must also determine suitable bail conditions, if any and the person sentenced must remain ROTL until the Court of Appeal has determined the referral.’”
This new clause would allow any British citizen to refer a sentence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, for the Commission to review the sentence and consider whether to refer it to the Court of Appeal.
New clause 41—Sentencing statistics: duty to publish—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, direct His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) to record and retain, in relation to all offenders convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court or Magistrates’ courts, the offender’s—
(a) country of birth
(b) nationality,
(c) ethnicity,
(d) immigration status, and
(e) the offence(s) for which they were sentenced.
(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the data recorded under subsection (1) to be published and laid before Parliament—
(a) within twelve months of the passing of this Act, and
(b) annually thereafter.”
This new clause would require the Government to record and publish statistics on convicted offenders’ birthplace, nationality, ethnicity and immigration status.
New clause 42—Crown Court sitting days for the delivery of sentencing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sittings day in the Crown Court in so far as it applies to sentencing hearings.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment made under subsection (1) before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sittings days in the Crown Court in so far as it applies to sentencing hearings.
New clause 43—Expiry—
“This Act expires at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”
This new clause is a sunset clause, meaning the Act would cease to have effect after two years.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.
Amendment 32, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, after “months” insert
“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.
This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.
Amendment 35, page 1, line 17, after “order” insert
“with the maximum operational period”.
This amendment would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.
Amendment 33, page 3, line 9, after “individual” insert “or the public”.
This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put the public (as well as an individual) at significant risk of harm.
Amendment 34, page 3, line 9, leave out “significant”.
This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the risk of harm applies, removing the requirement for the harm to be significant.
Amendment 14, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) Where a court has passed a suspended sentence under this section, it must also require the offender to be subject to an electronic monitoring requirement for the duration of the sentence.”
This amendment would require offenders (under the age of 21) given suspended sentences to be subject to electronic monitoring.
Amendment 15, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.”
Amendment 16, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender—
(a) has been convicted of three or more other offences in the 12 months leading to the conviction for which a suspended sentence would otherwise have been passed (the ‘current offence’);
(b) has been convicted of 10 or more offences prior to the current offence;
(c) has been convicted of the same offence as the current offence on three or more previous occasions;
(d) is convicted of an offence (the current offence) with a mandatory minimum custodial sentence;
(e) has previously received a suspended sentence order or a custodial sentence for the same offence as the current offence;
(f) has breached a suspended sentence order or orders on three or more occasions, either by breaching community requirements or committing a further offence;
(g) has a history of poor compliance with court orders, according to a written or oral statement from a probation officer;
(h) at the time of the current offence, was—
(i) subject to a supervision order; or
(ii) on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall).
(i) is convicted of an offence eligible for consideration under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or
(j) is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently.”
This amendment would prevent suspended sentences from being passed in a range of circumstances.
Amendment 17, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence—
(a) under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996; or
(b) aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).”
Amendment 18, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving a firearm or ammunition, including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.”
Amendment 19, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a burglary offence.”
Amendment 20, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon,”
Amendment 21, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a terrorism offence.”
Amendment 22, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).”
Amendment 36, page 4, line 4, after “months” insert
“before any credit is given for a guilty plea”.
This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would apply to sentences before credit is given for a guilty plea.
Amendment 39, page 4, line 7, after “order” insert
“with the maximum operational period”.
This amendment would mean that all suspended sentences given in place of immediate custody would be suspended for the maximum period.
Amendment 37, page 5, line 20, after “individual” insert “or the public”.
This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the court was of the opinion that not imposing an immediate custodial sentence would put the public (as well as an individual) at significant risk of harm.
Amendment 38, page 5, line 20, leave out “significant”.
This amendment would mean that the presumption for a suspended sentence would not apply where the risk of harm applies, removing the requirement for the harm to be significant.
Amendment 23, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) Where a court has passed a suspended sentence under this section, it must also require the offender to be subject to an electronic monitoring requirement for the duration of the sentence.”
This amendment would require offenders (aged 21 or over) given suspended sentences to be subject to electronic monitoring.
Amendment 24, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.”
Amendment 25, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender—
(a) has been convicted of three or more other offences in the 12 months leading to the conviction for which a suspended sentence would otherwise have been passed (the ‘current offence’);
(b) has been convicted of 10 or more offences prior to the current offence;
(c) has been convicted of the same offence as the current offence on three or more previous occasions;
(d) is convicted of an offence (the current offence) with a mandatory minimum custodial sentence;
(e) has previously received a suspended sentence order or a custodial sentence for the same offence as the current offence;
(f) has breached a suspended sentence order or orders on three or more occasions, either by breaching community requirements or committing a further offence;
(g) has a history of poor compliance with court orders, according to a written or oral statement from a probation officer;
(h) at the time of the current offence, was—
(i) subject to a supervision order; or
(ii) on licence, or subject to supervision, under Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release, licences, supervision and recall).
(i) is convicted of an offence eligible for consideration under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme under sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or
(j) is being sentenced for three or more offences concurrently.”
This amendment would prevent suspended sentences from being passed in a range of circumstances.
Amendment 26, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence—
(c) under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 or section 89 (1) of the Police Act 1996; or
(d) aggravated by section 68A of the Sentencing Act 2020 (assaults on those providing a public service etc).”
Amendment 27, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving a firearm or ammunition, including but not limited to the Firearms Act 1968 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006.”
Amendment 28, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a burglary offence.”
Amendment 29, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence involving possession of or threatening with an article with a blade or point or an offensive weapon,”.
Amendment 30, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of a terrorism offence.”
Amendment 31, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) But this section does not apply if the offender is convicted of an offence under section 6(1) or (2) of the Bail Act 1976 (failure to surrender to custody).”
Amendment 6, page 6, line 28, leave out clause 2.
Amendment 1, in clause 4, page 14, line 10, after “(including victims of crime” insert
“, ensuring their protection from further physical or psychological harm”.
This amendment would amend the statutory purposes of sentencing to incorporate safeguarding victims from further physical or psychological harm.
Amendment 9, page 36, line 9, leave out clauses 18 and 19.
Amendment 7, page 37, line 9, leave out clause 20.
Amendment 11, page 47, leave out lines 16 to 19.
This amendment would leave out the Bill's provision to give probation officers more discretion in relation to licence conditions
Amendment 2, in clause 24, page 49, line 14, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (4) of this section, undertake an assessment of the potential effects of a driving prohibition condition on a person’s ability to attend—
(a) employment,
(b) education, or
(c) a rehabilitation programme.
(11) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the assessment carried out under subsection (10) including recommendations on—
(a) offender rehabilitation,
(b) offender reintegration, and
(c) any other matters that the Secretary deems appropriate.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before commencing the driving prohibition provisions in the Bill, to publish a report on their potential effects on the ability of ex-offenders to attend employment, education and rehabilitation providers.
Amendment 3, page 49, line 14, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State must, before laying regulations commencing subsection (7) of this section, undertake and publish an assessment of the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on a person’s ability to attend—
(a) employment,
(b) education, or
(c) a rehabilitation programme.
(11) The court may provide for exemptions in a restriction zone condition to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.
(12) A probation officer may vary a restriction zone condition imposed by the court to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme.
(13) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, each year, a report on—
(a) the number of people subject to a restriction zone condition,
(b) the number of cases where a restriction zone condition has included an exemption or modification to allow a person to attend employment, education or a rehabilitation programme, and
(c) evidence on the effects of restriction zone conditions on reoffending and rehabilitation.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State, before implementing the relevant provisions, to assess the potential effects of a restriction zone condition on an ex-offender’s ability to attend education, employment or a rehabilitation programme. It would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions, and require an annual report on their use and effectiveness.
Amendment 12, page 66, line 34, leave out clause 36.
Amendment 13, page 68, line 8, leave out clause 37.
Amendment 4, page 68, line 24, leave out clause 38.
Mr Bedford
In September 2024, my constituents and, indeed, the country were left shocked by the senseless killing of Braunstone Town resident Bhim Kohli. Mr Kohli, a well-respected and decent man, was just walking through Franklin park as he usually did, accompanied by his dog Rocky, when he was targeted and assaulted to death by a 14-year-old boy, egged on by a 12-year-old girl.
Since this horrific event, I have been working with Mr Kohli’s daughter Susan, and I pay tribute to the Kohli family for the dignified manner in which they have dealt with the emotional and tragic aftermath of such a horrific incident. Susan is not looking for retribution; she is simply looking to promote justice for the families of victims, who at the moment do not feel that the justice system works for them. I pay tribute to Susan, who I know is sitting at home, alongside Rocky, watching today’s debate.
I have tabled new clauses 1 and 14 in memory of Mr Kohli, and I would like hon. Members across the House to support them. They would place greater responsibility on child offenders and the parents of child offenders. New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effectiveness and use of parental orders throughout the justice system. For hon. Members who do not know, parental orders are measures that either require parents of child offenders to pay for their children’s crimes, or force them to attend parenting classes. Yet, despite those powers being on the statute book, they are rarely used. In fact, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that their use has decreased from over 1,000 in 2010 to just 27 in recent years. That is woefully inadequate.
These measures are designed not to punish, but to support; to help families restore discipline and stability; and to prevent the next crime before it happens. Susan put it to me that if the parents of the two individuals in this case were placed under parental orders, they would perhaps appreciate the damage and impact that their negligent behaviour has caused. The fact that one of the parents recently asked for their child’s tag to be removed so that they could go on a family holiday is shameful.
New clause 14 would bring an end to anonymity protections for young offenders who commit the most heinous and serious crimes. I believe in deterrence, and I believe that when an individual commits an act so vile and abhorrent, the full weight of justice must be felt, including being named publicly. The boy—15 years old by the time of the trial—should not be shielded. Our judicial system should not protect those who have shown such disregard for human life; they should be named, just as Axel Rudakubana was following a court order, and as Mohammed Umar Khan was last week.
New clause 14 is simple: if an individual under the age of 18 commits a serious crime, they will be named—no ifs, no buts. In my eyes, if someone is old enough to commit such an appalling crime, they are old enough to face the full consequences of their actions.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent and passionate speech. Does he agree that the Government should consider supporting new clause 14 and removing anonymity for young people who commit such serious crimes, because they are looking to reduce the voting age to 16? We should talk about when people in this country become adults. They should not be protected if they commit such serious crimes.
Mr Bedford
I could not agree more. My hon. Friend mentions the rumours that the Government are planning to lower the voting age, and it would seem contradictory to have two ages of responsibility.
I will turn now to new clause 18, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). It is shocking that the girl who was with the 14-year-old boy, and who egged him on to commit the assault—quite literally to kill a man—did not receive a custodial sentence. Sentencing guidelines make it nearly impossible for individuals of that age to receive a custodial sentence. But what can we in this House do about that? The answer is “very little” because we have an unelected and unaccountable quango determining sentencing guidelines, rather than democratically elected Members in this place. That is wrong and must change.
We must abolish the Sentencing Council and restore democratic accountability to our judicial system to promote equality before the law and ensure that serious crimes are treated with the tough punishment that they deserve, irrespective of a defendant’s sob story. Crime is crime. That is why I also support new clauses 17 and 19, which would ensure tough sentences for those who commit sexual abuse or murder.
I also support new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), which would deliver a powerful message: someone who takes a life through dangerous or reckless driving should forfeit the privilege of driving. It would prioritise public safety and provide justice for families who have lost loved ones, like my constituent Emma Johnson who lost her parents to the actions of a careless driver.
I sincerely hope that the Government support the amendments. We in this place must ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Does the Chair of the Justice Committee wish to make a speech?
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I have only a couple of sentences, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To remind the Minister, in last week’s Committee, my new clause—which is effectively new clause 26 today—represented the views of a number of organisations, including the National Association of Probation Officers, recalling the problems that we faced with privatisation, particularly in relation to community service and unpaid work. In London in 2013, the supervision of unpaid work was privatised to Serco, and it was a catastrophic failure in providing both effective work and security for the community overall. It left a stain on the old process of managing community work. That was reflected when the previous Government totally privatised probation, which then had to be brought back in-house.
New clause 26 simply asks for an assurance from the Government that, although we will want to engage with voluntary organisations, charities and non-profit bodies, we will not seek the privatisation of community service and unpaid work, in particular the placement of former prisoners in work in which they could be exploited.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure will join me in supporting my new clauses 27 and 28, and new clause 25 in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson). My new clauses relate to probation capacity and the devolution of probation services to Wales, but in Committee we had no feedback whatsoever from the Minister at the close of the day. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those four new clauses, including his own, warrant a response from the Minister?
John McDonnell
That is why I tabled my new clause in Committee. I did not want to be a pain in the neck; I just wanted the Minister to acknowledge our understanding of the implications of the measures and the Probation Service’s overall concerns about these matters. I have re-tabled the new clause simply to get the Minister’s view and to hear the Government’s attitude on those issues. A range of amendments have come from the justice unions parliamentary group, which the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) chairs.
Let me be absolutely clear: community service has always been state-supervised work with charities and non-profit organisations. At no stage do we want to allow private sector organisations to profiteer in that area of service. No matter what attitude the Minister takes, I hope that he can give us an assurance on that. If there is a need for further discussion and dialogue, I am sure that the justice unions parliamentary group will be willing to meet him to go through those issues in more detail.
Andy Slaughter
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Although commercial organisations may well be able to run community schemes, it is clear that the ambition of voluntary organisations is rehabilitation and the prevention of reoffending, and that really must be the goal of community sentencing, which is at the heart of the Bill.
John McDonnell
I can only draw on the experience that my hon. Friend and I had when Serco was in charge, which was about profiteering and reducing costs, largely through a reduction in staff. He might recall that on occasion we had reports that community service volunteers were turning up, and the tools were not available for them to do their work. There was a lack of supervision, and in a few instances we discovered that some of the vehicles that they used had been forced into and were unsafe.
We do not want to go back to that profiteering. That is why an assurance that this provision will be managed and orientated by the state, using non-profit-making voluntary organisations and charities, would reassure those professionals who have unfortunately experienced the privatisation that has taken place in the past, to the detriment of us all.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 19, and other new clauses tabled in my name and those of Opposition Members. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) for opening the debate. He has drawn attention to an important issue, and something I often ponder. I am aware that many powers are available to tackle the involvement of parents in offending, but I never get the sense that they are working as well as we would want them to. My hon. Friend’s new clause would help us to get to the bottom of that.
It is a privilege to take part in this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, and to have a further opportunity to do what I can to make clear to Labour Members the enormous negative impact on victims that the Bill will have. The Bill will fundamentally change how we deliver justice for victims of serious violent and sexual crimes in this country. The official Opposition tabled amendments and new clauses in Committee, but we did not get to undertake line-by-line scrutiny in a proper Bill Committee. I suspect that that is because the Government know that the reality of the Bill is so damning that they fear an outright rebellion of their MPs if they cannot continue the pretence about what it does and does not do. Nevertheless, we attempted to provide a limited and more acceptable reform of the early release measures to exclude sexual and serious violence offenders. Labour MPs rejected that, and we are now left only with a new clause to remove those measures entirely.
Why do we persist? Because the consequences if we do not are dire. The Government have said time and again that no person who has committed what they describe as the “most serious” offences would be released earlier, but we know that to be completely false. The change in automatic release rules applies to all standard determinate sentences, and to every person who is on one.
I reiterate that the independent Library briefing note confirms that these releases will be automatic. More than 60% of offenders sentenced to prison for rape receive standard determinate sentences, as do more than 90% of those convicted of child grooming offences. Around half of individuals imprisoned for attempted murder are also given standard determinate sentences. Each year, hundreds of people convicted of child rape or sexual assault, including offences involving victims aged under 13, serve those types of sentences. In total, more than 6,000 offenders are sent to prison annually for serious violent sexual offences, and they will get out of prison earlier under the Bill.
I do not know in how many ways I can explain that to Members to overcome the briefing that it is not true, which is happening outside the Chamber. I have no choice but to take Members through the numbers. I have in front of me the sentencing data for those convicted of the rape of a female aged 16 or over. In total, 590 men on average are sent to prison for that offence every year. One hundred and ninety-seven of them would be excluded from the early release measures because they were given extended determinate sentences or life sentences, but 393 would not. That is 393 rapists—the vast majority—being sent to prison every year who will be let out of prison earlier. That is without including those guilty of the rape of children, many of whom will also be let out of prison earlier.
Many Members have spoken about terrible cases of causing death by dangerous driving. Glenn and Becky Youens from Justice for Victims campaign in memory of their daughter, Violet-Grace, who was killed at four years old by a drug dealer going at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. The drug dealer fled the scene then returned, stepping over her as she lay injured on the pavement, to get to their drugs. Are we seriously going to tell people such as Glenn and Becky that those perpetrators can get out of prison earlier in future? Because that is what will happen. Every year, 169 offenders on average are sent to prison for causing death by dangerous driving. Some 163 of them are given a standard determinate sentence and will get out of jail earlier as a result of the Bill, and some of them will serve only a third of their sentence.
I have pages of examples. Out of 228 offenders sent to prison every year for sexual grooming, 211 serve standard determinate sentences, and under the Bill, 196 will serve only a third of their sentence. Out of 475 people sent to prison every year for stalking, 458 serve standard determinate sentences, and under the Bill, 427 will serve only a third of their sentence. Out of 576 offenders sent to prison every year for the offence of sexual activity involving a child under 16, 502 will get out of prison earlier because of the Bill, and 269 of them will serve only a third of their sentence.
This morning, the Home Secretary said that she was glad that the “vile child sex offender”, as she described him, Hadush Kebatu, is off our streets. She is right to welcome that. Kebatu was convicted of sexual assault offences against women and girls. What do the measures proposed by the former Justice Secretary, who is now Home Secretary, mean in relation to other vile child sex offenders who have been sent to prison for the same offences? I can tell the House that under the Bill, two thirds of the offenders sent to prison for similar sexual assault offences will have to serve only a third of their sentence. The Government celebrate removing those offenders from the streets, while at the same time legislating to put them back on the streets.
It is shameful that Labour Members, with their majority, voted against our amendments and new clauses to remove the early release measures in specific circumstances. Our new clause to remove the measures entirely remains before the House, even if we will not get the opportunity to vote on it today.
New clause 19 seeks to address a clear gap in the law that I believe the majority of Members across the House would agree must be closed. At present, our sentencing framework requires that a whole life order be imposed on anyone convicted of murdering a police or prison officer while that officer is carrying out their duties. That provision acts as both a deterrent and a guarantee of justice for those who risk their lives in confronting dangerous offenders, yet a recent court case has created a precedent that that measure will not be applied if the prison or police officer is not actively on duty at the time of their murder.
I want to describe to the House the disturbing events surrounding the murder of former prison officer Lenny Scott, who was killed by a violent offender he had once supervised. Mr Scott was working as a prison officer at HMP Altcourse in Liverpool. In 2020, Elias Morgan offered him a bribe to keep it to himself that a phone had been found in Morgan’s cell. The vast majority of prison officers do an excellent job and follow the rules, but the House will be aware of examples of corruption in our prison service. Mr Scott could have taken that bribe—he almost certainly knew that Morgan was capable of violent offences and was involved in organised crime—and forgotten his duties and responsibilities, but he did not. He refused the bribe. He was then subjected to death threats by Morgan.
It is a matter of public record that Mr Scott’s time as a prison officer was not unblemished, but when it comes to the question of courage, sheer guts and bravery, refusing to be cowed by a violent thug, and refusing to take the easy way out, Mr Scott was an exemplar, not just to prison officers but to all of us. But Morgan made good on his threats, waiting for years, until 2024, to murder Mr Scott in cold blood. It was a carefully planned murder. Lancashire police found evidence that the month before the murder, Morgan was scoping out locations linked to Mr Scott. He drove close to Mr Scott’s home in Prescot in Merseyside, a gym in the Speke area of Liverpool where Mr Scott sometimes trained, and a gym on Peel Road in Skelmersdale, where the shooting would later take place. Morgan gunned down Mr Scott as he was leaving the gym, shooting him six times. Mr Scott did not stand a chance.
In 2013, the then Home Secretary, Theresa May—the former Prime Minister and right hon. Member for Maidenhead—announced that we would change the law so that the murder of a police officer or a prison officer would result in a whole life order. Speaking at the time in relation to police officers, she said:
“We ask police officers to keep us safe by confronting and stopping violent criminals for us. We ask you to take the risks so that we don’t have to…We are clear: life should mean life for anyone convicted of murdering a police officer.”
As prison officers carry out similar duties, the measures rightly included them.
However, the sentencing for Mr Scott’s murder has made it clear that the courts have not understood the will of Parliament, because Morgan was not given a whole life order. He was given a life sentence with a minimum tariff. It is true to say that his sentenceis longer than most, at 45 years, but Morgan was 35 when he was convicted, so it is not inconceivable that he could get out one day. I do not believe that Parliament intended for criminals like him to ever get out. I was shocked at that outcome; it had not occurred to me that the measure would not apply. I was very familiar with the measure in relation to police officers, following my own time as a volunteer police officer, so my initial reaction was to believe that it must not have been applied to prison officers, and I raised that in the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
indicated assent.
Dr Mullan
I note that the Minister is nodding.
We can ensure that criminals know that the fullest possible consequences of the law will follow if they murder a police or prison officer simply because they were doing their job.
New clause 20 seeks to establish notification and offender management requirements for those convicted of child cruelty offences, in effect creating a system similar to the sex offenders register for individuals who have abused and neglected children. I want to be clear why this matters. Every one of us in this House knows that behind the legal language of child cruelty or abuse lie some of the most distressing and life-altering crimes imaginable—crimes in which a child, utterly dependent and vulnerable, gets the worst instead of the best, often from those who are supposed to love and care for them.
This measure will not fix everything—sadly, that is not the world we live in—but before us there is a clear and proven step we can take towards improving how we protect our children. At present, if somebody is convicted of a sexual offence against a child, they are rightly placed on the sex offenders register. They are required to keep the police informed of their whereabouts, their identity and any change to their circumstances, including whether they live with children.
The requirement sits separately from probation requirements. If a person is convicted of an offence to which the requirements apply and receives a prison sentence of 13 months or more, the notification requirements are indefinite. That allows the police service, along with other agencies, better to assess and manage risk and ultimately to protect children and others from harm. If a person is convicted of horrific physical abuse, of neglect, or of causing a child’s death through sustained cruelty, there is no equivalent requirement. Once their sentence and probation is over, they can disappear into the community with no requirement to report where they live, no oversight by those who might need to protect other children, and no legal mechanism for ongoing management. That is a clear gap in our child protection system, and new clause 20 would correct it.
A person convicted of any of the listed child cruelty or violence offences, including causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, child cruelty or neglect, infanticide, exposing children whereby life is endangered, and female genital mutilation, would be required to notify the police of their details within three days of conviction or release. They would have to confirm where they live, any other addresses they use and any names that they go by. They would have to keep that information up to date and confirm it annually, just as child sex offenders already do.
Importantly, that information could be shared between the police and other agencies that work to safeguard children. That would give local law enforcement the information it needs to identify the risk that individuals could pose to the local community and to intervene with any precautionary measures early to protect children before harm could come. It would offer greater protection to the public by ensuring that those who have committed abuse and cruelty to children are treated in the same manner as those who have committed sexual abuse.
Let me say a few words about the reason why we are considering this measure and about an extraordinary lady called Paula Hudgell. Paula Hudgell’s name has been spoken before in this House. She is the adoptive mother of 11-year-old Tony Hudgell, who had both legs amputated after abuse by his birth parents. She has previously campaigned successfully for tougher sentences to be available for child abuse offences, for which she was awarded an OBE. When Paula adopted Tony, the criminals responsible for what happened to him—his birth parents—were not even going to be prosecuted. Paula told me that if anyone had done to her birth children what they had done to Tony, she would have done everything that she could to pursue justice, and that Tony was no different, even though he was adopted. That is exactly what she did for him, and in the end his birth parents were convicted. The maximum sentence they received appalled Paula, and her first campaign began, to change that maximum to a life sentence.
However, during the course of her campaigning and from getting to see the parole system and what it can do to monitor people after they have served their sentence, Paula got an incredible insight into the system’s flaws and what needed to change. Discussing it with a police officer, Becki Taft—I also pay tribute to her—who Paula got to know during the course of the prosecution, they both recognised the glaring omission that we are seeking to remedy today, so Paula acted. She is continuing to act despite facing enormous challenges in her personal circumstances, as she is undergoing treatment for cancer that can no longer be cured. Paula said:
“I’ve been battling cancer, but as long as I have fire in my belly, I’ll keep fighting to protect children by pushing for this register. That’s what keeps me going—knowing that Tony’s legacy can help save other young lives.”
She is an incredible woman who I am honoured to have gotten to know, and her MP, the shadow Solicitor General, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), has done so much to help Paula turn her campaign into words on a page—into legislation we can pass. She is someone I am pleased to be able to call a friend.
I sincerely thank the Justice Secretary for taking a direct interest in this issue, and I am sure that the Minister will also want to closely consider it. I want to ensure that the strength of feeling among Conservative Members and others is reflected in the Lobby tonight. It may be that the Government are not ready to support this measure this evening. Labour MPs may feel that that is reasonable at this stage, but I would welcome a commitment from the Dispatch Box that will enable me to conclude that we can agree to work cross-party in the other place to get this done.
I look forward to the rest of the debate, and to considering amendments tabled by other Members. I hope I have been able to clearly explain our proposals, which relate to prison and police officer whole life orders and the child cruelty register. However, whatever else this Bill achieves and whatever else we might reasonably disagree on, at the heart of the Bill is the biggest step backwards in securing justice for the victims of serious crime in a generation. For it to pass unamended would represent a betrayal of victims. I do not believe that Labour Members want that, and it is not too late. I am confident that the Lords will not let this Bill pass unamended, so at some point, Labour MPs will again be able to decide to say no to the Prime Minister and his plan.
MPs always have choices, and this Government spend £1 trillion a year on various services. Whatever the positive and honourable intentions Labour Members have when it comes to securing justice for victims, and whatever positive measures they suggest, they will be disastrously undone if they do not work collaboratively to make clear that they will not support measures that will let thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
My new clause 36 seeks to implement a key recommendation of David Gauke’s independent sentencing review, on which the measures in this Bill are based. The new clause proposes that release at one third of a sentence should be conditional on positive actions and purposeful activity, such as attending education classes, engaging in voluntary work and participating in drug rehabilitation.
My amendment seeks to address the prison capacity crisis by embedding an emphasis on rehabilitation into the earned progression model from its very first stage. Incentivising purposeful activity will do two things. First, it will actively reward better behaviour within prison, leading to fewer instances of additional adjudication days being added.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that offering clear incentives for earned release is a key way of offering certain offenders clear chances to change, thereby reducing the risk of reoffending and enhancing public protection?
Linsey Farnsworth
I absolutely agree. As my hon. Friend will have seen—she sits alongside me on the Justice Committee—there is clear evidence to back that up. Secondly, starting the process of rehabilitation through positive requirements earlier will reduce reoffending rates on release, thereby cutting crime and consequently easing pressure on prison capacity in the longer term.
To develop my first point, inquiries by the Justice Select Committee have found worryingly high rates of drug and alcohol abuse, self-harm, and violence against inmates and staff. Evidence submitted by Collective Voice shows that prisoners are more likely to develop substance misuse issues while in custody if they lack meaningful activity. The Prisoners’ Education Trust has described how participating in education has rehabilitative benefits, helping people in prison to occupy their time positively and learn new skills.
His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons found that the prisons best able to tackle substance abuse combined clear boundaries, high expectations and, importantly, meaningful incentives. Prisons such as HMP Oakwood and HMP Rye Hill, which offer rich, purposeful activity, see significantly lower rates of drug use and better behaviour. By incentivising engagement in well-resourced, purposeful activity, new clause 36 would reduce the likelihood of prisoners turning to substances or violence. In turn, fewer prisoners would incur additional days on their sentence, which would ease overcrowding and the strain on prison staff.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. As she said, the chief inspector of prisons has found that rehabilitation in prisons is not working. This Bill presents an opportunity for a sea change in how that works, as well as in reoffending when people leave prison. As a member of the Select Committee, she will know that we will soon produce a major report on rehabilitation. It is essential that purposeful activity becomes the norm in prisons, and not the exception.
Linsey Farnsworth
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee. I greatly trust and rely on his opinion. It is essential that rehabilitative work is available to all in prisons, as I will go on to talk about in a little more detail.
On my second point, structured rehabilitation during custody prepares individuals for life after release. As the earned progression model stands, the emphasis on rehabilitation begins largely during the intensive supervision stage. While I welcome the focus and measures in the Bill to tackle the root causes of crime, we should not wait until release from custody to begin that important work. Too often, individuals return upon release to the same environments, the same pressures and the same risks that contributed to their offending in the first place. Why wait, when we can intervene when they are most reachable? We literally have a captive audience. If people leave custody having already engaged in structured rehabilitation, they are more likely to respond positively to supervision and less likely to reoffend. That in turn reduces pressure on the Probation Service, which is also already under immense strain.
To summarise, the model proposed by new clause 36 is fair and proportionate, actively rewarding good behaviour while existing provisions in the Bill punish bad behaviour. Those who engage constructively while in custody through an earned progression scheme may be released as early as a third in. Those who break the rules will serve more days. Meanwhile, those who neither engage positively nor breach rules will see no change in their release date. That ensures that rehabilitation, positive behaviour, purposeful activity and steps towards reintegration are actively incentivised and baked in to the earned progression model from the start.
Having said that, I understand that practicalities have to be considered in implementing this positive requirements scheme, if it is to be successful. Years of neglect by the previous Government have left our prison system overstretched and under-resourced. On 4 February, the Justice Committee heard evidence from Clinks, the Prison Reform Trust, Women in Prison, and Nacro. We were told during that session that only 50% of prisoners are engaged in education or work, which is often part-time and not rehabilitative. That is due to staffing shortages, overcrowding and limited resources and facilities. In essence, we have inherited prisons that cannot offer the programmes people need and access to purposeful activity is highly inconsistent.
I recognise the immense scale of the challenge in getting the prison system to a place where the proposals in my new clause can be implemented fairly, effectively and with the necessary resources across the country. While I do not expect the Government to accept my new clause today, I strongly urge the Minister to commit to incorporating positive requirements on purposeful activity in the earned progression model as soon as conditions allow. This incremental approach is in line with the position that David Gauke outlined in his review.
He said:
“This Review holds the view that, as prison capacity eases and fuller regimes become possible, compliance requirements for earned release should become more demanding.”
Only by doing this will we truly future-proof our prisons, help people to turn their backs on crime, and ensure, unlike the last Government, that we always have places in our prisons for the most dangerous offenders.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
As the House has heard repeatedly in recent weeks, our justice system is crumbling under the strain in our courts, prisons and probation services, bulging at the seams, stretched to the limit and ultimately failing all who come into contact with it. It is not adequately punishing criminals, not rehabilitating them, and not protecting victims and survivors. Confidence has been slowly eroded and undermined. This has to end. The Bill provided ample opportunity for us to address these issues, with scope to consider how we tackle the looming projection of a prison population of over 100,000 in just three years’ time. I am disappointed that such a large Bill, which makes fundamental changes to sentencing, was not given the line-by-line scrutiny that a Bill Committee, rather than a Committee of the whole House, could have afforded it.
The Liberal Democrats are supportive of many of the steps taken in the Bill, and, in the spirit of working collaboratively on a crisis that affects us all, we have tabled a number of amendments that seek to improve and strengthen it. For example, we welcome clause 3, which would give courts the power to order offenders to make monthly payments from their income, and we have tabled new clause 3 to ask the Government to assess whether income reduction orders could be used to fund victim support. On the topic of financial penalties, new clause 33 would create a power for sentencing courts to require offenders to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependants, ensuring that their responsibility to provide support is not automatically void during a custodial sentence.
Creating a presumption of a suspended sentence for terms of under 12 months is a measure for which the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned. It is a necessary step to reduce prison overcrowding, but it also plays a vital role in reducing reoffending, with rehabilitation offered in the community. Sixty-two per cent of those serving custodial sentences of less than 12 months go on to reoffend, but only 24% reoffend if they are given a suspended sentence or a community order. We do not need to send offenders to prison to become better criminals; we need to support them to become better citizens. Creating a rehabilitative system will, in the long term, reduce costs, protect victims and ease the pressure on our public services. The work of our justice system should be centred on that goal, for the good of all.
To that end, new clause 12 would allow and facilitate access to rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support for prisoners held on remand before their sentencing hearings. As of June this year, 20% of the prison population are on remand and yet to have their sentencing hearings. With court backlogs at an all-time high, we see offenders arriving at their sentencing hearings, receiving their sentences, and then heading straight home because of the length of time that they have served on remand. Remand prisons are often overcrowded, and typically suffer from understaffing and inadequate facilities. These prisoners should be offered the same level of support as sentenced prisoners if we are to reduce the levels of reoffending.
We are, of course, supportive of the identifier that was included in the Bill following the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), in collaboration with the Government. I commend his hard work and determination to make tangible changes for those who have experienced domestic abuse, providing greater confidence that their abusers will be dealt with suitably in the system, and I thank the Government for their constructive engagement with him on this issue. However, our campaign does not end there. New clause 8 would ensure that domestic abuse was treated as an aggravated offence, reflecting the severity and the long-term impact of such crimes on victims. New clause 9 asks the Government
“to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes”
to tackle violence against women and girls, for individuals sentenced to offences such as assault, battery and actual bodily harm when the victim was female.
We have also tabled a number of amendments relating to the Probation Service, because none of this means anything if probation is not properly resourced. I know that the Government will refer to the £700 million of additional funding, but it is not yet being felt on the frontline of probation, where the situation remains as described by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation earlier this year. According to the inspectorate, the service
“has too few staff, with too little experience and training, managing too many cases.”
Without maximum caseloads, we open ourselves up to a higher risk of human error and also a more cautious approach to recalling, because staff simply do not have the capacity to manage people in the community effectively.
Probation officers believe fundamentally in rehabilitation and in supporting offenders to reintegrate into society, but I must raise some serious concerns around the removal of the existing short-term and standard recalls in favour of a 56-day blanket recall for all offenders except those identified through a multi-agency public protection arrangement.
For example, under the current guidance, somebody who might be engaging with mental health services in the community but not attending their probation appointment—somebody who is therefore non-compliant with their agreement—would be recalled for 28 days under a fixed-term recall. That means that, if they are in temporary accommodation, as we know a lot of people coming out of prison are, the likelihood is that the accommodation will still be there when they have served their fixed term, and they can re-engage with the programmes in the community that they were already on.
Under the new arrangements, though, in the same circumstances, somebody recalled for 56 days would be coming out and, in effect, starting again, having lost their accommodation arrangements and their place on the community programme with which they were engaging, as places are typically only held for up to four weeks. The likelihood of them then going on to reoffend—in a cycle—will increase, and we will see the same people being recalled.
At the other end of the spectrum, if a serious offender breached their licence by intimidating, harassing or stalking their victim, instead of receiving a standard recall, which would last until the end of their sentence, they would be returned to serve just 56 days. Those who in probation are classified as medium-risk offenders—that covers the majority of offences related to violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse perpetrators and stalkers—would not come under the Government’s proposed exclusions relating to MAPPA levels 2 and 3.
On Monday in this Chamber, we spoke at length and there was consensus across the House that we needed to do more to support victims, but the recall measures in the Bill directly contradict that desire. There is a serious omission, which we are extremely concerned will lead to the release of dangerous criminals on to our streets, who will then continue to reoffend. New clause 31 would ensure that offenders who have committed certain serious offences would not be eligible for automatic release following a fixed-term recall, and I implore the Minister to go away and look at that proposal.
This Bill provided a great chance to address some key issues in our justice system, and it showed signs of life, taking an innovative approach to some issues, but it ultimately lacks vision and, expectedly, funding. I thank Members for their engagement, and encourage them to support new clause 12.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I am pleased to support this vital Sentencing Bill, which represents a significant step towards protecting victims and delivering justice.
I would like to draw Members’ attention to new clauses 8 and 31 and amendment 1. The Conservatives claimed to be champions of law and order, yet their record was of lawless disorder. After 14 years in power, they increased sentence lengths without planning the prison places to uphold them, delivering just a few hundred spaces while violence, drugs and chaos spiralled across our prison estates. They left our justice system on the brink, and forced the early release of more than 10,000 offenders in secret, shattering public confidence.
This Government are taking a different path. We are delivering the largest prison expansion since Victorian times; 2,500 new places are already open and we are on track for 14,000 by 2031. We will ensure that we will never again run out of prison capacity. We must also make prisons work. That means punishment that cuts crime through earned release, tougher community sentences, intensive supervision and proper rehabilitation that turns offenders away from crime for good.
Central to making sentencing work is protecting victims, not just at the point of conviction but every day thereafter. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for highlighting the important issue of domestic abuse in new clauses 8 and 31. The Bill introduces a powerful new mechanism under clause 6, “Finding of domestic abuse”, by ensuring that, once the court is satisfied that an offence involves domestic abuse, it must declare that is the case in an open court, permanently recognising the heightened harm to victims. This activates stronger protections, which can include electronic tagging and exclusion zones, ensuring that offenders can be tracked in real time and kept away from victims’ homes and workplaces.
The “Loose Women” Facing It Together campaign has powerfully shown the real human impact of domestic abuse and the urgent need for continuous protection. The measures in the Bill meet that need, ensuring that abusers cannot return to intimidate or control and that victims are safeguarded, with the full force of the law behind them. These landmark reforms will end the crisis that we inherited, and restore faith in a justice system that protects the public and puts victims first.
Since my election, I have been campaigning tirelessly on the issue of tool theft, a crime that devastates the livelihoods of tradespeople across our country. There are too many to list in this House today, but I expect that we all know someone who has been a victim of this crime. The rate of suicide among construction workers is the highest of any profession—four times higher than that for any other occupation. In December 2024, I laid a ten-minute rule Bill before the House that called for tool theft to be recognised as a significant additional harm and for courts to consider the total financial loss to victims. That would mean considering not just the value of the tools themselves, but the cost of repairs and the loss of work, and the ripple effect on businesses and families.
Having worked closely with Justice Ministers over the past year, I am pleased to see that the Bill recognises the additional protections needed for victims, for which the sector has been calling. This Bill, with its provisions requiring courts to consider the full impact of theft on victims, its new restriction zones that can ban prolific thieves from construction sites and tool retailers, and its tougher community sentences, delivers transformative protections for tradespeople. Although the Government do not support amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), I thank him for enabling a discussion on the wider impact of crime.
I am pleased to note that the Bill requires courts to consider the full impact of crime, including psychological harm. It recognises what victims of tool theft and, indeed, all crimes have been telling us all along: harm does not stop when tools are stolen or a crime is committed. The psychological harm of losing one’s livelihood, the anxiety about future thefts and the mental health impact of not being able to work are real harms that must be considered when sentencing offenders, and the Bill delivers in this regard.
These reforms will protect the public through tougher sentencing and tighter monitoring, cut crime by stopping reoffending before it happens, support victims by recognising harm and preventing future abuse, and build a safer society with less crime and, ultimately, fewer victims.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I wish to speak to new clause 20, regarding the introduction of a child cruelty register. Tony and Paula Hudgell are my constituents, and I have had the honour of getting to know both of them—especially Paula, Tony’s adoptive mum—extremely well. One special aspect of our job as MPs is getting to meet incredible people doing incredible things, often behind the public gaze, but in a decade and a half as a Member—I am showing my age now—I have personally never come across such a courageous, driven and united mother-and-son team. That is what they are: a team, especially given Tony’s young age of 11.
New clause 20 would introduce a child cruelty register, described so eloquently and passionately by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), who is also a great champion of victims. It underlines what our job is really about: changing and improving the lives of our constituents, keeping them safe and protecting the most vulnerable.
When Tony was just a little baby—41 days old—his birth parents, Jody Simpson and Anthony Smith, abused him so badly that he had to have both his legs amputated. Tony will have to live with the consequences of his injuries for the rest of his life. Smith and Simpson were sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by a judge at Maidstone Crown court—at the time, the maximum that the judge could give. They served eight years, and were released quite recently. They will be managed and monitored by police and probation for the remaining two years of their sentences, but after that, there is nothing—zero. There will be no management, no monitoring, and no reporting requirements if they change their names, start a new family, move county or have more children, and their case details will be archived, leaving a terrible and dangerous gap in our child protection system.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I want to speak in support of new clause 36, which would require offenders to comply with an earned progression scheme before being subject to release. I think that is an important opportunity to enhance the Government’s ambitions for this Bill, because shoplifting, antisocial behaviour and car break-ins continue to plague my constituents in Accrington town centre.
Increases in levels of town centre crime and break-ins are often caused by offenders released early who have failed to receive the rehabilitation they require. They often have drug or alcohol addictions, and they are back on the streets trying to feed those addictions, and stuck in a cycle of lose, lose, lose—for my residents, for the police and for the taxpayer. Although we must be tough on crime, we must also tackle the root causes of crime and ensure that the system delivers for victims and stops the revolving door of our prisons that serves none of us.
The reforms to the community order requirements will lead to less crime and safer streets for my constituents in a number of areas. The Bill will provide a more tailored and effective approach to punishment and rehabilitation, because courts will have expanded tools to tailor community and suspended sentence orders to better fit the individual offender, the offence and the risk posed. The Bill adds new community requirements to the list of options attached to a community or suspended sentence order, such as prohibitions on driving or attending pubs, bars, clubs or public events, and being restricted to geographic zones. That enhanced flexibility means that sentences in the community can be more meaningful and effective—not just a series of generic tasks, but specifically calibrated to the offender’s behaviour, the harm caused and the need to protect the public and victims. It ensures that community-based sentences are not perceived as light or ineffective, but carry real conditions and consequences.
The Bill also strengthens public protection and victim confidence; in fact, bolstering protection for victims and communities is one of the key aims of the reforms. By allowing restriction zones, bans on attending premises that sell alcohol or public events, and driving prohibitions, the Bill enables courts to impose orders that explicitly guard against certain behaviours or contexts associated with risk. Those measures reassure victims that offenders remain under meaningful restrictions and that community sentences carry real weight and oversight, rather than being a passive “watch and wait” approach. In turn, that helps to maintain public confidence in our justice system and supports the principle that people who offend should face real consequences.
Furthermore, the Bill supports rehabilitation while reducing the unnecessary use of custody, which must be for the most violent and serious offenders. It complements the broader move to ensure that custody is used appropriately—not as a default for lower-level offenders, but reserved for cases where it is necessary for public protection. By strengthening community orders and equipping the courts with more tailored requirements, the Bill supports the case that many offenders can be managed in the community through conditions that deter, restrict and rehabilitate. For far too long, the evidence has shown that it is those changes that will tackle the ongoing problems that the courts and prisons are facing, as well as the ongoing issues with that low-level but incredibly damaging crime happening time and again in our communities.
Such approaches help to reduce prison overcrowding, better align our resources, and focus custodial capacity on those who most require it. At the same time, the reforms encourage compliance—for example, by introducing a community sentence progression scheme, under which offenders who fully comply with the requirements and complete their sentence may have their community order terminated early.
There are practical benefits for communities, offenders and the Probation Service. For communities, community orders become more visible and meaningful. The added conditions reflect the reality that punishment and supervision in the community should be not lesser than custody, but different. For offenders, the structured environment of a community sentence with tailored requirements offers the possibility of real change through supervision, conditional freedom and accountability, rather than automatic imprisonment, which can increase harm and reoffending. For the Probation Service, the Bill’s provisions also include strengthened investment in community supervision, better tools for monitoring and enforcement, and clearer mechanisms for rewarding compliance.
In conclusion, the Bill represents a significant advance in our justice framework, offering modernised, flexible and robust community sentencing options that strengthen public protection, shore up victim confidence, support rehabilitation and make more effective and efficient use of our resources. The new community order requirements and community requirements are central to that: by giving courts more precise, meaningful powers, they ensure that justice is done in the community as well as through custody. I am confident that they will make a real difference to my constituents in Hyndburn, who are rightfully frustrated that they see the same people causing the same problems, and no real solutions to the crimes that those people are committing.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
As we return to consideration of this dreadful Bill, we debate amendments and new clauses that are designed to mitigate its worst effects, in particular new clauses 43, 21, 18, 19 and 20, which I have signed, and new clause 1.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
On new clause 1, will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir John Hayes
It is early in my speech, but such is my regard for my right hon. Friend that I will.
Edward Argar
I am very grateful. As a former sentencing Minister, I can see no logical reason why the Government would oppose new clause 1—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), my fellow Leicestershire MP—which simply asks for an assessment and recommendations to be made and for them to be reported back to this House. Can my right hon. Friend, who is himself a former senior Home Office Minister, see any reason why the Government could not simply do the right thing and accept new clause 1?
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks about my experience in government, which are far too flattering. I agree that new clause 1 is precisely the kind of amendment that the Government could accept. He will know from his time in government, as I do, that no Act is the Bill as it began, for Bills metamorphose during their consideration. Wise Governments listen to arguments that are made during scrutiny, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee, and the best Ministers allow the Bill that they introduced to change over time. That is the purpose of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) has done a service to this House in tabling this new clause, thereby allowing the Minister to improve the Bill in the way he suggests.
As we have debated this Bill over time, a distinct difference has emerged between practicalities and principles. The question remains: is this a Bill built on expediency—a necessary response to the unbearable tension between prison supply and the demand for prison places—or a Bill born of a distaste for incarceration as a means of delivering justice? The first is inexcusable; the second indefensible; but neither is inexorable.
In practice, as the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, if remand were treated in a different way—and that, essentially, is about more court sittings and more court time for faster access to justice—fewer prisoners would be kept on remand. If we do not believe that, we would have to assume that every person brought to trial would be found guilty or imprisoned, which cannot be true.
If we dealt with the huge number of foreign national offenders more swiftly—[Interruption.] I know the Government are making those attempts, but it is not enough, any more than what the previous Government did. If we dealt with that issue more swiftly, we would alter the demand for places, for too much of the debate focuses on the supply of prison places and not on the demand-side drivers that absorb places, which could be eased.
When we last debated the Bill, we talked about my ideas for supply-side change. I will not repeat myself, for you would not allow me to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to the amendments and new clauses before us today. However, the Minister needs to think more laterally and creatively. I imagine that he is a bright man—or bright-ish, at least. If he did so, he could look at those demand-side drivers and deal with the practicalities.
As for principles, it is time to end the liberal orthodoxy that has perpetuated the pervasive myth that crime is an illness to be treated, and not a destructive, deviant decision that warrants punishment. In the previous debate we heard many times the argument that everyone deserves a second chance, which I have no doubt underpins much of the resistance to the amendments proposed today.
As I listened to the powerful case my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) made, I asked myself this: can anyone in this place with a heart believe that those who terrorise and torture children persistently and who maim and murder innocent babes—sometimes their own—deserve a second chance? Can anyone with a heart really believe that those who killed two people dedicated to the service of others—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, Members of this House—deserve a second chance? Does that awful self-deluded Islamist fanatic who plotted and planned and executed little girls at a pop concert deserve a second chance? The only second chance they all deserve is when they stand before their maker and beg for forgiveness. For us to forgive such extreme acts is to play God. Forgiveness at that level and to that degree is beyond any Member in this Chamber, for it is beyond any human being. That is what I think about second chances.
Linsey Farnsworth
Does the right hon. Member realise that the Sentencing Council does not just pluck out of the air its sentencing recommendations? It consults widely with a variety of organisations, people working in the criminal justice system and the public before coming to its conclusions about the right sentences for offences. I would submit that there should be recognition of the work that it does.
Sir John Hayes
I simply say to the hon. Lady that when we delegate that kind of authority to those who are unelected and unaccountable, we are no longer doing our job. Her view, which has prevailed for a very long time, is not entirely the fault of Labour; it is a problem with the whole political class. We have created every kind of body imaginable in every aspect of government to do things that should be done by this House and by Ministers of the Crown.
The Sentencing Council is just another of those bodies. Who knows who is on the Sentencing Council? Certainly most of the hon. Lady’s constituents and most of mine would not have a clue, and they certainly would not know how to influence them in any way. Of course, it is working people who are most disadvantaged by that, not the privileged few who occupy the social circles that the Sentencing Council no doubt occupies. It is the hard-working, patriotic and law-abiding majority in my constituency and hers who are frustrated by a criminal justice system that persistently excuses the worst kinds of crimes rather than punishing them as they deserve to be punished.
There is a new future emerging in the post-liberal age as we build a new order. That order will be inspired by time-honoured truths, rooted in the will of the people and powered by a ceaseless determination to recapture our country for our people. Burke said:
“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”
The tyranny of the cruelty of crime and disorder will haunt places and people across our country as the vile and vicious are let loose. I urge the House to accept the variety of amendments that I have mentioned and the many others on the amendment paper that are attempts to rescue the Bill from that horror.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I rise to speak to the amendments that I have tabled. I am delighted to have another attempt to stop the Government doing something that defies justice as well as common sense and that will make our streets less safe. As I said in Committee, my amendments would mean that some serious offenders would not be given the “get out of jail free” card proposed by the Government.
Since Committee, we have had the ludicrous situation involving Hadush Kebatu, who was released from prison after being jailed for sex offences. Quite rightly, there was a public outcry and widespread condemnation from politicians. The massive irony is that if the Bill had already been passed, he would have qualified for the presumption in favour of a suspended prison sentence and would not have been in prison in the first place.
Under my amendments 15, 16, 24 and 25, foreign offenders and sex offenders would not be included in the presumption in favour of a suspended sentence when an immediate prison sentence was deemed to be the right outcome by the courts, so someone like Kebatu would still be sent to prison. I hope that Labour Members agree with those amendments, especially given that the Health Secretary said:
“This man was behind bars because of serious sex offences…So the idea that he’s loose on the streets is incredibly serious.”
Perhaps the Health Secretary will back my amendments, and perhaps he will have a word with the Justice Secretary to get him to back my amendments as well.
Following the Kebatu debacle, people have blamed the incompetence of prison staff in releasing him, yet if the Government do not accept my amendments we will not need to be concerned about the incompetence or otherwise of our Prison Service, because such offenders will not even go to prison. However, we can be sure of the incompetence of the Government in allowing these sentencing changes to happen and in not sending offenders like Kebatu to prison. Even the Secretary of State for Justice said:
“Let’s be clear, Kebatu committed a nasty sexual assault involving a young child and a woman, and for those reasons this of course is very serious.”
On Monday, he said to the House:
“Mr Kebatu’s victims are rightly outraged about what has happened. I am livid on their behalf, and on behalf of the public.”
He also said:
“He is back where he belongs: behind bars.”—[Official Report, 27 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 43.]
If it is so serious, and the Justice Secretary really means that Kebatu belongs behind bars, why on his watch will the Bill ensure that the next Kebatu will not be behind bars, and will not be sent to prison in the first place? These are serious questions that need to be answered. It is not too late for the Government to stop this dangerous aspect of the Bill and prove to everyone outside this Chamber that they are not hypocrites, by accepting my amendments.
While they are at it, the Government need to seriously consider accepting my amendments 20 and 29, which would prevent those who commit knife crimes from being eligible for suspended sentences. The Government should hang their head in shame for proposing a non-prison sentence for the offence of carrying a knife on our streets, and even for those who commit the offence more than once. I am sure that many Members will know of cases where someone has been injured or killed by a knife. Everyone who votes for the Bill without amendment will be voting to enable someone who carries a knife or threatens people with a knife, even repeatedly, to avoid prison.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
While I do not doubt for a second the right hon. Lady’s impassioned belief in the need to keep dangerous offenders off our streets, does she agree that it was actually the Conservative Government that cut funding to our prisons? There was a 24% real-terms cut from 2010 to 2015, resulting in 30% cuts in staffing. That has clearly had an impact on the ability of any Government to send individuals to prison, and it happened under the last Government.
Esther McVey
I shall remind the hon. Member what happened. The last Labour Government collapsed the economy, and the coalition was brought into power to get the books back on track. Unfortunately, as always happens after a Labour Government, spending had to be cut because they had bankrupted the country. When there was more money in the bank, we did need to invest more, and that is why the last Conservative Government put £4 billion into building more prisons. Three have now been completed and there are a further three left to be completed.
Do Members really want it on their conscience that they are changing the laws for people with knives or who threaten with knives? I think not. Labour has always talked tough on this matter, but now that it is in a position to do something about it, it fails. The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) stated:
“Under a Labour Government, there will be tough consequences for carrying a knife. A Labour Government will end the empty words and apology letters for knife possession, and will guarantee sanctions and serious interventions for young people who carry knives.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2025; Vol. 750, c. 332WH.]
Those were the words of the Labour party, but sadly, Labour will not do that. Time and again, Labour is proving to be a party of empty words and broken promises, and this will be yet another example. There will be plenty of people ready and willing to remind Labour Members of this, especially an outraged public. There will be no words of comfort for the family of a needless victim of this type of crime.
Members should also think twice about the fact that those who assault emergency workers will be included in this prison avoidance Bill. I know that many Labour MPs very much supported the introduction of the offence of assaulting an emergency worker, with its increased sentence for those who are convicted, yet all of that will have been for nothing if the Bill is passed in its current form, because people who assault emergency workers and receive sentences of 12 months or less will be likely to avoid prison altogether. Having worked hard to increase the sentence to 12 months in prison for assaulting an emergency worker, Labour will now effectively be agreeing to zero months in prison in many cases. The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who introduced the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, did so to ensure that those assaulting emergency workers felt
“the full force of the law”.—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1159.]
The right hon. Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich (Ellie Reeves) supported the legislation and said that it was “long overdue”. The trade unions supported it. The GMB national officer said at the time:
“It’s welcome to see arrests taking place, but we also need to see an increase in prosecutions and tougher sentences handed down for these unacceptable assaults.”
My amendments 17 and 26 would exclude the offence from the Bill and show support for those who risk their lives to keep us all safe. What a kick in the teeth it will be for emergency workers to know that this Government do not have their backs at all. It seems the Government would rather be on the side of many of those who assault our emergency workers or to keep them from being sent to prison—as they should be. The amendments would also exclude assaults on those generally providing a public service.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I welcome the Minister, my former Home Affairs Committee colleague, to his place. I urge all Members to support the excellent amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), particularly new clause 11 on the suspension of driving licences during bail on driving-related offences, which is a common-sense proposal. I echo her praise of our hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for his excellent, passionate and successful campaign on tagging for domestic abuse crimes—a policy that the Government have adopted. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester in urging the Government to go further than that by supporting new clause 8, which would make those aggravated crimes.
I tabled new clause 35, which has already received support from across the House, on behalf of the of the Saltern family from my North Cornwall constituency. Their campaign—known as Ryan’s law—was launched a few years ago by Helen and Mark Saltern after their son Ryan was tragically hit and killed by a car after leaving the village carnival in St Teath. The driver did not stop to check on Ryan, administer first aid or even phone the police or other emergency services. Instead, Ryan—a father of one—was left in the road to die. The driver drove into work the next day as if nothing had happened. What punishment was the offender given for that fatal hit and run? He avoided prison entirely and was handed just a four-month suspended sentence by the magistrates court.
The family of course acknowledge that accidents happen, but the driver left a young man dying in the road, did not even give it a second thought as he sped off—too cowardly to do the right thing—and did not spend a single day in prison for his crimes. I cannot imagine the pain that the family must feel. In response to that enormous injustice, they launched their “Ryan’s law” campaign and a petition that received overwhelming national support, reaching 167,000 signatures. Countless other families have been affected by similar cases right across this country.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I would like to draw attention to two cases in my constituency, one of which I have spoken about before in this place, in which a lady called Lorraine lost her life. It involved somebody who was driving, possibly while looking at their mobile phone, and again, that person did not go to prison. It is tragic that my hon. Friend’s new clause has to set out things that to most of us would seem absolutely natural. Someone should not have to be told to stop, to report, and to phone the police—to do all those things. I think this new clause is necessary, but it is a terrible shame that we live in a world where people do not think that is the right way to behave.
Ben Maguire
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a horrible indictment on our society and our country that we have to table such a new clause. Sadly, however, because of the hundreds, if not thousands, of cases such as the one she rightly points out, unfortunately it is necessary.
Mark and Helen Saltern, and their daughter Leanne, have campaigned tirelessly for years on this issue. The family have set up RysHaven, a safe, dedicated space where grieving families of hit-and-run victims can escape to Cornwall to take a moment to breathe, process, and recover from their heartbreaking traumas. New clause 35, would introduce three new aggravating factors to the Bill. It would mean that offenders such as the man who hit and killed Ryan Saltern would have the failure to stop, the failure to administer first aid, and the failure to alert emergency services about the hit and run added as “aggravating factors”, specifically when it comes to sentencing those guilty of causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving.
I also support new clause 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). Death by dangerous driving should, of course, result in a lifetime driving ban—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) said earlier, that just seems common sense. I urge colleagues from across this House to support my new clause. This is not just for Ryan and his family; the new clause is for the hundreds of hit-and-run victims across this country. I urge Ministers to hear me, and the thousands of loved ones who are left to suffer such injustice. Please right this gross wrong. If the Government will not accept the new clause tonight, I sincerely hope that they will give it serious consideration.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Bill illustrates a wider theme that we see across a number of debates in the House, which is the gap between the Government’s words and how they vote. Indeed, that is illustrated by a number of the new clauses that colleagues on the Opposition Benches have already spoken to.
New clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), highlights the inconsistency within the Labour manifesto that sets out a commitment to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, but then says that even if they commit an offence so serious that it warrants a custodial sentence of four or more years, that person is too young to be named. I asked the House of Commons Library to clarify that. A custodial sentence of four or more years is not given out lightly by the courts, particularly not to those of that age, and it said that this would involve serious sexual offences, murder, or armed robbery. We see tweets from Members of Parliament when a boy or girl is stabbed to death, but Labour Members are not willing to vote to name those who commit such offences. It is wrong to deny victims transparency when such serious offences have taken place, but it is bizarre to do so when also saying that those same people are old enough to vote at that age.
Such inconsistency is not limited to new clause 14, so let me take a second example of new clause 18, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). Many people now look at the Labour manifesto and say, “Well, what it said on energy bills isn’t what they have done; what it said on council tax isn’t what they have done; and what it said to farmers is certainly not what they have done.” With the Budget coming soon, I think that we will shortly see that what Labour said on tax is not what this Government are about to do. And yet the front page of that Labour manifesto had a single word on it: “Change.” I do not think that most voters realised that what Labour meant was change from the manifesto itself, as opposed to change in terms of policy—
Steve Barclay
Indeed, change for the worse.
It is bizarre that when serious offences take place, quite often it is the judiciary who get the blame. Perhaps I have an unfashionable view in that I think that we have a very high-quality judiciary, but it is easy for people to look at sentences and then quickly leap to criticise the judiciary, saying that it is their fault that sentencing is wrong. Indeed, there are such cases—the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has highlighted some concerning conflicts of interest of some within the judiciary—but it is far more common that issues arise because the judiciary are operating within the tramlines imposed by sentencing guidelines.
I remember a constituency case where someone was killed by dangerous driving. It highlighted the fact that while this House had increased the sentencing for such crimes, the sentencing guidelines set so many obstacles to getting a maximum sentence that, in practice, hardly anyone ever reached the tariff that the House had intended. Key decisions on issues of public policy should not be outsourced to quangos, meaning—as my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), highlighted—the public often do not have any idea who is making the decisions.
I come back to the Labour manifesto. It promised change, but when it comes to the sentencing guidelines, it will be the same people, applying the same approach; that is anything but change. If the manifesto is to deliver change, it is right that democratic oversight is imposed and that this House and Ministers take more responsibility.
Steve Barclay
Indeed.
The new clauses under debate highlight a wider principle that is driving much of the public frustration with the democratic process: the sense of people voting and then seeing decisions that they do not feel were on the ballot paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right that this is not just an issue with this Government; the Government in which I served were guilty of this. Too many decisions were outsourced to quangos. There are lessons to be learned from that, as today’s debate has highlighted well.
Let me turn to two new clauses on which the House will divide. New clause 19 applies to something that unites the House: the horror at the murder of a police officer or prison officer. This is particularly pertinent to me, as I have the privilege of representing a constituency that contains a maximum security prison, HMP Whitemoor, where the safety of prison officers is paramount. The new clause is also important because we all benefit from the safeguarding provided by the police—in my case, Cambridgeshire police. What message do Ministers think is being sent not just to police and prison officers, but to their families, if they decide to vote against new clause 19? It is not enough just to tweet after events to say how sorry they are. The Government have an opportunity to vote to do something, and we will see in the Lobby how they vote.
Finally, I turn new clause 20. I do not think that I was alone in being deeply moved by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant). It is most effective when Members across the House, regardless of which party they are in, speak from their own deep professional expertise about issues that transcend party politics. Anyone hearing about Tony’s case cannot help but feel revulsion, horror and shame about the offence committed, and my hon. Friend spoke with such passion to highlight it.
As a former Minister who has sat where the Minister now sits, let me say that I hope he reflects on the case put forward in new clause 20. I do not believe that any Members want to see loopholes exploited—to see people move around the country to evade accountability and the tracking of any future offences. When someone speaks with the sort of professional expertise with which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling spoke, to raise very practical concerns, it is important that Ministers take those concerns on board.
The concern raised through new clause 20 is shared across the House. There is a defective element in this Bill, and Members have an opportunity to address it. The expectation is that there will be a vote on new clause 20. It is not about people’s words, but how they vote, that will determine the response. I hope that Members across the House will respond to new clause 20, bearing in mind the case of Tony, which was highlighted to the House, and that they will do the right thing.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I speak today to new clause 42, which is in my name. It would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the potential merits of removing the cap on sitting days in the Crown court and to lay a report before Parliament.
I am pleased to bring this issue before the House. Our criminal courts are crippled under the weight of their caseloads. A system once respected for its fairness and efficiency is now struggling to deliver timely justice. One major cause is the limit imposed on the number of sitting days available to judges. In effect, we are deliberately rationing justice.
Successive Governments have chosen to restrict Crown court sitting days. The previous Conservative Administration cut them drastically up to 2020, and then reintroduced a cap in 2021. The current Labour Government, disappointingly, have continued that practice, fixing the number of sitting days for 2024-25 at 108,500. That figure, announced only in December, was thousands below what the courts had planned for, and nearly 5,000 days short of the 113,000 days that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service advised were needed to meet basic operational capacity. Even 113,000 sitting days would not open every courtroom; as Sir Brian Leveson’s review made clear, we would need at least 130,000 sitting days to bring all courtrooms fully into use. Anything less is a conscious choice to leave some courtrooms dark, some judges idle and thousands of victims waiting.
Meanwhile, the backlog grows. The Crown court caseload has reached historic highs, with more than 73,000 outstanding cases, and it is only growing. In the first quarter of 2025, 2,000 more cases were received than were disposed of. One in four open cases has been waiting for over a year, and in some instances trials are not being listed until 2029.
I saw the impact at first hand when I visited my local Kingston upon Thames Crown court. It is one of many courts across the London region that suffer as the region sees its backlog increase by 25%. Staff spoke of the frustration of empty courtrooms, which could be hearing trials but are instead shuttered by bureaucracy. For my constituents in Esher and Walton, that means longer waits for justice for victims of assault, of burglary and of sexual violence, who are left to relive their trauma every time that their trial is postponed. Witnesses lose faith, memories fade, and confidence in justice evaporates.
Caps on Crown court sitting days are not a matter of efficiency, but a false economy. We are paying for court buildings, for security, for staff and for judges, yet we prevent them from working to full capacity, and the consequences are severe. Victims and witnesses wait months or even years for closure, and defendants on bail remain in limbo, their futures in the balance. Some guilty defendants plead not guilty in the hope that delay will work in their favour.
In the process, public faith in the criminal justice system and politics deteriorates. Justice delayed is justice denied. Each time a case is adjourned or pushed back, a victim’s faith in justice dies a little more. Communities lose confidence that the system will protect them, and that loss of trust is corrosive—it undermines everything from police co-operation to jury participation. It is deeply disappointing that the Government have not attached a money motion to this Bill, meaning that Parliament cannot directly remove the cap today. However, new clause 42 offers a constructive step forward. It would require the Government to confront the evidence and to assess, transparently and publicly, whether the cap serves justice or undermines it.
We cannot continue to ignore a crisis that every practitioner, every victim and every judge can see unfolding before their eyes. Removing the cap would not solve every problem in our courts, but it would allow them to function at their full capacity; it would mean fewer empty rooms, more trials heard, and faster justice for those who need it most. New clause 42 is a vital amendment that shines a light on the cost of capping justice and would begin the work of restoring confidence in our criminal courts. Justice delayed is justice denied, and it is time to stop denying justice to the people we serve.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Much of this Bill does not apply to my constituents, because in the main it does not apply to Northern Ireland. However, there is a key component of the Bill that is supposed to apply to Northern Ireland, because the extent clause says that part 4 applies—that is the part of the Bill that deals with the very important issue of deporting foreign criminals. My question to this House tonight is whether it will, in fact, apply to Northern Ireland.
Yes, this is said to be the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is therefore said that when this Parliament decides something, it is decided; when it applies a law to citizens of the United Kingdom, that is the end of the story. Sadly, though, I know—and this House needs to know, and needs to act upon that knowledge—that three times, this House has passed Bills that it said applied to the whole United Kingdom, and three times, the courts in this land overruled Parliament and disapplied parts of those Bills from applying to my constituents and my part of the United Kingdom. Those were the Rwanda Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and the soon-to-be-defunct legacy Act.
How can it be that this sovereign Parliament decides that it is legislating on issues affecting constituents across this United Kingdom and passing laws that it says applies to them all, but it turns out that they do not? The answer, sadly, is article 2 of the Windsor framework, because article 2 purports to trump this sovereign Parliament. In respect of Northern Ireland, it says that where there are EU laws—laws not made by this House, but in a foreign jurisdiction; laws that we do not make and cannot change—that bestow on citizens or those in Northern Ireland rights that are different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom, those rights will trump this sovereign Parliament. That is a frightening reality that this House has been running away from ever since it agreed to the withdrawal agreement and the protocol that is now called the Windsor framework. It comprises a fundamental assault upon not just the sovereignty of this House, but the legitimate expectations of my constituents that they will be subject to the equal citizenship that is supposed to come from being a part of this United Kingdom. Paragraph 1 of article 2 of the Windsor framework states that protections
“enshrined in the provisions of Union law”—
that is European Union law—are “listed in Annex 1”. Many of those provisions are about rights.
Jake Richards
I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. This Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that gives us the chance to put an end to the prison capacity crisis and build a better justice system. Let me be clear at the outset: this Government believe that prison can work, which is why we are undertaking the largest prison building programme since the Victorian era. Many offenders must be sent to prison, some for a very long time and some for the rest of their lives. The Government have already opened 2,500 places since coming to office, and we have made a commitment to build 14,000 more. Despite what has been said by Opposition Members, by the end of this Parliament, under a Labour Government, there will be more criminals in our prisons than ever before.
However, we cannot only build our way out of this crisis; we must reform sentencing to ensure that our criminal justice system is sustainable. The changes in this Bill will ensure that we never face the situation that the Conservatives left behind: the very real prospect that the most serious offenders would not face prison at all. In a competitive field, the state that the last Government left our prisons in was perhaps the most appalling aspect of the Tory legacy. It was so appalling that, when the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), became aware of the scale of the crisis, he gave up and called an election. It was the last shameful act of a vandalising, incompetent Government. This Bill represents the work of a Government pulling up their sleeves and getting on with the job, however difficult that may be.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I really welcome this Sentencing Bill, because I think my constituents want not only criminals being punished for their crimes, but the prevention of future crime. It should be about not just punishment—which is rightly owed to a lot of people—but making sure that our communities are safe in the future. Could the Minister lay out how the intensive supervision courts in the Bill will help to do that?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this Bill will not only stabilise the prison system, but go further and tackle reoffending. She mentioned the intensive supervision courts, but there are also our reforms to short-term sentences, which will cut reoffending. We know it will do that because of evidence that the last Conservative Government commissioned. That was why the exact provision on short-term sentencing, which the Tories are all howling with outrage at now, was in the legislation that the last Government put forward—completely hypocritical. My hon. Friend is completely right; this Bill represents a Government who step up to the challenge, rather than putting their head in the sand.
I want to turn to some of the amendments and the specific points of debate that we have heard today, starting with new clause 20, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). However, I will begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who has put her name to that amendment and with whom I have had the pleasure of speaking on numerous occasions this week in the build-up to the debate. The hon. Lady spoke incredibly powerfully about her own experience in the family courts, and I share that experience. Before coming to this place, I was a barrister who spent a lot of time on legal aid cases, representing local authorities, family members or guardians in exactly the types of cases that she mentioned. I share her concerns.
I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s constituent, Paula Hudgell, who has been campaigning for a child abuse register with such eloquence and passion for some time. Paula’s work, life and dedication to Tony and others deserves enormous gratitude from across the House. On the Government’s behalf, I thank her for all that she and her family have done and continue to do. I welcome the constructive comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, on this issue. I can be clear that Paula has identified a problem in the system, and we are determined to fix it.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s comments on new clause 20 and a possible child protection register. My constituents Gemma Chappell and Rachael Walls have been campaigning for stronger child protection measures after their great-niece, Maya, was murdered by her mother’s abusive partner. Does the Minister agree that measures such as a child protection register and Maya’s law can only help to protect our children—children like Maya, Tony and others? And what steps will he be taking to follow this up?
Jake Richards
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The answer is yes. A problem in the system has been identified, and we are determined to fix it. It simply cannot be right that some horrific child abusers can have access to children—to live with children or work with children—at the end of their sentences without any system of monitoring or notification after those sentences. The Government cannot support the change today because work needs to be done to understand the demand that different options would place upon different public services. It would be wrong to legislate now without a fuller—or even basic—understanding of whether we have the capacity to safely deliver the register proposed in new clause 20. There are numerous options before us, and it is right that any new system is tailored, in terms of who holds that information and the duties placed upon them, to ensure that particular risks are adequately and proportionately managed.
James Cartlidge
The position that the Minister seems to be articulating is literally bizarre. He has said that he fully agrees about the problem and with the remedy set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). The Government have had 14 years in Opposition and more than a year in Government, and have introduced the Bill at this time. But the Minister is saying that, notwithstanding the fact they have brought forward this Bill after more than a year in office and agree on the problem and the diagnosis, he is still going to vote tonight—and ask his Back Benchers to vote tonight—against fixing the issue.
Jake Richards
We have identified a problem, but it would be wholly irresponsible to legislate when we have not had the opportunity to ensure that public services can complete the task. The hon. Member criticises us for not taking action on this issue now, but what about the last 14 years? What about the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which reported in November 2022? The last Government did absolutely nothing on those recommendations.
Helen Grant
I hear what the Minister has to say. Will he bring forward a Government amendment to introduce a child cruelty register when the Bill moves to the House of Lords?
Jake Richards
We will speak to Home Office colleagues and others to look at the possibility of doing that, absolutely. The hon. Lady has my word—as does her constituent, who is no doubt watching this debate carefully—that I will work at speed on this issue, but I do not want to make promises that the Government cannot keep, so it is vital that we do the work. We understand the burden that it will place on the services that will need to do the work to make sure that this is done, but I want to be clear that this is a problem. We accept that it is a problem, and we are going to take action to solve it. I will continue to have conversations with the hon. Lady as part of that process, and I welcome the offer of cross-party talks. I am speaking to colleagues in the Department for Education and the Home Office, and I would be eager, if it is appropriate and possible, to speak to Paula herself to ensure that we get this right. But as I said, we want to do that quickly.
I have asked officials in my Department to look at what can be done within the criminal justice system, which sits within the Ministry of Justice, to track child abuse offenders and offences involving child cruelty. I again thank the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling for her work on this issue. I look forward to working with her, and with other hon. Members who have shown an interest in this issue, to achieve an important change in safeguarding that is absolutely necessary.
I turn to new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), which seeks to allow prisoners held on remand to access rehabilitative programmes, education, therapy and other support before the start of their sentence. She and I had a brief discussion outside the Chamber about this, and it is important to note that remand prisoners can already access such programmes where prisons run them. The Government accept that there is a lack of such provision in our prisons—something that we absolutely have to improve and work on—but we must remember that remand prisoners have not been convicted of an offence. They cannot be required to undertake any of these services, but it is an issue that I am very much aware of. I will continue to have conversations with her and other colleagues about that over the coming weeks and months as we look to improve those services within prisons.
Andy Slaughter
I congratulate the Minister on his Bill, which can undo the damage done to the prison system over the past 14 years of neglect and mismanagement, but while he is clearly in listening mode, let me say that it is capable of improvement. I tabled a number of amendments that were designed to improve the Bill in Committee last week. I will write to him to remind him what they are, but will he look at those proposals, which were made in good faith, to see whether changes can be made in the other place?
Jake Richards
As always, I welcome the contributions of the Chair of the Justice Committee. I am very aware of the array of amendments that he and I discussed before Committee stage last week. I have not returned to them in the last seven days, but we will no doubt do so in the coming weeks as the Bill progresses.
I will briefly touch on the issue of probation. A number of amendments have been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and spoken to by other hon. Members. The Government accept that the Bill places an extra responsibility on the Probation Service. That is why we are investing £750 million in probation—a 45% increase, and the biggest upgrade to investment in probation for a generation. We are investing £8 million to improve technology, so that probation officers can undertake probation work rather than be stifled by the burden of paperwork. We recruited 1,000 probation officers in our first year and 1,300 this year. However, there is undoubtedly more work to be done, and we will undertake that work in the coming weeks and months.
This Government have been very clear that work must be at the heart of our prisons. Ensuring that offenders work will mean that they can be rehabilitated and, when they leave prison, can enter society with the prospect of employment. Clearly, some of the details of how that work provision is provided and the role of the private sector have to be worked out carefully. I am very happy to meet the justice unions parliamentary group to discuss that, but I will never apologise for ensuring that there is work provision in our prisons, because it is absolutely vital. Labour is the party of work. We believe in the inherent value of work, and work in our prisons plays a vital role in rehabilitation.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response on work in prison. I completely agree that it makes a huge difference in enabling prisoners to stop their reoffending behaviour. When 80% of offending is reoffending, costing over £18 billion a year, it is clear that we need to enable people to turn their lives around. Does he agree that our communities will be safer when we are able to tackle reoffending rates?
Jake Richards
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She raised this important issue in a recent Adjournment debate. We are taking steps to provide further work provision in our prisons, working with the private sector, the third sector and others, but we certainly accept that there is more to do.
I will briefly respond to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on new clause 24. He asked me a direct question, and simply put, we do not agree. The Government do not think that this new clause is necessary. Our view is very clear on the legal analysis of the proposed change. The deportation of foreign national offenders will not be prohibited by the provisions of the Windsor framework. If he disagrees with that analysis, I am very happy to meet him to discuss it and look into it. He is absolutely right that it would be wrong if, in the scenario he painted towards the end of his speech, different parts of the country had different provisions for the deportation of foreign national offenders. I want to give him that reassurance at the Dispatch Box.
Jim Allister
Will the Minister give us an assurance that, if there turns out to be a distinction in that foreign nationals cannot be deported from Northern Ireland because of article 2 of the Windsor framework, he will undertake to override that legislatively so that we do have equality right across the United Kingdom?
Jake Richards
As I have said, we do not accept that there is a problem, but if there is, we will look to fix it, because that would not be right. The scenario the hon. and learned Member painted, which we do not accept will happen as a result of this legislation, is not right.
Amendments 15 and 39 on short sentences are among several tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). They aim to widen the scope of the exemption or to eat away at the 12-month definition of short sentences. That is the wrong direction, and I will set out why. First, we need to clear up some myths that have been shared by the Opposition on this issue. Either they are being wilfully ignorant or they simply do not understand the Bill. We are not abolishing short sentences, as the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), wrongly stated in the House on Monday. He was briefly a corporate solicitor, and I would hope he knows better and that he had read the Bill before commenting on it.
Judges will always have discretion to send offenders to prison, and short sentences have an important function, especially in certain cases of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. The Bill makes it clear that the presumption does not apply where the offender poses a significant risk of physical and psychological harm to a particular individual, where they breach a court order or in exceptional circumstances. In Committee, the Government went further by strengthening this provision to ensure that breaches of all civil court orders, such as the domestic violence protection order, were covered.
Catherine Atkinson
Domestic abuse remains the deepest scar on our society, and it demands our collective action to eradicate it. Please can the Minister outline the measures in the Bill that will help tackle this invidious form of violence and enable improved support for victims during the process?
Jake Richards
In that regard, the most important part of the Bill is the domestic abuse identifier. It has been worked on, on a cross-party basis, with outside organisations that are campaigning for it. It is an innovative and important step to ensure that these cases—it is a broadbrush so that different offences can all be covered by the one term—can be tracked through the criminal justice system and out to safeguarding agencies to ensure that women are kept safe from their abusers.
Dr Mullan
I note the interest of the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) in domestic abuse and other offences. Will the Minister confirm for her that the vast majority of offenders convicted of offences related to domestic abuse will get out of prison much earlier as a result of this Bill?
Jake Richards
Again, as the shadow Minister knows, for each offence the judge will have full discretion over the sentence. When I have spoken to victims of domestic abuse—I have worked with and represented victims of domestic abuse in court—what they feared most was that, when the prison system was on the verge of collapse, some of the most serious offenders would never face prison at all.
Jake Richards
I will finish this point before I give way, because I am dealing with the right hon. Member’s amendments.
More broadly, we know that suspended sentences and community sentences can be more effective at reducing reoffending. The level of reoffending among those who serve short sentences is staggeringly high. As I have said already, research commissioned by the last Conservative Government—shadow Justice Ministers continue to cite it—shows that short sentences lead to more reoffending, meaning that tens of thousands more criminal offences are committed each year.
If the Opposition vote to drop this provision from the legislation—legislation that the last Conservative Government put forward—they will be voting for more crimes blighting our communities. They know that the measure is common sense because, as I have said, they proposed it; it was a Conservative proposal towards the end of the last Parliament, and they are now opposing it for opposition’s sake. This provision on short-term sentences will begin to break the cycle of reoffending that does such damage to communities across the country, so we reject the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Tatton.
Esther McVey
I thank the Minister for allowing me to speak now. Members on both sides of the House were concerned about attacks on emergency workers, and such offenders who are sentenced to 12 months or less will now get suspended sentences. Can he state on the record that that will not be the case—that those offenders will still go to prison, as Members on both sides of the House want? Will he protect emergency workers or will he let them down?
Jake Richards
The judge on any given case, where there has been an awful offence such as that, will have the power under this legislation to send that person to prison. That is absolutely right and that has not changed at all.
I will turn to new clause 19, with which I have huge sympathy. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle gave me the opportunity to meet Lenny Scott’s mother, and I will take him up on that. I am happy to do so and I look forward to it. As he knows, the Law Commission is undertaking a review of homicide law, and it would be wrong to pre-empt that, although I am sympathetic to the motivation behind the new clause. As he noted, that awful offender was convicted to life imprisonment with a minimum of 45 years. I understand the mischief that the hon. Member is trying to tackle with the new clause, but we will await the Law Commission’s review of homicide law.
Jake Richards
As I say, I am not going to pre-empt the Law Commission’s review of homicide law, but I am sympathetic to the new clause. I look forward to meeting the victim’s family and we will be taking steps in due course.
I will turn to the earned progression model and new clause 36, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and spoken to passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith). I met my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and understand the motivation behind the new clause. There is appetite within Government to go further and to offer positive functionality to the earned progression model, but primary legislation is probably not the appropriate mechanism for delivering a stronger system of incentivising rehabilitation in prisons.
I will briefly explain the current framework as set out in legislation. Bad behaviour, such as acts of violence or possession of a mobile phone, can mean more time in custody. We are making that tougher. To ensure that there is more bite and discipline within our prisons, we are doubling the maximum punishment from 42 days to 84 days per incident by secondary legislation. There will be no automatic release for badly behaved offenders. I accept that I and Lord Timpson should look at the current incentives policy framework to see how we can further incentivise engagement with self-improvement services, whether in work or education.
We expect prisoners to work in prison and, where they have educational needs, to engage in classes that support reading, literacy, maths and vocational skills. That is why we are building partnerships with employers and looking to increase the amount of time that prisoners work in industry to increase employment skills. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley in our meeting, I look forward to working with her and others to look at how we can expand and improve that framework to ensure that the earned progression model is as effective as possible.
Dr Mullan
Does the Minister accept that he is legislating to let those people out automatically? He expects Labour Members to accept the promise that later, at some point, he might introduce legislation so that some of those people—a small proportion—do not get out, but whatever he says at the Dispatch Box, he is legislating to let them out automatically. That is the consequence of this legislation.
Jake Richards
I am getting increasingly confused by these interventions, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I outlined before, the Government are setting out very clear measures to improve discipline in our prisons. That is part of the progression model, learned from the Texas model, which has seen crime reduce by 33%, with 16 prisons closed at the same time. I think we should learn from good examples abroad. The Opposition have no idea what their position is any more.
I will turn to new clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). The most serious offences are already dealt with in the Crown court, even those involving offenders aged under 18, and whether an offender’s identity is reported on is at the discretion of the judge. There is always a balancing act in the judge’s consideration between the principles of open justice and the welfare of the child, and it is right that discretion remains with the judge. I also gently say to the hon. Member that the scope of the Bill was the adult estate. There is work to be done in the youth justice system; we will be taking steps to look at it in due course, and we may come back to this as part of that provision. However, the focus in this Bill is much more on the adult estate.
The same point also applies to new clause 1, again tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire. I want to go into some detail on this new clause because it is an important issue. On parenting orders, it is right that those responsible for a child’s care will be involved in their rehabilitation where possible. To that end, courts have the power to issue a parenting order where a child has been convicted of an offence. Parenting orders require the parents or guardian to comply with certain requirements for up to 12 months, and non-compliance can lead to breach proceedings in court.
While parenting orders can be a good option for some children, youth offending teams that I have spoken to often decide that it is more effective to engage and build relationships with parents on a voluntary basis wherever possible, without resorting to a parenting order. Many parents will engage readily and take part in specific parenting support activities and programmes.
On financial orders, children are naturally limited in their access to the funds necessary to meet the conditions of a financial order. To that end, where the child is under 16, any financial order must be met by the parent or guardian. For children aged 16 or 17, the fine may be imposed on either the parent or child. Whether they are used in each particular case is best determined by the court with professional advice from the youth offending team. It is right that the court, which has access to information on a child’s individual circumstances, retains the discretion to determine whether such interventions are well placed to support their rehabilitation.
I undertake to the House today that I will look at this matter as part of our continued review of the youth justice system. We do not think that primary legislation is necessary for a dedicated assessment, which is vague in the form of the new clause. We therefore urge the House to reject this new clause, too.
I turn now to driving. There are an array of measures before the House that relate to driving offences, and there is an understandable sense from the House about the need to go further and to strengthen or tighten our use of driving bans for criminal offences. New clauses have been put down by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester. I also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), among others, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), who has raised this issue in the House.
It should be noted that this legislation offers new provisions to order a driving ban for offenders who receive a suspended or community sentence even if their offence did not relate to driving. However, I have been persuaded in the course of the debates in this House, and in my relatively short period in this role, of the need to look again at driving bans and to do so properly and rigorously. I have organised a meeting with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Transport to discuss this issue and to ensure that the points and individual cases raised in this and last week’s debates are considered in the Government’s road safety strategy, which is being developed. It is right that we undertake proper and further analysis of the current situation and how we can encourage greater use of driving bans.
I promise that I will ensure that this House is updated on the development of that work. I have reached out to road safety charities to ensure that they are consulted and kept informed, too. It is right that we investigate this issue carefully, but it is also important to say that the courts already have the discretion to implement these driving bans in precisely the way that various new clauses seek to do.
I will turn now to new clause 31 on exclusions from recall measures, which was spoken to by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. A number of offences listed in the new clause are already excluded from the fixed-term recall provisions, while many others carry sentences that would be beyond the scope of the provisions. However, we understand the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Chichester. There is a balance to be struck between recognising the risks posed and ensuring a sustainable system. Before any recalled offender is released, the Probation Service will undertake a thorough review of release plans and licence conditions, ensuring that needs and risks are managed, with a focus on mitigating risks against known victims. This will take account of any patterns of behaviour. Recall remains an important public protection tool where risk escalates. There are still challenges, looking at the 56 days and the provision of education for those who are returned on recall. We have had discussions outside the Chamber and we will continue to do so. It is an issue that Lord Timpson and I are aware of, and we will make progress on it in due course.
I turn very briefly to new clause 42, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), regarding the awful Crown court delays we experience in this country—another element of the rotten legacy we received from the Conservative party. Brian Leveson has reported on this, and the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services will bring forward the Government’s response in due course.
It is an urgent issue, because all these problems—prison capacity, justice, rehabilitation, reoffending—can be solved only if we have a functioning courts system. Sorting out and stabilising our prisons, reforming sentencing and dealing with the Crown court backlog will be at the heart of the Government’s approach through this Parliament.
Ben Maguire
There was one small omission there. Can the Minister confirm that legal aid provision, which has been brought up by several Members today, will be addressed by the Government?
Jake Richards
Yes. Legal aid is vital, and the right to legal aid is important. The Government understand that right and will continue to look at it. There are financial constraints, which we are all aware of, but legal aid is very important. We have made certain commitments with regard to employment tribunals, and we will continue to look at that over the coming months.
Amendment 7 would remove clause 20 regarding changes to be made to the release of certain offenders. Let us start with the most basic promise of our justice system. When offenders are caught who pose a risk to the public, we ensure that there is capacity in our prisons for them to serve a custodial sentence. It sounds straightforward and a fundamental tenet of the social contract, but that is what was damaged and broken by the Tory Government. In July last year our prisons were essentially full, and the Government disgracefully could not fulfil that most basic promise to the British people. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for the lawless disorder they caused.
The changes that the Bill makes are necessary to stabilise our prison system. There is no alternative. What have heard from Opposition Members, carping from the sidelines, are wholly unserious proposals. Reform UK say that we should build paperweight temporary prisons. Portacabins holding hardened criminals in our backyards? No thank you.
Let me clear: that would place the public at serious risk of harm. We cannot simply rustle up a secure setting to incarcerate dangerous offenders. This Government are building more prison places than we have seen for over 100 years. Following the changes to be brought in by this Bill, there will still be more criminals in prison than ever before—2,000 more by 2029 than there are now. On the other hand, Reform has no serious plans to keep our communities safe.
The Tory position is even more absurd, if that is possible. Last week the shadow Minister began to apologise for the legacy that the Conservatives left behind in our prisons. He said that if he had been Prime Minister or Chancellor it would not have happened. We had five Tory Prime Ministers and seven Chancellors in 14 years. I am not sure that giving another one a go would have made the difference. Meanwhile the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), says, “Deport more foreign offenders. That will solve it all.” Completely unserious.
Under this Government, deportation of foreign national offenders is up by 14%. We have accelerated decision making on deportation, which can now happen when 30% of the sentence has been served. That is something that the Tories never did. Because of this legislation, we can go even further and deport a foreign offender immediately upon sentencing. These are practical measures from a Labour Government who are cleaning up the Tory mess.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
My father is a retired senior prison officer, and I know at first hand the devastation that 14 years of the Tories brought on our prison system. Does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on us as a Government to clean up the mess they left and fix the system urgently through reforms?
Jake Richards
I thank my hon. Friend’s father for his service. Prison officers across the country do a brilliant and important job. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I have sat through hours of this debate over the last few weeks, and while it has been important, the crowing from the Tories is galling considering the legacy that they left behind.
This Labour Government faced a crisis when we came into power last summer. The Tories had left our prison system on the brink of collapse, and lawless chaos was on the verge of breaking out. We took action, with plans to build 14,000 prison places—the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era—and 2,500 places in our first year, compared to just 500 places that were built during 14 years of the Conservative Government.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Does the Minister recognise, from his written response to me, that every single one of those 2,405 prison places was authorised by the previous Conservative Government and that the 14,000 prison places he planned to build will not be delivered because the firm that was due to build them has gone into administration?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member always makes that point, and he thinks it a good point. Towards the end of 14 years of Conservative government, the Conservatives suddenly realised they had not done anything to our prisons—it was an absolute shambles—and they started to take action. We have actually delivered those places, with 2,500 in one year compared with just 500 in 14 years. It is shocking. That is not a good point, and he should not keep raising it.
The Government began an independent sentencing review, led by a former Conservative Justice Secretary, to ensure that our system was sustainable. The Bill is that vital step to ensure that we can keep that most basic promise to the British people. We will ensure that there is capacity in our prisons to keep law and order on the streets. We will ensure that our justice system clamps down on reoffending and delivers punishment that works. We will ensure that we will never again face the chaos of Tory misrule. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to put it on the record that there has unfortunately been a blip on today’s version of the Sentencing Bill’s amendment paper. While I did put my name to several new clauses, I did not put my name to amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 34 or 35.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. I know that House staff would wish to apologise for the error. She has put the facts on the record, so it will now be clear which measures she actually supported, and those to which her name was added in error.
Third Reading
Jake Richards
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is a pleasure to speak at the Third Reading of this landmark legislation. I begin by expressing my gratitude to all those who have worked tirelessly to deliver this important change to our criminal justice system.
It is difficult to exaggerate the scale of the crisis that landed on the desk of the previous Lord Chancellor—now the Home Secretary—and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), when they entered Government on 5 July 2024. Prisons were at breaking point, with a very real risk that the most dangerous offenders would not face custody at all and that our communities would be left vulnerable. They took urgent, necessary and decisive action to stabilise the system and keep our prisons afloat, and then they went further.
I pay tribute to David Gauke, the former Conservative Justice Secretary, for his work in leading the independent sentencing review. It is a rigorous and serious piece of work, and while the Government did not accept all the recommendations, it is the basis of many of the provisions before the House today. We thank David Gauke for his work, and perhaps look somewhat regretfully back at what a serious Conservative Justice spokesperson looked like.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their careful scrutiny of the Bill, and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), for South Shields (Emma Lewell), for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), and the hon. Members for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant)—and a particular shout-out for my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for her tireless campaigning on tool theft. Through their personal experience, or the experience of their constituents, hon. Members have powerfully raised issues that the Government will continue to look at and address as this legislation progresses.
The debates we have had on this legislation neatly sum up the dividing lines in British politics. The Conservative party is in complete denial, with not a single word of apology. It is their mess that this legislation begins to clean up. The Bill goes further than simply stabilising the system; it confronts reoffending—the cycle of crime that blights so many of our communities—and learns from the Texan earned-progression model to encourage rehabilitation. Confronting reoffending and improving rehabilitation used to be policies that the Conservatives supported, but today they have provided nothing but opposition.
Meanwhile, Reform’s Justice spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), has not bothered to attend this debate at all, and inexplicably said over the weekend that she gets angry when she sees Asian and black people on her TV. She should concentrate on coming up with workable policies; we cannot build portacabin prisons for hardened criminals and keep our communities safe. Reform UK is simply not credible.
This Government, on the other hand, are getting on with the job and making difficult decisions to ensure that we can keep our promise to the British people: we will never let our prison system collapse like the last Government did, when even the most serious offenders might have avoided prison altogether. This Bill will ensure that our prison system is sustainable, while reducing reoffending and crime, and it will keep our communities safe. I commend this Bill to the House.
Dr Mullan
With the leave of the House, I will finish by explaining again that whatever good this Bill may do, the consequences for victims and their families’ sense of justice in this country are grave—the very same victims who want to see prosecution rates improve, who want to see court waiting times reduced, and who want to have a criminal justice system that works better for them in so many ways, but who never agreed to a swap. Victims of crime will welcome the changes and improvements that the Labour party says it can deliver, but they should not have to accept that something is taken away just because something else is given.
I say to Back Benchers that the Government can agree spending settlements and come up with plans, but they cannot create the changes in legislation that are needed for this Bill; Back Benchers do that. When the Government need MPs to change legislation, they can say no, such as the Labour Back Benchers who recently said no to welfare reform.
I remind Members what this Bill will do. This Bill will mean that more than 80% of paedophiles who are sent to prison will get out earlier. This Bill will mean that more than 60% of rapists who are sent to prison will get out earlier. It will mean that, in total, more than 6,000 serious violent and sexual offenders will get out of prison earlier.
I ask Labour Members to imagine that, in a couple of years from now, they have secured all the achievements that they want in relation to the criminal justice system. Perhaps a victim of sexual assault comes to see them—perhaps somebody who feels that their experience was improved as a result of the changes that the Government say they are going to make and who, like many victims of sexual assault, has seen their perpetrator sent to prison for three years. That victim will come and see Labour Members, and say that the perpetrator is getting out of prison after just one year—a third of their sentence.
That will be the reality for two thirds of the people sentenced to prison for sexual assault in this country, because the Bill’s measures will mean that they get out of prison after a year. What will Members say to victims? Will they say what they say to me: “It was the Tories,” “I didn’t know,” or “We had no choice”? How hollow will those words sound to victims and their families? Whatever this Bill might do, the price that victims will pay is simply too high—much too high. The Government have no right to tell victims and their families that they must accept a trade-off: if they want things to improve in one direction, they must accept a betrayal in another.
I ask Labour Members to reflect again on the figures I have given them. They are the correct figures and they are the facts, no matter what those on the Government Front Bench have muttered as I have been speaking. I ask Labour Members to force this Government to make different choices. Do not support this betrayal of victims. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can mutter. It will come back to haunt every single one of you when victims ask you, “Why did you vote for something that lets thousands of serious violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier?”
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Privileges
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
I beg to move,
That this House—
agrees with the Committee of Privileges in its First Report of Session 2024–26, Matter referred on 14 July 2025: Omagh Bombing Inquiry;
welcomes the acknowledgement in the Petition from the Secretary of the Inquiry that the Inquiry has taken advice on the application of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights to its proceedings and will be mindful of the privileges of the House;
notes the assurance given by the Inquiry that it will handle material provided to it by the House in accordance with its disclosure protocol;
and accordingly orders that the unpublished transcript of unreported evidence taken by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 11 November 2009 be provided to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry and that the Inquiry shall have power to disclose or publish it if it thinks fit to do so, after taking relevant advice.
I welcome the consideration by the Committee of Privileges of this matter and its report. If approved, the motion will enable the unpublished transcript of unreported evidence, taken by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in November 2009, to be provided to the Omagh bombing inquiry, and enable the inquiry to publish that evidence if it thinks fit to do so, subject to relevant advice.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for raising this issue in the House in July. I also thank the Chair of the Privileges Committee, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), for his Committee’s swift work in considering the matter. I commend in particular his Committee’s sensitivity in handling this subject, as well as its commitment to facilitating the important work of the Omagh bombing inquiry.
In relation to parliamentary privilege, the report highlights important points on the matter of exclusive cognisance and the privileges of this House. Be in no doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Government support the rights of this House and will act to defend them. I hope that the House will support this motion today, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Privileges Committee.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I support the motion proposed by the Leader of the House and thank him for his kind words about me and other Members involved in this matter. The motion is, of course, about the report drafted by the Committee of Privileges. The task the House gave the Committee was, in essence, a simple one: to consider whether to release a document to the Omagh bombing inquiry.
Throughout our work, the Committee has had in mind that the Omagh bombing was one of the greatest atrocities committed in Northern Ireland during the period known as the troubles and afterwards. In Omagh, on 15 August 1998—a summer Saturday in the centre of a busy town where people were going about their everyday business—a 500 lb car bomb exploded, taking the lives of 29 people and two unborn children and injuring hundreds more people, with repercussions for thousands of relatives, friends and people across Northern Ireland. In short, we felt from the beginning that there was an overwhelming public interest in our helping the Omagh bombing inquiry in any way we could.
The inquiry is charged with considering an allegation made by a former senior police officer that police investigators did not have access to intelligence materials that might reasonably have enabled them to disrupt the activities of dissident republican terrorists before the Omagh bombing. That allegation was made to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 11 November 2009.
I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who chairs that Committee today, and commend the words she has said previously about this matter and the work she has done. I also put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who moved the original motion on behalf of the hon. Member for Gower, as the former Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Part of the evidence taken by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was not reported to the House, and so has never been published. We were asked to make a recommendation on the desirability of releasing that evidence to the inquiry. There were procedural and, perhaps, constitutional difficulties in that.
The terms of reference drawn up by the then Government enabled the inquiry to consider the allegation made by the now retired police officer. The unreported transcript of his evidence was not, however, the property of that or any Government; it belongs to the House of Commons. As it is unreported, it has not been seen by current Members of the House, other than those who sit on the Committee of Privileges; nor will this motion make it available to the House of Commons. In short, in proposing that we provide the transcript to the inquiry, we are giving control of the transcript to that inquiry. This, so far as we are aware, is an unprecedented procedural step. However, I praise the inquiry for its careful, helpful and co-operative approach to the matters of parliamentary privilege raised by this step.
I also thank the inquiry for the assurances it has given my Committee about how it will handle the material, and in particular what steps it will take to ensure that any national security concerns have been fully discussed with the security services before it shares the document or relies on it for its own conclusions. Those assurances may be found in the appendix to our report. Thus, given the assurances received from the inquiry and in the light of the overwhelming public interest in providing aid to an inquiry into the murder of so many people, I trust that the House will feel confident that my Committee has recommended an appropriate course of action.
We have added to our report a recommendation that the Government remind Ministers and officials, when drawing up terms of reference for future similar inquiries or for public bodies, that more care might be taken when it comes to intruding on matters that fall within the exclusive cognisance of Parliament. That is not in any way intended to be a partisan point; the terms of reference for this inquiry were drawn up by the previous Government. We would wish all Governments to take more care in future to recognise the rights of the House of Commons. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance on that point.
I also place on record my thanks not only to fellow members of the Privileges Committee—I see one or two in their place this evening—but to the Clerks of the Committee and the advisers who helped us to navigate what is a challenging constitutional point. To conclude, the Committee believes that the House should do all it can to help the Omagh bombing inquiry in its work. We wish the inquiry well as it continues to seek the truth behind the terrible events of 15 August 1998. We should always remember that truly dreadful human tragedies lie behind what we are doing this evening. I commend the motion to the House.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for bringing this motion to the House, and I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), Chair of the Privileges Committee, and the Committee’s members for the work they have done on this matter.
On 9 July, I presented a petition from Tim Suter, the secretary of the Omagh bombing inquiry, asking the House to allow the inquiry to access unreported evidence from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. As current Chair of the Committee, I know how important it is that the inquiry should be able to do its work. I was happy to present the petition as the first step in getting the inquiry the information it needed.
It is an important principle that the House has control of parliamentary papers. Committees can choose to report those papers to the House, but if they do not do so, those papers are only accessible if the House so orders. It is also important that people who give evidence to a Committee know that if their evidence is not reported, it will not be released without proper consideration of the issues. As it was unreported evidence, my Committee —the current Committee—did not have access to the evidence. There was no way for the House to assess whether the information could be published in whole or redacted, or what the inquiry might need.
The Privileges Committee was asked to look at this matter and the papers were referred to it. I am grateful to the Committee for its work. As the Committee makes clear, it is possible that some of the information in the transcript may need to be restricted. It invites the House to take the unusual step of handing over material that it has not seen. I think that is entirely appropriate. The inquiry knows what information is useful to it. The Committee has received written confirmation that the evidence released to it will be treated according to its disclosure protocol to check material relevant to national security and that there will be a security check. In these circumstances, I support the motion, since I am confident that careful consideration has been given to the issues involved.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank everyone involved in producing the report and the Leader of the House for bringing it to the House for us to consider. I recall very well where I was on that fateful day when the news came through. It has always been very important to me, and indeed to everyone in this House, to ensure that justice is done. I was born in Omagh—I remember little about it, because I was only there as a wee baby—so I always want to see justice done for all those who lost loved ones.
I therefore warmly welcome the report, which is a positive step forward. My party leader—my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—my party and I have encouraged full co-operation, which is what we want to see. I thank the Chair of the Committee for all the swift conclusions brought forward. It would have been untenable for the House of Commons to withhold information that might aid the inquiry’s understanding and assist the families in their quest for truth and justice.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions to this short debate. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is an excellent Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), the Chair of the Committee of Privileges, who spoke with the typical sensitivity and thoughtfulness that we have come to expect from him. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for welcoming the action that we are about to take. As ever, he brings personal reflection and experience to our debates, and I thank him for it.
I will of course draw Departments’ attention to the words of the Chair of the Committee of Privileges, and indeed those of the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. As they both will have seen, my right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary is with us on the Front Bench and will have heard those words directly.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 and 6 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Private International Law
That the draft Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (Extension of Operative Period) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 2 September, be approved.
Sports Grounds and Sporting Events
That the draft Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.)
Question agreed to.
Offshore Wind Supply Chain: Tyneside
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I thank Mr Speaker for granting the debate. I do not underestimate the challenges that the Minister and her colleagues face, because the transition is a monumental task. Tonight I will set out the case for further Government support being needed for the offshore wind sector in places such as Tyneside.
Smulders Projects UK, which I have worked with for many years, is a critical employer in the sector and in my constituency. Smulders is not only a key global player but the UK’s leading provider of offshore wind substations and foundation structures, including monopiles, transitional pieces and jackets. Those form the essential building blocks of the critical infrastructure required for UK renewable energy security.
Smulders, based in Wallsend, is one of many businesses along the Tyne that are markers of the Tyne’s proud and enduring legacy. Throughout history, the Tyne has stepped up when the country has needed it most. [Interruption.] Today it stands ready to aid the transition to renewables. Do excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am very proud of the Tyne.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Jim Shannon on the offshore wind supply chain in Tyneside.
Jim Shannon
I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate and explained the connection between her constituency and mine, and why it is so important. I also want to encourage the hon. Lady, who has been a great friend of mine in the House in all the time I have been here. We share many things, including an interest in this subject matter, but we also share our faith. It is important that we have that relationship across the Chamber. Does she not agree that while Tyneside is a major hub for offshore wind supply, we must continue to invest in new and better methodology in renewable energy, such as harnessing tidal energy through Strangford lough and Newcastle University’s wave energy device, which contributes to the area’s role in marine energy innovation? These are things that we can do better together.
Mary Glindon
The hon. Gentleman has long been a friend of mine, and he not only speaks well of his own constituency and Northern Ireland, but is very supportive of all of us across the Irish sea. He is right in what he says, and I think we are both justly proud of what is being achieved by the universities and industries in our areas. That is why we are standing here tonight and making our plea to the Government.
This week, the Government set the budget for allocation round 7 to support new offshore wind projects. RenewableUK, along with other industry voices, has expressed concern that the amount allocated is likely to procure only a quarter of the 20 GW capacity available in this year’s tender. This is a very recent announcement, so I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the budget aligns with the Government’s plans to maximise the number of green jobs in Britain.
Against the backdrop of AR7, there is real concern regarding the alarming drift towards UK offshore wind turbine foundation structures being procured from lower-cost regions such as the middle east, the Asia-Pacific region—APAC—and China. Recent examples of this include EDF’s Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm, Ocean Winds’ Moray West OWF and the Inch Cape OWF. For these UK projects, all the foundation structures were imported from lower-cost fabrication yards located in the middle east, Indonesia and China. I understand the approach taken by the previous Government and developers to drive down and minimise capital expenditure, but that approach adversely impacts the operations of our own UK companies, which are unable to compete on cost alone.
Recent mechanisms and initiatives such as the clean industry bonus included in AR7 are of course welcome, but there is a fear that these alone will not prevent the further drift of foundation fabrication away from the UK to these lower-cost regions. With reference to the AR7 clean industry bonus allocation framework, there are two CIB criteria that developers could meet. Criterion 1 refers to “investment in shorter supply chains”, where an investment may be made in a deprived area in the UK. Given the socioeconomic challenges that Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend face, option 1 is a welcome incentive, and I look forward to the outcome of the AR7 projects, when announced. Criterion 2 refers to “investment in more sustainable means of production”, where investments may be made in one or more manufacturing facilities or installation firms that have either committed to, or set their science-based targets by, the application date anywhere in the world.
There is real concern that this approach opens the door to unfair competition from lower-cost regions such as China, APAC and the middle east, specifically for the supply of critical offshore wind infrastructure such as wind turbine generator foundations, jackets, transition pieces and monopiles. Therefore, outside the AR7 framework, and given the criticality of this infrastructure to our energy security, will the Minister set out what additional measures or guarantees can be put in place to ensure that a significant portion of offshore wind infrastructure is secured and fabricated by UK companies such as Smulders? It is essential that businesses in the UK continue to invest, innovate and introduce new technologies and processes to optimise efficiency as well as competitiveness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for UK companies to compete equally with overseas yards on such an uneven playing field.
On the Tyne, not only are supply chains held back by unfair competition; they are also constrained by physical barriers. The power cables over the Tyne are an obstacle to businesses securing work for large renewable energy structures, which risks possible net gross value added benefits of up to £1.2 billion. The height restriction in place is 87 metres. However, wind turbine jackets for AR7 and future rounds will be in excess of 100 to 120 metres high. It means that Smulders cannot bid for certain contracts despite having world-class facilities and the sharpest minds ready to go. It has been proposed that the removal of the cables will be completed in 2032. I have campaigned since 2017 for a solution to this issue—2032 is too late. The jobs of the future have become the jobs of today, and this is an international race. Yards in the middle east will not wait for 2032, APAC will not wait, and neither will China.
In July, I welcomed the Secretary of State’s commitment to engage with me and Ofgem to try to accelerate the work. I look forward to meeting the Energy Minister next month to discuss it further. I would be grateful if the Minister reaffirmed the Department’s support for bringing forward this work and reaffirm that the Government will press the National Grid for an earlier completion date.
I turn to the issue of ensuring a more consistent revenue stream for our domestic fabricators. We have seen disruption, delay and postponement in the promised pipeline of offshore wind projects because of failures during earlier leasing and allocation rounds. Projects from AR5 and AR6 are all now complete, or very near to completion. Unfortunately, however, insufficient projects were approved and insufficient contracts were awarded to the UK to ensure a continuous pipeline of work for companies such as Smulders. The result of that failure is a very real two-year chasm in UK offshore wind manufacturing. From the start of 2026, effectively, zero UK offshore wind projects will be in fabrication.
The next tranche of projects will be dependent on the successful outcome of AR7 and the clean industry bonus incentives offered to developers. The results from AR7, however, will not be known until quarter 1 in 2026, thus creating a two-year gap. This is the effective period from project approval and contract award, to finalising engineering and procuring materials before industry can start cutting steel. Optimistically, that could begin in quarter 3 or quarter 4 of 2027, with offshore infrastructure in place again two years after that in the final quarter of 2029. However, the first power generation from AR7 projects before August 2029 is a stretched target.
Smulders has already invested over £100 million at its Wallsend facilities based on previous Government assurances of continued UK offshore wind fabrication projects. What level of operational or other support is the Government willing to provide to established tier-1 fabricators such as Smulders to secure the jobs of over 600 well-paid workers during this two-year gap in fabrication?
I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State’s commitment during party conference to a clean energy jobs plan, which will see the sector grow from 430,000 jobs today to 830,000 by 2030. That will include tens of thousands of new roles for engineers, welders, electricians and construction workers. I support the Government’s ambition for further growth. The skills for these jobs are being developed and nurtured by companies in Tyneside, as well as by the Energy Academy in my constituency, which is set to expand following the combined authority’s commitment to invest £8.5 million in the college. Well-paid, secure jobs can be created through the awarding of contracts to existing UK tier-1 fabricators.
For UK companies, the outcome and results from allocation round 7 are critical to their continued operations in this country. More crucially, the outcome of the foundation contract awards will ultimately determine the long-term success or failure of our businesses—and, I believe, the future of the UK offshore wind fabrication sector. Only foundation contracts awarded domestically can provide the necessary volume of serial, repeat fabrication needed to achieve the Government’s clean jobs target, and secure the necessary skills required for a high-paid clean energy sector. I repeat my call on the Government to take further steps to ensure that a substantial allocation of AR7 foundation fabrication is awarded here in the UK.
As I said, at its peak, Smulders supports over 600 high-skilled and well-paid local jobs in Tyneside and across the region, and its primary concern is to secure those jobs in the long term. It is in the national interest for UK businesses to succeed with those projects, as they are creating highly skilled and dependable jobs that will not only strengthen the offshore wind industry but support training in skills required for associated industries such as defence, nuclear and the wider engineering sector, as well as supporting other major British infrastructure initiatives. The drifting overseas of such work threatens domestic jobs, future economic investment and the UK’s long-term security.
This is a critical juncture for the UK offshore wind sector, so will the Minister meet me, representatives from Smulders and the wider Tyneside supply chain to discuss urgently the concerns that I have set out about the areas in which industry needs further support, and so that we can present our aspirations for the clean energy future? Although the transition presents challenges from all angles, it presents even more opportunities. The Tyne is open for business, and it stands ready to play a defining role.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Minister. I believe that this is her first time at the Dispatch Box for an Adjournment debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Katie White)
It certainly is!
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) on securing a debate on this important issue, and on her passion, authenticity and representation of her area. I do not think that any of us are in doubt of those qualities tonight.
I know that this matter is close to the hearts of many Members and their constituents, particularly in our industrial heartlands. This Government are on a mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero. Offshore wind is the beating heart of that mission. The sector is already providing secure clean energy, as well as thousands of skilled jobs, bringing growth and opportunities to communities such as those in Tyneside.
The sector is also an international success story. At the end of June, the UK was generating 16.7 GW from offshore wind. That is the highest amount in Europe, and worldwide we are second only to China—a country with a population roughly 20 times the size of ours. We have consented 4.2 GW since we came into office, and we have 75 GW of capacity in the pipeline, which equates to a 450% increase on our current, world-leading amount. We also have the second most installed floating offshore wind capacity—after Norway—and, at over 25 GW, the largest pipeline of floating offshore wind projects in the world. And yet we are confident that the best is yet to come.
From north-east England to Scotland and the Celtic sea, incredible things are happening across the country in this industry. The Government are determined to do everything we can to help our offshore wind sector to thrive and to deliver for the British people. The contract for difference scheme is vital to our mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower. Allocation rounds 7 to 9 are crucial for the delivery of our goal of clean power by 2030 and for protecting households from volatile fossil fuel prices.
On Monday, we confirmed that a total budget of £900 million is available for fixed-bottom offshore wind in allocation round 7—an increase on the previous allocation round’s initial budget when comparing on a like-for-like basis. That is the initial budget for fixed-bottom offshore wind, but we have the ability to view unsuccessful bids and adjust the budget later if we deem that doing so is good value for consumers. We have fundamentally reformed the offshore wind system to get better value for money. Under the old system, the Government set a budget and had no further control over quantity and price.
We recognise the importance of robust domestic supply chains both in supporting the continued growth of this industry and in ensuring that British workers and communities benefit from the jobs that are created. The Government have therefore set out a package of support, worth up to £1 billion, for offshore wind supply chains. This includes £300 million from Great British Energy to provide upfront public investment, £400 million from the Crown Estate to support new infrastructure, including ports, manufacturing, and research and testing facilities, and £300 million from the offshore wind industry to deliver new investment into supply chains such as advanced turbine technologies and foundations.
Jim Shannon
I welcome the Minister to her place and wish her every success and happiness in her role. I will try not to be too hard with my questions. She referred for the contracts for difference scheme. I know it is something that Northern Ireland has to do itself, but at this early stage will she please engage with the relevant Minister in the Assembly, and perhaps help us to move our scheme forward?
Katie White
I will ensure that the Minister for Energy is aware of his issues and feeds them in. I am sure he will—I believe he is a friend of the hon. Gentleman.
This is a genuinely transformative package of investment, and by providing that support, as well as clarity in our plans, we are giving investors and developers the confidence to invest in the future. It is expected that the £1 billion package of investment will directly and indirectly mobilise billions more, as well as supporting thousands of jobs in our industrial heartlands. We have also introduced a clean industry bonus to reward projects that invest in coastal communities, industrial heartlands and cleaner supply chains.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend said, criteria 2 of the clean industry bonus rewards investments in cleaner supply chains, measured by sign-up to the science-based target initiative for decarbonisation. It so happens that the overwhelming majority of qualifying suppliers are in the UK or the European Union—very few suppliers outside the region qualify under criteria 2. It was great to see the clean industry bonus auction smash bid expectations earlier this year, and we look forward to seeing the investments come in after auction round 7, showing that when the Government lead with ambition, industry is ready to match it.
We also know that we will need even more skilled workers to achieve our mission in the years ahead, and with our analysis suggesting that the offshore wind sector alone could support up to 100,000 jobs by 2030, we are determined to ensure that our industrial communities benefit. That is why we have set up the Office for Clean Energy Jobs, which will provide training and support to the workforce in the clean energy and net zero sectors. Our priority is creating good jobs in Britain’s industrial heartlands, including a just transition for the industries based in the North sea. On 19 October, we published our clean energy jobs plan, which sets out how the Government will work in partnership with industry and trade unions to help workers in all parts of the country to benefit from these opportunities, supporting our existing workforce to find new opportunities, training up the next generation, and supporting our young people to get good, unionised jobs.
Let me turn to our support for the north-east. Tyneside is ideally placed to service the offshore energy sector, including one of the world’s largest offshore wind markets. The Tyne has the capacity to become a major hub for the installation and maintenance of offshore wind farms, and to service the supply chain that will grow from it. In 2023, the UK Infrastructure Bank invested £50 million in the Port of Tyne as part of a debt refinancing package of up to £100 million. That finance was provided to regenerate and redevelop land, building a base for a growing number of clean energy industries in the area, including offshore wind, advanced manufacturing and other renewable activities.
In September, the Port of Tyne announced that it is investing £150 million to transform 23 acres into the Tyne clean energy park, adding 400 metres of deep-water quayside to support offshore renewables, clean energy and advanced manufacturing. According to the Port of Tyne, the redevelopment could create up to 12,000 jobs and deliver £5.6 billion to the economy. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to help us realise that potential. On the transmission cable over the River Tyne, I confirm that the Government are open to discussing the progress of the proposals to underground the cable with National Grid. The decision for approving the project lies with Ofgem as the independent regulator, which must demonstrate that there are benefits to consumers when approving network projects.
To sum up, our offshore wind sector is a British success story of which we should all be proud. Thanks to the perfect conditions provided by the North sea, as well as our legendary offshore workforce and supply chains, we are perfectly placed to keep leading the way. But this Government are not content with simply winning the race for clean power; we want to build the industries of the future here in Britain and, in so doing, we want to create a new generation of good, skilled jobs for the communities we depend on and to ensure that the economic benefits of the clean power transition are felt in Tyneside and in every corner of our country.
I know that the Minister for Energy had a fantastic visit to the Smulders UK yard in Wallsend in the summer, and he will be happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025.
Ian Murray
The Media Act 2024 received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024 and made much-needed changes to the regulation of public service broadcasting, which was last substantively updated in 2003. Since then, internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access content. The changes introduced by the Media Act are vital to ensuring that our public service broadcasters—PSBs—have the flexibility to serve audiences across the UK with high-quality programmes on a wide range of services. The Department has already begun the process of bringing into force the provisions of the Act, which will modernise the UK’s system of public service broadcasting. These statutory instruments form part of that implementation work, specifically in relation to the PSB quotas and the quota system.
As Members may be aware, each PSB operates under a compact, which is an exchange of benefits and obligations. The benefits include guaranteed access to spectrum and prominence on TV guides, and the obligations include quotas, which are quantitative obligations placed on a channel to make and/or broadcast a specified amount of content, such as news and current affairs programmes. Quotas are an important regulatory tool to ensure that PSBs produce an appropriate range of content that is relevant to the country and their viewers.
The draft instruments relate to three PSB quota obligations. The first is the independent productions quota, which requires PSBs to commission a certain amount of programming from independent producers, which are a key part of the broadcasting and TV production ecosystem. The second is the original productions quota, which requires PSBs to broadcast programmes they have commissioned directly, rather than programmes acquired from others. The third is the regional and national productions quota, which places requirements on public service broadcasters regarding the proportion of programmes made outside London, as well as the proportion of expenditure on making programmes outside London.
Currently, the quotas can be delivered only by a PSB’s designated linear channel, such as BBC One, BBC Two or ITV1. In 2020, Ofcom’s previous public service media review, “Small Screen: Big Debate”, concluded that the PSB system, including the quotas, was in need of modernisation. When fully commenced, the Media Act will permit the delivery of PSB quotas via a wide range of other services, including on-demand services such as iPlayer and ITVX, which reflects changes in technology, consumer behaviour and increased competition from on-demand services. The Act also amends the regulatory regime to convert the existing percentage quota to a number-of-hours quota so that it can apply to on-demand programming as well as just the linear channels. The regulations simply introduce the necessary technical tweaks required to implement the changes in the Media Act.
The snappily named draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 will amend the Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004 to update relevant defined terms to align with the changes made by the Media Act— I hope the shadow Minister is following this. The regulations also confer powers on Ofcom concerning the treatment of repeats in relation to both original and regional and national productions.
Meanwhile, the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025 will revoke and replace the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 to update relevant terminology, as set out in the Media Act, and to set the level of the modernised independent productions quota for each PSB. In case anyone is not awake and following this, it will be repeated on BBC Two.
The Media Act gives the Secretary of State the power to specify a minimum number of hours for the purposes of the independent production quota for each public service broadcaster. The new modernised quota for each PSB is set out in schedule 1 to the Act, which every member of the Committee has. Given that our public service broadcasters generally outperform their independent production quotas every year, our ambition is to replicate the effect of the existing, non-modernised quota, and to ensure that the quota itself remains fit for purpose and operable for on-demand services. It should be noted that the percentage quota that applies to non-PSBs will remain unchanged.
I will quickly mention the role of the regulator, Ofcom. While the Secretary of State sets the minimum level of the independent productions quota, the task of setting the level of the original and the regional and national productions quotas is delegated to Ofcom itself. Given that Ofcom is responsible for setting the level of these quotas, it was decided that Ofcom should also determine, as part of that process, the treatment of repeats in those areas. This was done to ensure that decisions made about the level of the public service broadcasters’ quotas, and how many times programmes can contribute to them, make operational sense. The regulations therefore require Ofcom to determine whether repeats may be counted towards the original and regional productions quotas.
Furthermore, Ofcom has also been given the power to determine the types of content that can count towards the original productions quota. Ofcom leads this process and has been consulting stakeholders on their terminology and methodology for determining the appropriate levels of the quotas, as well as the treatment of repeats. Ofcom will also continue to be responsible for monitoring the delivery of PSB quotas, as set out in the PSBs’ licences and in agreement with S4C. It will shortly begin the licence variation process to amend the quota conditions in the PSB licences of Channels 3, 4 and 5, which will need to account for these changes to the PSBs’ quotas.
The PSBs play a vital role in the UK TV sector and produce high-quality public service content that audiences across the UK value very much. We know that, in a lot of cases, PSBs routinely surpass their quotas, so these regulations are primarily designed to give them the tools to deliver the quotas where the audiences are actually watching the programmes.
The Government are aware that the media landscape is going through a period of rapid change due to shifts in viewing habits, which poses both opportunities and challenges for PSBs. That is why we are getting on with implementing the Media Act, which delivers important reforms to support the future sustainability of our public service broadcasters. This includes bringing forward these draft regulations for debate today, and I commend them both to the Committee.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. As the Minister rightly said, these regulations are made under powers introduced by the Media Act 2024, which is a significant piece of legislation designed to modernise our broadcasting framework for the digital age, passed under the previous Conservative Government.
The draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 update the Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004 to ensure that key definitions and obligations remain consistent with the new statutory regime established by the Act. In particular, these regulations bring the treatment of repeats within the original and regional productions quotas up to date, reflecting the way in which programmes are now produced, distributed and consumed.
As members of the Committee will know, the Media Act gave the Secretary of State the power to determine whether repeats of public service content could count towards broadcasters’ quotas. These regulations delegate the responsibility to Ofcom, the industry regulator, which already sets the levels of the original productions and regional programme-making quotas for public service broadcasters, other than the BBC. Allowing Ofcom to decide how repeats are treated ensures a coherent and practical approach—one that links the measurement of quotas to the operational realities of programming, commissioning and scheduling.
By modernising the definitions and entrusting Ofcom with the appropriate discretion, these regulations help to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom’s public service broadcasting system, while ensuring that it remains fit for purpose in a fast-changing media landscape. They are a further example of how the previous Conservative Government’s Media Act continues to provide the foundations for a flexible, forward-looking and well-regulated broadcasting sector.
Moving on to the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025, as members of the Committee will know, the previous regime for independent production quotas was based on linear television, requiring each public service broadcaster to commission at least 25% of their qualifying hours from independent producers. However, as audiences have increasingly turned to on-demand platforms, such as ITVX and BBC iPlayer, the old system no longer reflected how viewers were accessing public service content. The Media Act addressed this by extending the scope of the quotas so that they could be delivered across a broadcaster’s wide range of services, and by converting percentage-based quotas into minimum hours targets.
This statutory instrument gives effect to those provisions, setting the new quotas for each of the main public service broadcasters—the BBC, S4C and Channels 3, 4 and 5—based on a five-year average of qualifying hours. I understand that the updated framework has been agreed with both Ofcom and the broadcasters themselves to ensure that it remains balanced, proportionate and achievable. It also updates the definitions of “independent production” and “independent producer” to bring them into line with modern industry practice without making substantive policy changes.
An important part of the reform relates to Channel 4. Following the removal of the publisher-broadcaster model under the Media Act, Channel 4 has been permitted to undertake limited in-house production for the first time. To maintain its strong relationship with the independent sector, the quota for Channel 4 has been increased from 25% to 35% of its programming hours. We believe this represents a fair and reasonable adjustment that safeguards opportunities for small and medium-sized independent producers, while giving Channel 4 the scope to adapt and innovate.
Overall, this instrument reflects a pragmatic and forward-looking approach to media regulation. It ensures that public service broadcasters continue to meet their obligations to commission high-quality, independent content while providing flexibility to operate effectively in a rapidly changing digital landscape. It builds on the legislative foundations set out by the Media Act and maintains the UK’s reputation for having a diverse, independent and world-leading broadcasting sector. On that note, we will not be seeking to divide the Committee.
Ian Murray
These regulations are a small part of a much larger piece of ongoing work within the Department and Ofcom to implement the entire Media Act. That work has cross-party support, and we are looking to take it forward. Ofcom, the public service broadcasters and the Government—including the previous Government—have all been working together to make sure we can get these regulations right for the industry.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT BROADCASTING (INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIONS) REGULATIONS 2025.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025.—(Ian Murray.)
Protection of primitive goat species in the Scottish Borders
Ilkeston Market Place
Safety of the A500 Audley slip road
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
International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools
(1 day, 9 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
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Before we start, it has been drawn to my attention that a photograph is to be taken in the Chamber at 11 o’clock. We have no power to suspend this sitting to accommodate that, but I will try to get a message to the Speaker’s Office to say that there are Members here who would like to be in the Chamber for that and that if it could be held off until about 11.5 am, that should give Members here time to get across. Those of us taking part in the second debate will not have that luxury.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered funding for the International Baccalaureate in state schools.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The international baccalaureate—which I will henceforth refer to as the IB, but I hate acronyms, so I wanted to say it properly to start with—establishes the global standard for education and is recognised by universities, employers and educators worldwide as a symbol of academic excellence.
For those who are unaware, the IB diploma is an alternative to A-levels that offers a breadth of subjects across the curriculum: languages, humanities, sciences, maths and arts. Students complete extended projects, theory of knowledge and service in the community, making for a well-rounded education. Studies have shown that IB students in the UK are three times more likely to enrol in a top 20 higher education institution, 40% more likely to achieve a first-class or upper second-class honours degree and 21% more likely to continue to the second year of university. That is why thousands of British families choose to send their children to schools offering the IB diploma.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. I have constituents who attend the Europa School in his constituency, and they have been in touch with me about this issue. He speaks of choice. If we can have faith schools, free schools, maintained schools, academies, grammar schools, state boarding schools and colleges—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Let us get the ground rules right: this is an intervention, not a speech.
Freddie van Mierlo
Does my hon. Friend agree that choice is an extremely valuable part of the education system, and we should be supporting the Europa School?
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point and articulately summarises the wide range of choice in schools that there is separately from the IB. He is right to mention the Europa School in Culham in my constituency; I will say more about that school later and explain why it is so important to the Government’s objectives for the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor.
Since 2013, the Government have provided a large programme uplift—another acronym: LPU—in funding to state schools and colleges in England to support high-quality 16-to-19 study programmes exceeding the standard 600 hours of teaching. That helps to fund state schools to deliver the IB diploma programme. On 1 October this year, the Department for Education wrote to affected state schools and colleges to notify them that the Government are axing the LPU funding for the international baccalaureate diploma programme from the 2026-27 academic year.
As with so much in life, the “what” is important, but in many ways the “how” is even more so. Many schools and parents are hugely concerned that there was no consultation or impact assessment on the changes and no warning that this was coming. It could hardly have come at a worse time, as schools are having open days, showing families around and letting them know what they offer.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
A governor of the Europa School in my hon. Friend’s constituency wrote to me to object to the short notice that the Government have provided, at a time when children and their parents are making decisions about the future and choosing the opportunity that an IB programme provides. Does he agree that this was short-sighted and ill considered by the Government?
Olly Glover
I very much agree. The fact that there is a governor of this school in my hon. Friend’s constituency shows that these schools often have wide catchment areas, because of the fairly unusual and very popular offer that they make, which is attractive to many in the surrounding areas.
It is unclear what these schools should be saying to parents as they look to enrol their children for the next calendar year. This will be deeply damaging for those schools.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Students in my constituency are served by Impington Village college for the IB. They are deeply unhappy that the college received a letter from the Department announcing the change with no warning or consultation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government decision has caused an unacceptable amount of stress for pupils, parents and staff, and that how the Government are acting is the complete opposite—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. This is an intervention, not a speech. The Chair deprecates scripted interventions; they are supposed to be spontaneous.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend gives a strong example of another school offering that type of qualification. It is also in that Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor, which is so important to the Government.
The Government have committed to increasing the number of those pursuing further education, whether academic or technical, and they talk about a “broad and bold curriculum”. Removing funding for the IB in state schools does not seem to align with the Government’s stated aims. State schools losing the funding will make it unviable for some of them to deliver the IB programme, as it takes more teaching hours and highly trained specialists.
Some of the state schools offering IB are selective, but many are not, including Europa School in my constituency. Removing the funding ensures that only independent schools can offer the IB, creating a two-tier system so only those who can pay will get it.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I was lucky enough to go to a school in Cheltenham called the Cheltenham Ladies college where the IB was offered. It is grossly unfair that children who cannot afford school fees should not have the opportunity for this wonderful international qualification. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Olly Glover
I very much agree. The risk, the consequence, of this Government decision is that it pushes people towards independent schools. Surely that is not in line with the Government’s strongly stated views on private versus state education. Additionally, those teachers trained to deliver the programme may also opt to move to the private sector, meaning our state schools lose yet more teaching talent—both pupils and teachers could be pushed away.
Europa School is a single academy trust based at Culham in my Oxfordshire constituency; I was lucky enough to visit it on 7 March this year. It provides a broad, challenging and internationally minded curriculum with specialisms in modern European languages, in particular French, German and Spanish, and the STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering and maths. The Department for Education provides a grant of £100,000. I am happy to say that Europa School is successful and thriving, with 1,150 pupils, long waiting lists in all cohorts and 106 in the midst of doing their IB diplomas.
My constituency is home to myriad public and private sector science and tech research companies, such as the UK Atomic Energy Authority, in Culham just down the road from the school, the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy and, slightly further from the school, those at Harwell campus and Milton Park. Cutting-edge research and commercial innovation take place every day and, as such, the area attracts a world-class scientific community that very much relies on people coming from wherever in the world has the specialist expertise to contribute to world-class scientific efforts.
For scientists choosing to relocate to the UK to pursue such cutting-edge research, the option of the Europa School is without doubt a draw, and it enables their families to continue their international education. The origins of the school very much lie there, in that it used to be a European Union-funded institution, affiliated to the JET—Joint European Torus—fusion testing facility that was next door in Culham. Clearly, the school has evolved since our decision to leave the European Union, but it still has that international ethos.
There is a real risk that the UK will lose global talent hubs and STEM industries as cutting-edge scientists relocate to other global destinations in the event that the education available to their families loses its relevance. It is hard to see, therefore, how the policy we are debating supports the Government’s stated aim of pursuing cutting-edge scientific research and their goals for the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor. Only last week, the Government announced funding for the Oxford to Cowley branch line. The funding needed to support Europa School and others is just a drop in the ocean compared with the costs those needed to deliver the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor.
Additionally, the Europa School is unique. It operates a bilingual model, enabling European students to continue some learning in their native tongue and UK students the opportunity to reach an unusual level of proficiency in another language. That would be lost if the school had to resort to GCSEs and A-levels, which other schools in the area offer.
Never mind what I think, however. There is a real-world impact on students and their families, and I want to share a little of what students and parents themselves have said. I was told about the Europa headteacher meeting a year 11 student who had applied for a scholarship to a nearby independent school. She would not have considered it but for this announcement. She has her heart set on studying the IB but is now unsettled. Unfortunately, she is not the only one. The existing lower-sixth students have expressed concern about whether the school will be able to continue to offer their choices of subjects without the transitional funding for their final year at Europa.
Uma from the lower-sixth said:
“As an IB student at Europa School UK, my classmates and I are really concerned about the Government’s decision to reduce support for IB students in state schools. It’s a really challenging curriculum that encourages a strong language base, critical thinking, scientific depth and research, with extra requirements to broaden our skills. We are all so passionate about the program and the school, and the opportunity to complete this additional challenge, which now is at risk for us and younger children. If the Government want to invest in the future and believe in equality in education, they should reverse their decision.”
The school has reassured the lower-sixth but cannot offer those reassurances to year 11 students. Amalia in year 11 said:
“Due to the unnecessary uncertainty surrounding this proposal, a significant number of my friends, who I have known for almost my entire life, have started to look into different IB schools. I know I will stay in Europa to pursue subjects such as physics, maths and German, as I want to be an engineer, and the IB is helping me develop all the skills I will need, along with giving me a wider outlook on culture and teaching me problem-solving skills and improving my creative and conceptual understanding. However, my learning of these skills is being put at risk, as some of the classes I hope to take, such as art and philosophy, may not be able to be taught next school year, which would cause such a loss in my and others’ academic development. I also hope to continue with my languages next year, as Europa has provided me with such an enriching and cultural curriculum that has inspired me to continue learning languages, so that I can use them in my later life.”
I would add to those comments that surely, in our globalised world and talk of global Britain, it is more important than ever to improve our language proficiency. We could aspire to be like the Netherlands, where everyone—even in the middle of nowhere, cycling along by the North sea—speaks fluent English. I am not suggesting that Dutch should be the language of choice for us, lovely though it is; I will stop digging at this point.
About 70 parents wrote to me as constituents and have signed a Change.org petition. They told me:
“Many of our families are attracted to work in cutting-edge technology and innovation here, precisely because there is a credible education option for their children who will leave with an internationally recognised qualification. The Government’s stated reason for the change is evidently to encourage schools to focus on the study of STEM subjects. This suggests to us that someone in the Education Department does not understand anything about the IB. The IB ensures that all students must to continue to study mathematics and all the sciences up to the age of 18. For a bilingual school like Europa, the IB offers the only suitable framework that allows our students’ language proficiency to be properly assessed and challenged. If we are forced to revert to GCSEs and A-levels, we will lose the ability to provide the depth of language education that Europa was designed to deliver.”
I hope the Minister can provide clarity on a point that is not clear to me or Europa School. At present, schools get core funding per student for 16 to 19 and then the large programme uplift that I mentioned. The LPU for IB schools was 20% of core funding. Will the increase to core funding of £800 million cover the proposed cut to the LPU? I understand that that £800 million will cover only rising school costs and the increased teacher pay awards. I also understand that there is a parachute payment for the academic year 2026-27 that will be approximately 40% of the previous LPU payment. That might go some way to supporting the current year 12 students to complete their IBs, but still represents a significant shortfall.
In conclusion, it is clear that the education pathway of the IB offers a choice for students and parents that is of high quality and appealing to many. By removing funding for it, the Government are reinforcing a two-tier system, where only those children whose parents can afford independent schools will be able to take the international baccalaureate. That goes against the Government’s stated policies on state versus private education.
The curriculum review should be viewed as an opportunity to learn from the success of the IB diploma, so that more students can benefit from a rigorous programme that balances breadth and depth without narrowing options too early. I ask the Minister to reinstate the funding, at a cost of just £2.5 million a year. When researching for this debate, I was astonished to discover that the Department for Education’s budget is more than £100 billion annually. Assuming that my maths is up to scratch—alas, I did not go to Europa School—that represents 0.0025% of the Department’s annual budget.
I ask the Minister to reinstate that funding so that we do not close the door to a high-quality programme for a generation of state school pupils and their families. I thank everyone for attending the debate and look forward to hearing their comments, in particular the Minister’s.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Before we proceed, I should say that eight hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak. I propose to call the Front Benchers at 10.30 am. We have tried to get a message to the Speaker’s Office and I have not had a response, so we do not know what the score is. If the Front Benchers curtail their remarks, I can suspend the sitting slightly early. Those who are participating in the following business will have to remain here, but other Members should be able to make it to the Chamber by 11 o’clock. I am minded to put a time limit on speeches, but for the moment, if we can work on a self-denying ordinance of five minutes, we should be able to get everybody in. I call Josh Dean.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this morning’s debate.
Hockerill Anglo-European College in Bishop’s Stortford is one of the 20 or so state schools across the country to offer the international baccalaureate diploma. A vibrant day and boarding school, Hockerill’s post-16 provision is based entirely on the IB diploma, and it is the only school in our community to offer the programme. The removal of the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate programme by the Department for Education would seriously impact Hockerill’s ability to offer the IB.
Hockerill’s sixth form open morning for the next school year takes place in just under a month, and the letter notifying the school of the changes arrived on 1 October—the same day its promotional material for the sixth form was signed off. The school had received no previous indication of potential changes and had not been consulted. The letter professed to let it know about them “in good time” in case it needed “to consider changes” to its “provision and plans”. However, when I met the principal last week, he was clear that, with the prospectus signed off and families due to walk through the door for their open morning, there simply is not time to make drastic changes to provision and that the school will be unable to offer the IB following the changes.
That decision does not take place in a vacuum. Hockerill is an international boarding school as well as a local state school, but the additional income that that once provided has been severely impacted by changes following Brexit. Furthermore, like many state schools, Hockerill has seen a dramatic rise in the number of children with special educational needs and disabilities and education, health and care plans, and the additional provision it offers has also had a significant impact on its budget.
The IB diploma has made up Hockerill’s sole post-16 provision for many years. The school has already advertised that provision to its current year 11 and to year 11 students across our community, and it intends to honour that offer. That means that it will run the provision with reduced transitional funding next year and without the LPU the following year, meaning it will have to consider taking money from elsewhere in an already stretched budget.
Will the Minister reflect in his response on what consideration the DFE has given to schools such as Hockerill, which did not expect to make drastic changes to their post-16 provision in such a short timeframe, and on how it intends to support them to make any changes? Will he also set out what consideration the DFE has given to, at minimum, extending the transitional funding for a further year to allow schools such as Hockerill to complete the IB programme for current year 11s going into the sixth form, thus reducing disruption? Finally, will he urgently meet me to discuss Hockerill’s case, how the changes will impact the school community and our town, and the wider challenges being faced?
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for bringing forward this debate.
The international baccalaureate sets a global benchmark for education. It is trusted by universities, employers and educators worldwide as a mark of academic excellence. It equips young people with the skills they need for life, producing confident and well-rounded citizens. It therefore makes no sense for the Government to slash large programme uplift funding for the IB diploma programme—a deeply damaging and short-sighted move that will affect only 20 state schools that offer the IB. That funding makes it possible for state schools to deliver the IB programme, and removing it jeopardises access to the programme for state school students across England, entrenching even further the divide between state and private schools. That directly contradicts the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity.
The cut, worth just £2.5 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage said, is a drop in the ocean for the DFE, given its £100 billion budget, but the impact on state schools and students currently taking or planning to take the IB is devastating. Why are the Government discouraging ambition and preventing social mobility to save such a comparatively small sum of money?
I recently heard from Torquay Boys’ Grammar School, which is in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) and is attended by many of my constituents. The school was shocked to learn that its large programme uplift funding would end with no prior warning, cutting £116,000 from its budget in 2026 and £90,000 in 2027. It warned that this was an irreversible change. Establishing the IB involves years of preparation and teacher training, something the school has been building up since 2009.
Losing the IB would happen quickly and with no turning back, but the impact extends beyond that. Torquay Boys’ said that without the IB it could not sustain A-level language courses. Those usually have only four to five students per class, but the IB programme keeps 40 students learning languages at 16 to 18. The cut could therefore lead to the death of certain subjects altogether in some state schools. As a language graduate myself, this is something I care about deeply. We can all plainly see the damage that cutting our ties to our nearest neighbours on the European mainland has done. Effectively wiping out language learning in schools is yet another hammer blow to intercultural understanding and relationship building.
We know that the IB is a pathway to top universities, apprenticeships and employment for young people in the state sector, so the cut is at direct odds with the Government’s pledge to increase the number of students pursuing further education. It provides a broad and balanced curriculum, including maths, science, humanities, arts and a language. This decision therefore also actively conflicts with the Government’s promise in opposition to deliver a “broad and bold” curriculum.
Not every student is ready to limit their choices to three A-levels at 16 years old. The IB enables them to keep their options open for longer, ensuring they reach the right decision about what to go on to study later in life. Why are the Government taking a decision that actively narrows curriculums and limits skillsets? Why are they undertaking this hypocritical action that goes against their own commitments, missions and promises? And what do they seek to gain from a cut that will free up so little cash, but take away significant opportunities from ambitious state school students?
Our education system should nurture every child’s full range of talents by embracing a broader curriculum rooted in curiosity, creativity and critical thinking. The Liberal Democrats want a system that supports aspiration and opens opportunity. We need a more diverse education system, not a more homogenised one. The Government must reverse this cut and go further. The upcoming curriculum review should draw on the success of the IB diploma programme so that more students can benefit from its rigorous and balanced approach. The UK should learn from international models like the IB, not shut them down.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.
Truro and Penwith College in my constituency is a very successful tertiary college. It is fully ready to take up the mantle of two thirds of students and learners being in further education, higher education or apprenticeships by the age of 25. It works closely with businesses to set up courses relevant to the industrial strategy and the high-priority sectors the Government are pushing. It is doing a really good job at getting Cornwall ready for new sectors, particularly things like renewables. It also offers high-level maths, which my own son benefited from a great deal.
The college has been offering the international baccalaureate for a number of years on a non-selective basis. It is one of the most successful IB providers in the country, with a 98% pass rate in 2025 and with nearly a quarter of students achieving 40 points or more, which is equivalent to four A* A-levels. It is also the only provider of the IB in the whole of Cornwall, so students travel from across the duchy, from Launceston to Land’s End—sometimes more than two hours each way—to pursue the IB at Truro college. In fact, some parents relocate specifically to Cornwall because the provision is world class.
The college counts many young people from all areas of deprivation in Cornwall among its students, as well as young carers and people on free school meals. In 2023-24, eight disadvantaged learners took the IB, as did 13 learners with special educational needs and disabilities. I have been contacted by several parents and teachers, who emphasise that the IB’s strength comes from the breadth oflearning opportunities. It is enriching and allows young people to pursue a diverse range of academic subjects, alongside volunteering and participating in sports and creative projects. It prepares them not just for higher or further education, but for employment and contributing to their communities.
Truro college offers such wide provision, and that is just part of what it provides, but it is a very important part. I therefore ask the Minister to assure me that if and when the financial situation improves, he will look again at this type of provision.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on obtaining this important debate. A number of powerful points have already been made, but I want to put on record the concerns that have been expressed to me by constituents who have children at, or who work at, the Anglo European School in Ingatestone in Essex. Like the schools that have already been mentioned, the Anglo European has an outstanding reputation locally and attracts children from a wide area, not just the immediate vicinity.
One reason for that is that the Anglo European is the only school locally that offers the international baccalaureate. The IB course is extremely rigorous, but it provides a breadth of curriculum that is not available in other courses. Many parents choose for their children to undertake it because the result, as has been mentioned, is a higher chance of gaining admission to top universities or employment.
The IB is rigorous, requiring a lot of extra teaching time as a result, and it is in recognition of that that the large programme uplift was instituted. In the case of the Anglo European, the IB requires something like 1,500 hours of teaching time over two years, compared with 1,280 for the standard programme. The value of the uplift to the Anglo European is something like £55,000, and if it is withdrawn, the school will probably be unable to continue to offer the IB.
Like other schools that have been mentioned, the Anglo European draws pupils from a range of different backgrounds and contributes to social mobility. If that course is not available there, it will be available only in the independent schools. Of course, this policy is being introduced at the same time the Government are pursuing their vendetta against independent schools by putting VAT on school fees, which will result in them being further out of reach for the vast majority of people. The result of all this is that only the very richest are likely to be able to attend schools that offer the international baccalaureate.
As has been said, the policy was also introduced without any warning. One of the assistant headteachers at the school said:
“The Department’s letter arrived with no prior warning or consultation, right in the middle of sixth-form information events for next year. This results in…uncertainty for school leaders and governors about whether the full IB Diploma will be viable for this school next year.”
You have made it clear, Sir Roger, that you do not want a lot of these points repeated, so I will not speak any longer, other than to quote what another of the teachers said to me in a letter:
“Without a resolution by the end of this term, the school will be forced to consider alternative curriculum pathways, which would close off the full IB Diploma course from future generations of state school pupils, directly contradicting the government’s promise of a ‘broad curriculum.’”
Like other Members, I hope the Minister will think again.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this important debate and for his thoughtful opening speech.
Dartford grammar school is a historic institution in my constituency, which has been providing exceptionally high-quality education for pupils of all incomes and backgrounds for a very long time. It is one of the 20 or so schools affected by the decision to remove the large programme uplift for 16-to-19 study programmes, including the IB diploma, from the 2026-27 academic year. Since the election last year, I have been fortunate to visit the school, which is a state school fully funded from the public purse, to see in person the education it offers. It is a privilege to have the school head and members of the board of governors here today, but it is unfortunate that they are with us in such trying circumstances.
As others have said, the international baccalaureate diploma offers pupils from a wide range of backgrounds the opportunity of world-class, rigorous education and a programme of academic study that is second to none. Beyond that, it encourages the development of essential skills and values through extended projects, theory of knowledge and service in the community. Crucially, it also encourages pupils to broaden their horizons and adopt an international outlook in the way they develop their understanding of the world, resulting in Dartford grammar winning the prestigious British Council international school award not only in 2025, but in previous years too.
One of the most memorable occasions during my first year representing Dartford was witnessing the enthusiasm and joy of students involved in the long-standing international exchange programme run by the school with two partner schools in Wakayama, Japan. It is those wider educational opportunities and activities that mean that the sixth form attracts young people from across south-east London and Kent who want to study the IB diploma.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this debate. Dartford grammar sounds much like Dane Court school in my constituency, which offers the opportunity of the international baccalaureate to children from across the academy chain—I know that some of your constituents benefit from that provision, Sir Roger. The headteacher told me that the wider implication of the cut is that the IB diploma will probably disappear entirely from the state sector. Does my hon. Friend seek reassurance from the Minister, as I do, that the IB does have a future role in breaking down barriers to opportunity, not only in his constituency and mine, but across the country?
Jim Dickson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency, the IB is available to children from low-income backgrounds and is particularly attractive because it provides young people with additional stretch and challenge and breaks down barriers to opportunity—not only in top universities, which is very important, but in apprenticeships and employment. It would be a tragedy if that were lost, and the point that my hon. Friend asks the Minister to respond to is exactly the right one.
The challenge we face is that the longer teaching hours mean that the IB costs more to deliver. The LPU funding has been crucial in allowing state schools such as Dartford grammar to deliver it. It is clear to me that without that funding, the IB diploma will no longer be available at Dartford grammar and will become the preserve of private schools that can afford to offer it, cutting off those in the state sector from the limited access that currently exists.
I understand that there may be some transitional funding in place for the next academic year—40% of the current value has been mentioned—but I am unclear what that will mean for a school such as Dartford grammar, where the entire sixth form takes the IB. The school faces the prospect of needing to replace its entire curriculum and restructure staffing for the sixth form over the next year, with extremely limited notice that this was coming.
I hope that the Minister will be persuaded to think again about the future of the large programme uplift, but if the Government are determined to pursue this course of action, perhaps they could provide more detail and a longer period for any transitional funding for schools, and let us know of any other source of assistance for state-funded schools that wish to keep the IB diploma.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on obtaining this debate. I myself applied for a debate on this subject, so I am pleased to be here today.
Torquay boys’ grammar school in my constituency has discharged the pleasure of teaching the international baccalaureate for the last 16 years. It results in an influx into the school of young women, as well as youngsters from across the south-west and even Europe, who want to study the incredible, enhancing baccalaureate. My own son participated in the international baccalaureate. He volunteered in a care home and, a little over 10 years later, he is now a registrar at Torbay hospital and about to enter into a programme to become a consultant with an interest in care for the elderly. That demonstrates how the IB drives positive change. I am aware from universities that the IB is very often—just as in my son’s case—seen as a good standard for gaining entrance to medical schools.
I had a conversation with the head of Torquay boys’ grammar school, who said that the international baccalaureate offers those youngsters who develop later in sixth form greater opportunity to flourish more they would have in an A-level setting. I hope that the Minister reflects on how the international baccalaureate truly helps social mobility—something that I would hope a Labour Government would want to propagate rather than negate.
Colleagues from across the Chamber have highlighted the short notice of the change to funding. My hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) rightly mentioned how it will impact the ability to offer languages, which will affect schools like Torquay boys’ grammar. I am sure that will be echoed across the country. The reality is that the £5 million in question is 0.004% of the education budget—a drop in the ocean. I say to the Minister: please, think again. The IB is about enriching our society and offering greater social mobility. Surely, that is what this Government should be all about.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this important debate.
Post-16 education is a vital stage of a young person’s life. Whether they are following an academic, vocational or technical pathway, it is the stage at which they can focus more on the subjects they love, exercise greater choice over their learning, and begin to think more about where they want their education to take them, whether into further or higher education or employment. It is also a stage at which wider enrichment is vital, helping young people to develop broader transferable skills, find their talents, grow in confidence and expand into their growing freedom and independence.
However, funding for 16-to-19 education in schools and colleges has been significantly cut in real terms. Per-pupil funding had fallen by approximately 11% for colleges and 23% for school sixth form by 2024-25, compared with 2010-11 levels. That decline is the largest in any part of the education sector from nought to 19, and it has not been fully addressed, even with recent increases in funding. That has left many schools and colleges working hard to deliver a broad and enriched education for their 16 to 19-year-old students in the context of severe resource limitations.
There is no doubt that the international baccalaureate is a welcome development in 16-to-19 education. Its programme of study allows students to maintain a broader base, studying six subjects compared with the three of four that are typical for students taking A-levels. The IB also has a focus on broader skills and on creativity, as well as a more diverse range of assessment methods. It has many features that should be common to all post-16 education. But the IB is taught in just 20 of the 2,132 schools and colleges in the state sector that offer 16-to-19 education—less than 1% of those institutions—and in less than 10% of independent schools.
The Government’s decision to redeploy funding from the large programme uplift for the IB must be seen in the context of the broader challenges they face. Given the education funding landscape they inherited, how can they deliver an excellent education for every 16 to 19-year-old student across academic, vocational and technical pathways?
Caroline Voaden
The hon. Member talks about redeploying funding so that it can be spread across the landscape to improve 16-to-19 education, but we are talking about 0.004% of the education budget. Does she think that the tiny amount of funding that goes into the IB would make any difference at all if it were spread across the entire education landscape?
Helen Hayes
I think the Government are right to focus on how to improve education for every young person. If the hon. Member will bear with me, I will come on to some wider points about the importance of the IB, and the features of the IB that should be applicable more widely across the education sector. We need to be clear that we are talking about 1% of schools across the country, and that the other 99% of schools and colleges have many deep challenges. The Government are right to turn their attention to them as well.
How can the Government ensure that every young person has opportunities for enrichment and opportunities to develop broad transferable skills? Given the shockingly high figure of one in eight young people who are not in education, employment or training, how can the Government ensure that post-16 education is engaging, inspiring and exciting for all young people?
Where I take issue with the Government is in relation to the lack of consultation underpinning their decision to redeploy funding within the large programme uplift.
Freddie van Mierlo
In so many policy areas, the Government seem to be unable to break wind without consulting for 18 months. Does the hon. Lady agree that they should reverse their decision and hold a consultation before proceeding?
Helen Hayes
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will elaborate on consultation and engagement in a moment, but I encourage Liberal Democrat Members to reflect on the role that their own Government played in the shockingly deep cuts to 16-to-19 education across the board from 2010, and the implications of those decisions in what the current Government are now trying to tackle.
Engagement with schools and colleges on the decision would have been helpful. Given the Government’s objectives for the economy, I understand the focus on STEM subjects and pupils taking four or more A-levels, but STEM subjects are not the only ones with a higher cost base to deliver. Some creative subjects with direct links to employment in the creative industries also carry higher costs, which can exclude students from lower-income backgrounds.
In the context of the Government’s objective of ensuring parity of esteem between vocational and technical routes and academic ones, it is possible to imagine how the redeployment of the large programme uplift could have helped to increase quality in vocational and technical courses. Evidence of consideration of a range of options and an understanding of the views of those working in the sector would have been helpful in the context of the decision.
The Government’s ambitious programme of education reform will have significant implications for post-16 education. The curriculum and assessment review, the post-16 White Paper, the introduction of V-levels, the youth guarantee and technical excellence colleges will all have potentially profound and positive implications for the opportunities available to young people and the quality of the education they receive.
Helen Hayes
I am not going to take any further interventions.
The international baccalaureate is an important part of the landscape, and I am pleased that the Government have confirmed that all schools can continue to offer it if they wish, but the bigger challenge for the Government is to ensure that there is excellence and enrichment across the board for post-16 education, which is a challenged part of our education landscape. Every young person should be able to benefit from an engaging, inspiring and exciting course of study, whether they are on an academic, vocational or technical route and wherever they live in the country, and every school and college should have the resources it needs to deliver.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this debate on what we have heard from Members across the Chamber is a really important subject.
Varndean sixth-form college in Brighton is the only state-funded provider of the international baccalaureate in the whole of Sussex. I was lucky enough to visit earlier in the year. It is a remarkable institution that gives young people from across the region, including many of my Mid Sussex constituents, the chance to pursue a truly world-class qualification, as other hon. Members have set out. I am pleased that Varndean’s principal, Donna-Marie Janson, joins us in Westminster Hall today.
The opportunity that Varndean offers is under serious threat. Varndean has warned that, without the large programme uplift, the IB will simply become financially unviable. The IB could—and, by the looks of it, will—disappear entirely from state education in our region, and potentially across the country. Let us be clear: that would be a tragedy for young people from Brighton and for those who travel to Varndean from places such as Burgess Hill, Haywards Heath and Hassocks to take the IB and go on to study engineering, medicine and mathematics at some of our leading universities. Claude from Hurstpierpoint told me that his decision to study the IB was
“One of the best choices I’ve ever made”.
The IB is recognised across the world for its quality. It encourages breadth, critical thinking and an international outlook, developing well-rounded students who go on to thrive. Most IB schools are independent, although as we have already heard, Varndean is one of the few state schools keeping this opportunity open for every student, irrespective of their family’s financial situation. If the Government allow these cuts to go ahead, it risks entrenching a two-tier education system, where access to this globally respected qualification is reserved for the wealthy. That cannot be right.
Caroline Voaden
The Government obviously have good intentions about improving the standard of post 16-education; I have seen that for myself on the Education Committee, so I do not doubt their intentions. However, this decision feels like levelling down rather than levelling up. Does my hon. Friend agree that instead of removing the opportunity for students in state schools to study the IB, the Government should consider broadening it and helping other schools to offer this world-class qualification?
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I wholeheartedly agree with her.
The Government say they want to widen participation in higher education and to boost skills, but cutting funding for the IB does the opposite; it narrows opportunity and stifles aspiration. Therefore, I again urge the Minister to reconsider this decision, to ensure that schools such as Varndean can continue to offer this world-class qualification in the future.
Last Monday, during Education questions, I asked the Minister whether he would consider meeting students from Varndean. Given that Donna-Marie Janson, the school’s principal, is sitting behind me in the Public Gallery, I am sure that his officials could swap numbers with her and set up such a meeting, so will he arrange that meeting?
The IB is a symbol of what education should be— ambitious, inclusive and world class. We must not let it become the preserve of the few.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate about a decision that demonstrates at the very least a profoundly flawed approach to policymaking and at worst a wilful dismantling of excellence in state education.
Let me begin by examining the Government’s stated rationale for this decision. The ministerial response last week said that the Government would
“focus large programme uplift funding…on those large programmes which include mathematics, further mathematics and other high value A levels.”
The stated aim is to prioritise STEM education and to support the pipeline of students for priority sectors in the industrial strategy.
Let me ask the Minister some questions directly. What evidence does the Department have that this targeted approach will achieve better STEM outcomes than maintaining IB funding? What analysis has been conducted comparing the STEM university destinations and career pathways of IB students with those of A-level students? What data supports the assumption that cutting IB funding while maintaining it for multiple STEM A-levels will improve our STEM pipeline? Can he produce that evidence today?
Every IB diploma student studies mathematics and a science to the age of 18. They develop research skills through writing a 4,000-word extended essay, critical thinking through studying theory of knowledge and real-world problem-solving through community service. Those are exactly the skills that universities and employers tell us that STEM graduates need.
The profound irony is that this Government tell us that they want to prioritise science, technology, engineering and mathematics. However, in making this decision about STEM education, the Department appears to have conducted no impact assessment, carried out no consultation with schools or families, and given no consideration to any unintended consequences.
As has been mentioned, the letter that 20 state schools received on 1 October—right in the middle of sixth-form open day season, with prospectuses already printed and families already making choices—gave them no warning. If this is how the Government approach policymaking about scientific education—making decisions without evidence, consultation or even a basic assessment of consequences—one questions what kind of example they think they are setting for young people about the value of scientific thinking.
I can declare an interest: I took not just two but three mathematics A-levels. I wanted to specialise early, and I am a strong supporter of university maths schools, such as Cambridge Maths school, which serves my constituency. I note that several university maths schools have been left in limbo for many months, unable to open or expand their offer during the Government’s pause of the free school programme. That is not exactly an example of joined-up thinking from the Department.
My point is about choice. A good education system offers pathways to those who want to specialise early and to those who want to maintain breadth. Tony Blair—I am sure the Minister remembers “education, education, education”—understood this. His Labour Government promised an IB school in every local authority. This Labour Government are going in precisely the opposite direction.
There is an even more troubling dimension to this choice—one that I sincerely hope will trouble the Minister as well as the Secretary of State. On 15 October, less than two weeks ago, I stood in almost exactly this spot during the Ada Lovelace day debate and highlighted how early specialisation at age 16 disproportionately impacts girls’ participation in STEM. Research shows that students are more likely to take maths A-level if their maths grade is higher than their other grades at GCSE. Girls generally achieve higher GCSE grades than boys across the board, so they often choose other subjects at A-level. That reflects the wider pool of opportunities available to them as generally higher achievers.
The international baccalaureate solves this problem. Research from the Engineering Professors Council showed that IB graduates are disproportionately women and twice as likely to pursue further STEM study after their first degree. The research explicitly states that actively recruiting IB candidates would be a pathway to getting more women into male-dominated engineering fields.
Here is another direct question for the Minister: how can the Government claim to want more students—particularly more girls—on STEM pathways while cutting funding for a qualification that demonstrably helps to achieve exactly that? The Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), also holds the Women and Equalities brief, so can the Minister say whether she is comfortable with a policy that reduces women’s participation in STEM? Women make up just 15.7% of the engineering and technology workforce. Jobs in those sectors are expected to grow faster than other occupations through to 2030, and the Government’s response is to defund the programme that helps to keep girls in STEM.
This is close to home for me: Impington Village college, which has been mentioned already, is in my constituency. It was named the UK’s top comprehensive school for 2025. It credits its IB programme as the key to success. I have met students who have told me that the IB gives them breadth, critical thinking and confidence to succeed throughout their whole lives. However, losing £2,400 per student will force impossible choices about staffing and subject range. The Government are forcing the UK’s top comprehensive to compromise the very quality that earned it that recognition.
This is already happening: Tonbridge grammar school, the Sunday Times IB school of the year, announced this week that it will stop offering the IB because it cannot afford to continue. The Secretary of State told the Confederation of School Trusts conference that she wants to “spread excellence” from one school to another—
“the best of the best.”
Impington Village college is the best; Tonbridge grammar is the best. The Government are defunding them. Is that what the Secretary of State meant by spreading success?
Let us examine the value for money argument. This decision will save £2.5 million per year from a Department budget that has been mentioned as exceeding £100 billion. It is invisible in the accounts. For this microscopic saving, we are creating a two-tier system, where a brilliant, internationally recognised qualification becomes exclusive to those who can afford private school fees. Currently, 76 independent schools offer the IB, compared with just 20 state schools, and more state schools need to be able to offer it. This decision does not narrow the gap; it devastates the provision. Indeed, Sir Anthony Seldon wrote in The Times just the other day that this is
“the most regressive elective action towards state schools taken by government in the last 25 years.”
I have three asks of the Government. First, reverse the decision and reinstate the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate diploma programme. The saving is negligible; the damage is profound. Secondly, protect current IB students and those enrolling to begin in the next academic year, and do not pull the rug out from under young people who have made or are making choices in good faith now. Thirdly, learn from the IB’s success, rather than destroy it. Examine the evidence, consult with schools, students and families, and consider how we can give more, not fewer, students access to this broad and rigorous education.
I will close by quoting the international baccalaureate’s mission statement:
“The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect…These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right.”
I hope that the Government have listened to that.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, Saqib Bhatti.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in this important debate on funding for the international baccalaureate in state schools. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate and for his eloquent opening remarks. In fact, we have had a number of eloquent speakers, all the way from Truro to Dartford, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who made the case for his constituents who attend the Anglo European school.
I have to put it on record, if there were any doubt, that His Majesty’s Opposition are beyond disappointed that funding for the international baccalaureate has been scrapped. It is nothing more than another example of this Government’s educational vandalism. IB teaches nearly 2 million pupils in 6,000 schools in nearly 160 countries. It is, by its very nature, global and provides a knowledge-rich curriculum that is deep while at the same time broad. Yet rather than seeking to produce confident and well-rounded citizens who benefit from a schooling system where pupils, parents and educators have plenty of choice, the Government seek to impose a disastrously linear, one-size-fits-all approach on our education system.
Without warning, the Government wrote to state schools and colleges on 1 October to notify them that the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate programme will be axed from the 2026-27 academic year. According to Public First, that will make it unviable for state schools to deliver IB, effectively creating a two-tier education system for independent and state sector students, contrary to what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week.
For a long time, pupils, parents, educators and employers have valued the highly respected IB qualification. It provides a broad and balanced curriculum, allowing students to study maths, science, humanities, art and, of course, a language. It offers more breadth than the A-level route and equips young people with the skills they need for life, through extended projects, theory of knowledge and community service. Additionally, as the co-founder of the World of Languages, Languages of the World programme told me, it helps to make language learning much more effective—a point made by a number of hon. Members from across the House today.
The IB provides opportunity through social mobility and has opened students’ minds via a well-balanced and globally respected curriculum. It is academically rigorous and broadens opportunity and aspiration. Like many, I share the disappointment in this policy decision and feel that it will impact the most disadvantaged students disproportionately. Will the Minister clarify whether there was any consultation in the light of the cut to the large programme uplift, and whether the Department has made any assessment of the number of state school pupils who will be forced to seek different routes post GCSE? In other words, which stakeholders did the DFE speak to?
Funding for the IB comes at a cost of a mere £2.5 million: a drop in the ocean of the Department’s huge £100 billion annual budget. Given the IB’s first class reputation, surely the Minister recognises the value it provides. The decision is reckless and already having consequences.
Tunbridge grammar school, which has been mentioned, is a high-performing state provider that previously delivered the IB to all sixth-formers. It has now announced that it will, regretfully, move to A-levels from next year, because of the funding cuts. That is a huge change, and it will not be the last school no longer to offer the IB. I know the Minister, and I believe him to be a good man. He must know the effect, and he should acknowledge the impact of the decision.
As many Members have been at pains to point out, the IB is a globally recognised qualification that allows UK students to compete with their peers in other countries. In cutting funding for IB in state schools, the Government have tried to claim that they are prioritising subjects that lead to good jobs and drive economic growth, but no one at the Department for Education seems to have done their homework, given that students with an IB diploma are more likely to be admitted to a top 20 UK university than A-level students, in matched samples, and have gone on to become world leaders in their chosen fields.
Will the Minister confirm the rationale behind the funding cut and explain why the Government have taken this decision? Do they have any assessment of the number of state schools that will be forced to stop offering the IB? As I said, I have a lot of time for the Minister, but he has to know that no one buys this being a money-saving exercise; it must be an ideological one. Perhaps the Minister does not believe in the IB? If so, he should say so. In which case, will he confirm what subjects are classed as priorities for economic growth? Moreover, given the IB requires students to study a variety of subjects including mathematics, the sciences and humanities, does he not consider those subjects to be priorities for economic growth?
I ask the Government to listen to the concerns of distinguished educational experts, such as Richard Markham, the chief executive officer of the IB Schools and Colleges Association, who started a petition that has already garnered more than 4,000 signatures, calling for this decision to be reversed. Furthermore, the Government would do well to listen to the schools that will suffer as a result of the decision. State schools such as Europa in Oxfordshire, which has been mentioned, have called the decision a “kick in the teeth” that will lead to inevitable cutbacks in the curriculum that they can offer to aspiring students.
We have to be clear what the decision will mean in practice for those pupils studying IB in state schools. It is not simply a decision to reduce the amount of funding available for state schools to offer the course; in effect, it abolishes the IB in state schools altogether. Dartford grammar school, as has been mentioned, is the largest provider of the IB in the country. It has already warned that it cannot afford to offer IB to its pupils without the funding, and countless other schools have issued similar warnings. I thank Members for mentioning their individual cases.
No advance warning was given of this announcement and no debate had before the decision was made. The sad truth is that the decision, like many of the others the Government have made, will hurt the very pupils the Government claim they want to protect. White working-class boys in state schools will in effect be barred from studying the IB because of the Government’s reckless decision. Why should those boys not have access to the highly respected and globally competitive curriculum that their more affluent peers will still be able to access? Can the Minister provide specific evidence to show that the IB was failing white working-class students, or prove that other routes lead to categorically better outcomes? Does the Minister accept—this is purely a point of logic—that by taking this decision, those who can afford to will continue to do the IB, and for those who cannot, namely in our state sector, the cut has made the IB unviable? That is fact. Does the Minister acknowledge the result of the decision?
The truth is that this policy decision, which reverses nearly half a century of academic excellence, is the latest in a series of failures by the Education Secretary and her Ministers. In cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships, the Government deprived public sector employers, such as the NHS, of the means to train their workforce properly, and yet the Education Secretary has made it clear that she makes no apology for denying people the chance to reskill later in their careers.
In taxing education, the Government punished parents who have worked hard and saved up to invest in their children. In one breath, the Government promise to spend the money on more teachers, but in another use the VAT on private schools to justify spending elsewhere. Furthermore, in announcing a lower level qualification aimed at white working class pupils, the Government have embraced the bigotry of low expectations. They have told some of our most deprived children that they have no chance at succeeding in school on the same terms as their peers.
With every announcement this Government make, it becomes increasingly clear that their policy on education is simply to cut back, dumb down and deny opportunities to the most disadvantaged children in our country. Instead of expanding parental choice and making opportunities such as the IB available to more families, they are narrowing the options available to parents and making parental choice a premium that only those who can afford it have access to. It is the same as what happened with the Latin excellence programme, which was discontinued by this Government in another one of their terrible decisions.
Ministers seem completely unable to understand why a family might choose to look at different options for their children’s education, rather than the bland uniformity they seek to impose—a fact that became obvious within the first few months of this Government entering office, when they said they would scrap the freedoms that academies have used to turn around failing schools and give children from some of the most deprived areas of the country the best chance of succeeding in life.
We have heard plenty from the Government about their missions, milestones and road maps, yet they only have one mission that we can see, and that is to vandalise our education system and rob schools and parents of the ability to make the choices they think are best for their pupils and children, led by an Education Secretary who prioritises finishing second in the deputy leadership contest for the Labour party, rather than championing children. I know the Minister cannot make an announcement today from the Dispatch Box, but I ask him to at least reconsider this.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate and all the Members who have contributed to it. The international baccalaureate can be a fantastic qualification for young people. I commend all the staff and students in international baccalaureate teaching settings. The debate has highlighted the incredible contribution that those teachers and those settings can make to opportunities for young people—we have heard an awful lot about that today.
I want to stress a few things in responding to the points made in the debate, first regarding the role that A-levels play in our school and education system. The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) referred to a school “regretfully” moving to A-levels, as if they are lesser qualifications. A-levels are fantastic qualifications. They are stretching for students. They offer variety, choice and combinations of qualifications that leave doors open for young people at 16 and beyond. They are recognised by the top universities in the world, including those here in the UK. I urge Members to be careful not to suggest that A-levels are somehow secondary or second order to the international baccalaureate, while recognising the contribution that the international baccalaureate can make.
Alison Bennett
A-levels are undoubtedly brilliant, but does the Minister agree that they are more narrow than the international baccalaureate?
Josh MacAlister
No, I do not agree with that. Combinations of A-levels allow young people to have a wide and rich curriculum. In fact, the large programme uplift changes that we are making prioritise choices of A-levels that extend beyond the standard three, up to five, to include advanced maths and other well regarded A-level subjects. I do not recognise what the hon. Lady suggests.
Steve Darling
My two sons both went to Torquay boys’ grammar school. One undertook the international baccalaureate. The other went down the A-level route and got three A*s. Universities do not like students taking more than three A-levels. We often joke with him that perhaps he should have stretched himself and undertaken the international baccalaureate. What would the Minister’s advice be?
Josh MacAlister
I think the logic of that point is that universities will accept three A-levels, and they will accept more than three A-levels, and they will accept an international baccalaureate. The point here is not that the international baccalaureate is the gateway to universities; it is an addition to the system and allows extra stretch for students. I will make a bit more progress and then am happy to take further interventions.
The other point to make at this stage is that it is not correct to say that funding has been scrapped for the international baccalaureate. In fact, some of the statements put out by settings that offer the international baccalaureate have been clear to say that the funding has not been scrapped. The large programme uplift application has been changed, and that additional 20% will no longer be available for settings that want to offer the international baccalaureate.
I want to spend a few minutes setting this decision in context. We are focused as a Government on raising standards across the 16-to-19 education system. We want to offer opportunity for all young people, and we want stretching and rigorous qualifications for them. The large programme uplift will focus on those taking four or more A-levels that include advanced maths and offer a broad and challenging curriculum.
What do we know about the international baccalaureate and how the uplift funding is being used? Only 0.2% of students in 16-to-19 settings are studying the international baccalaureate, and the large programme uplift is only 0.1% of the entire 16-to-19 funding made available. Many of the institutions offering the international baccalaureate are themselves selective in their pre-16 intake. Far fewer students are drawn from disadvantaged backgrounds; I have a list of the rates of free school meals in the main institutions offering it, and they are very low. I am aware of only one LPU-backed setting that offers the international baccalaureate in the entirety of the north and the midlands combined.
This is the challenge I put back to those who have contributed to the debate: if their argument is that they want the international baccalaureate to be offered in many more settings across the country, and for it to be a genuinely equal opportunity that lifts up many students, where do they propose finding the money to do that? The Government are putting additional money into the 16-to-19 system, which I will come on to in a moment, but Members are defending a system that applies to only a very small minority, and that is not equally spread. It is a fantastic opportunity for students, but this Government’s focus, as it will always be, is on opportunity for all.
Ms Billington
I gently remind the Minister that, simply because people live in the south-east, it does not mean they are dripping in gold. My constituency in particular experiences distinct levels of deprivation; only 10% of our children manage to pass the Kent test in East Thanet. The opportunity to access the international baccalaureate is vital for those deprived communities. We all know that there are extreme levels of deprivation in this country both across geographical areas and in pockets. I remind the Minister that, in these circumstances, we need to ensure that we have an education policy that reaches the most deprived in places like mine, as much as in places like his.
Josh MacAlister
I agree that we need to ensure that opportunity goes to those who are furthest from it. My point is that this system does not provide an equal opportunity for many young people in how it is allocated at the moment. Even in institutions in the south where there are large numbers of young people frozen out of opportunities, the ones offering the international baccalaureate are overwhelmingly not offering it to those young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is an important point to make in this debate.
Before I move on to overall funding, my final point is that we gave notice of this decision in October, which is ahead of other notifications about the 16-to-19 funding system. We have put in place transitional arrangements for those students who are currently midway through the international baccalaureate.
What is the reality of the funding that the Government are giving to sixth form and FE colleges? The Government have made the decision to increase overall spending on the 16-to-19 system, from £7.6 billion last year to £8.6 billion this year. That reflects a significant increase in not only the number of students but the funding rates, including the base rate of funding per student across 16-to-19 settings, going up by 5.4% to over £5,000. The extra funding for low prior attainment and for children in care is going up by 6.8% this year, and an extra level of funding for resit English and maths is going up by 11.5% this year.
That represents a significant increase in the 16-to-19 funding settlement for the whole system. Within it, colleges and sixth form settings have the freedom of choice to prioritise across their programmes what they teach, including the international baccalaureate. The LPU adds an additional 20% on top of that. I have already highlighted that the LPU is tiny as a percentage of the overall funding for 16 to 19. As a Government we want to make sure that goes into opportunities for the broadest number of students.
Finally, some broad points reflecting on this debate about opportunity and the Government’s priorities. I appreciate the points that hon. Members have made about the choices made by the Government and that many hon. Members wish us to keep the large programme uplift focused as it now is. However, when we add all of the things that hon. Members want to prioritise across the education system, while they may not seem like huge amounts of money individually, taken together they always lead to choices about priorities. The Government are absolutely focused on raising standards, in part because the soft bigotry of low expectations that we have inherited from the 14 years of the previous Government.
I want to say a few things about that. Our work on early years and the huge investment in childcare and breakfast clubs—so that young people can start their education on an even basis—is built off the fact that the coalition Government demolished 3,500 Sure Start centres. The long tail of that for young people’s attainment, especially those from deprived backgrounds, is felt to this day.
Saqib Bhatti
I have to challenge that point. I said that the Minister was a fair man—if I did not, I will say it now—but, if he is being fair, will he acknowledge that the Conservatives started the investment in childcare programme that the Government have continued?
Josh MacAlister
What the Conservative Government did not do was ensure that there was a fiscal position left to fund those sorts of commitments. I will give the hon. Gentleman and the previous Government credit for building on some of the excellent work that had been started under the last Labour Government around phonics, a focus on improving maths and some of the curriculum changes. I give credit where it is due on those.
We now see year 8 students falling behind in their reading—and the Government will be saying more about that in the curriculum and assessment review. That is why we will be introducing reading checks with a focus on standards. Those will mean every young person—regardless of the cash their parents have in their pockets—does well and that on finishing secondary school has equal opportunities and choice to take their talents as far as they can in 16 to 19.
Finally, we will have record levels of investment in the 16-to-19 system. That will include a focus on the scandal of the constant cycle of young people not reaching the level of English and maths needed by the time that they finish secondary school, and being washed around again and again in a resit system that is not fit for purpose. We are rebuilding and investing in that system to ensure that we get that second, third or fourth chance for every young person so that they can get into work and benefit from the opportunities that come from it.
The soft bigotry of low expectations is growing educational inequality. That is what we inherited. It is a million young people not in education, employment or training and the moral scandal that that represents. It is underfunding our 16-to-19 education system year after year so that far too few young people get the quality of teaching needed and there is not support for staff to ensure that young people have their needs meet. It means that we have not had equal and widespread access to a rigorous curriculum for children and young people in the 16-to-19 system across the country—which is what they deserve.
Olly Glover
I shall be concise so that we can be away well before 11. I thank everybody for attending the debate. It is welcome to have had contributions from all three main parties. It was predominantly a well-spirited debate, with a lot of agreement.
It was good to hear about schools other than Europa that offer the IB: Hockerill Anglo-European college, Torquay boys grammar school, Truro and Penwith college, the Anglo European school in Ingatestone, Dartford grammar school, Dane Court grammar school and Varndean college—and Impington Village college, which my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) mentioned; I must not forget that one. All hon. Members who talked about the schools in or near their constituencies highlighted the huge benefits and value that they bring to parents, local communities and children—and at a relatively small additional cost, as the Minister himself acknowledged.
The Minister’s wider comments about what he and the Government are doing to boost education were welcome. I understand what he said about constrained budgets, but too often in politics, and in life in general, we hear false dichotomies—“It is either this or that”, and things are pitted against each other—and many in my constituency will have been disappointed to hear what he had to say.
The debate was well-spirited, with the exception of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). Of course, when a Government encounter difficult financial circumstances, they have to make difficult choices, as we did when we were one seventh of a Government. However, I find staggering the hypocrisy of a Government with a gigantic majority who, having lectured everybody else about tuition fees for 15 years, decide to increase them by pegging them to inflation. The key thing I often hear from constituents on the doorstep, whether in relation to this issue or others, is that this Government simply do not listen, and that they have authoritarian, monolithic instincts—expecting everybody to be the same.
Although the Minister said a lot of good things that the Government are doing, sadly, from what has been said today, my constituents and Europa School will feel that this Government have the listening skills of a slab of concrete. I hope to be proven wrong; I hope that in time the Minister will listen to the representations here and elsewhere, reflect, and reconsider.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered funding for the International Baccalaureate in state schools.
Wet Wipes: Plastic Ban
(1 day, 9 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
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of banning plastic in wet wipes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank colleagues across the House who have supported my campaign to ban plastic in wet wipes. I am also grateful to: the Marine Conservation Society; Thames21; World Wide Fund for Nature; Green Alliance; Water UK, which brings together all the water companies in the country; and Surfers Against Sewage, for their campaigning on this issue.
I thank the Minister for being here and for sharing my passion for cleaning up our rivers and driving this policy forward. I congratulate her on the progress she has made and look forward to hearing more about that later. After years of delay and indecision from the previous Government, it is refreshing to see real momentum. The previous Government talked about this issue since 2016, launched consultations and made promises, but failed to deliver. This Minister has shown determination and clarity, and I commend her for taking action where others stalled.
Since November 2021, I have campaigned relentlessly to ban plastic in wet wipes. I have introduced three bills in Parliament: two private Member’s Bills in 2021 and 2022 and a ten-minute-rule Bill in 2022. I raised the issue directly with the Prime Minister during questions at that time. I am proud the subject was in the Labour manifesto and I hope to hear from the Minister when the ban will be brought in for England.
All four UK nations have notified the World Trade Organisation of their intention to legislate, and Wales leads the way. Congratulations to Wales as the first country in the world to pass a ban on plastic in wet wipes, which will come into force on 18 December 2026.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. She is right to mention the four regions. Back home in Northern Ireland, wet wipes are a major cause of what are referred to as fatbergs of non-biodegradable waste in local sewers, which leads to pollution and costly clean-ups. Although the regional Administrations should do something and legislate, there is also an onus on individuals and households to do something. Does the hon. Lady agree that a joint partnership is needed to address this issue?
Fleur Anderson
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has put his finger on the button, because this is about not flushing wet wipes, no matter what they are made from. Banning plastic in wet wipes is one step forward, but we need to do more. This is a UK-wide issue; no part of the UK is unaffected.
What is the problem? Why am I talking about it so obsessively? First, microplastics from wet wipes pollute our rivers, lakes and oceans. They are ingested by marine animals, from plankton to whales, disrupting feeding, growth and reproduction. Microplastics cause internal injuries, digestive blockages and reduced nutrient absorption. They leach harmful chemicals such as bisphenol A, phthalates and flame retardants. They also absorb pollutants from sea water, such as heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants, which are then released into animals’ tissues upon ingestion.
Those substances can cause hormonal disruption, immune suppression, developmental defects and death. Filter feeders, such as oysters and baleen whales—from very small to very big—are especially vulnerable. Microplastics can also alter sediment composition, affecting bottom-dwelling species, and they can destabilise entire marine ecosystems. They are very small, but they have a huge effect.
Secondly, wet wipes block sewers and drive up water bills. They form fatbergs, trigger storm overflow spills, and cost a lot. In my water company area of Thames Water, it costs £40.7 million every year to clear the blockages. That is £200 million over the current five-year investment cycle.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
In Beckenham and Penge, there were 167 call-outs related to wet-wipe blockages in 2024. Given the precarious state of our water sector after 14 years of Tory-enabled under-investment, does my hon. Friend agree that we should do all we can to reduce the number of unnecessary call-outs such as those in Beckenham and Penge and across the country?
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The water companies need to invest in new ways of stopping sewage going out of their systems and in cleaning up our rivers, and not having to spend so much money coming out to clear up the blockages. That is down to wet wipes, so my hon. Friend is exactly right.
The third reason I want to ban plastic from wet wipes is that plastic is made using fossil fuels—it is made from oil —and it is very hard to get rid of. This is one form of plastic that we can cut relatively easily, because alternatives are available to put into wipes to make them stronger. The UK uses over 11 billion wet wipes a year—that is 163 per person. As a mother of four and a grandmother of a little two-year-old, I know how useful they are, but convenience should not come at such a high environmental cost.
Thames21 pulled 5,000 wet wipes from just 116 metres of the Thames. Its annual surveys have evidenced the impact of so many wet wipes on just the banks of the River Thames. I pay tribute to it. The Marine Conservation Society found that wet wipes containing plastic had been found on nearly two thirds of English beaches surveyed. This issue exists across the UK. I have seen the damage myself at the Beckton and Mogden treatment works. They have a special sifting part of the process to clear wet wipes because they are so prevalent.
There is also wet wipe island near Hammersmith bridge, which was surveyed by the Port of London authority after Thames21 revealed the extent of the problem. It is about two tennis courts wide. When you stand on it, you can feel the jelly-like texture because there are so many wet wipes below to such depth. Thankfully, it was cleared this summer because the Tideway tunnel is coming in, so there is far less—95% less—sewage going out into the Thames, which means fewer wet wipes. It will not just fill up again. Five million wet wipes were taken out of wet wipe island. It really demonstrated the damage.
The public are behind us and retailers are stepping up. Boots stopped selling plastic wet wipes in all their stores in 2022 because I have been talking about bringing in this ban and because the Government are promising to do it. Tesco did the same in 2023. Government action now will ensure that all the other retailers follow suit.
Alongside the ban, the message must be clear: do not flush any wipes. Only the three Ps go down the toilet: pee, poo and paper. I support Water UK’s “Bin the Wipe” campaign. Instead of having lots of different campaigns from all the different water companies, which was confusing, there is now a joined-up attitude towards campaigning on this and encouraging people to have bins in their bathrooms so that they throw wipes away instead of flushing them.
I know that the Minister has considered the wider issues, so I would like to hear about some of them. The first issue is the lead-in time. There is an 18-month lead-in time at the moment. After all the delay in bringing in the ban, could that be cut to 12 months to align England and Scotland with Wales, which is bringing in a ban in 12 months’ time in December 2026?
The second issue is labelling. “Fine to flush” labelling is confusing. A little image showing a turtle crossed out means that wipes contain plastic, but it is difficult to understand. We need mandatory “Do not flush” labels on all wipes. Has that been given consideration?
The third issue is about the polluter paying. Has consideration been given to making manufacturers contribute to the cost of the blockages? That could be done through an extended product responsibility scheme.
The fourth issue is exemptions. The proposed legislation contains exemptions allowing pharmacies and some businesses to sell plastic wipes. Could those loopholes be reduced or removed?
The fifth issue is the impact assessment. We do not want an unintended consequence of substitute materials being just as strong or dangerous as plastic. Will there be a full impact assessment alongside the regulations on what happens as a result of the ban, including the safety of substitute materials? I hope to see some good results.
Above all, let us be clear: wipes should be binned, not flushed. I raise that in every school I visit in Putney. I say, “I am going to say something unusual for a politician”. Then I tell the students about it and they are instantly onboard. Children get it. Young people care deeply about the planet.
Liam Conlon
My hon. Friend is making an important point about community engagement; education is a really important part. Richard Barnes from the London Wildlife Trust is a constituent of mine in West Wickham in my constituency of Beckenham and Penge. He and the trust do fantastic work engaging local communities across London in education campaigns. Does my hon. Friend feel that that is an important part of her campaign?
Fleur Anderson
This is a whole-of-society campaign. I think it is equivalent to when we reduced the use of plastic bags. There had to be some Government regulation, but there also had to be a change of attitude among the people using plastic bags—we need that here. We need Government regulation to push it through faster, otherwise the retailers will be too slow. We also need people to change their behaviour and not flush wet wipes. Groups such as the London Wildlife Trust do a fantastic job in this, as do Thames21 and others. We need a whole-society approach and today is a big step forward in that. Let us show that Parliament listens to young people in Putney and across the country, and understands the issue. I look forward to hearing when action will be taken.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this important debate. I appreciate her tireless work to ban plastic fibres in wet wipes.
Wet wipes are an everyday household item. When flushed, they do not break down. They block sewers, pollute waterways and harm marine life. I represent a beautiful coastal community whose coastline must be protected. Unfortunately, I continue to hear from residents on Thorpe Hall Avenue who are distressed by flooding in their homes time and again—only last week they were flooded. Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), I continue to campaign for cleaner water, improved flood defence infrastructure, and greater accountability from Anglian Water.
Through Southend’s water quality summits, which I co-chair, we have heard directly from residents and local organisations. The message is clear: our communities deserve better. Under the previous Government, water companies were left unregulated, polluting our coastlines while executives paid themselves millions in bonuses. That is unacceptable and not what this Government stand for. Our Government have acted. The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 is a landmark piece of legislation that bans bonuses for water company bosses, and it introduced criminal charges for individuals who attempt to cover up sewage spills. The goal is to fundamentally transform the culture of the water industry. This summer the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced measurable targets for the first time. Those targets will hold water companies to account. Previous Governments have failed to ban wet wipes. It is the Government’s will to bring a ban into effect. We are a Government of action, not words.
Every year the UK uses approximately 11 billion wet wipes, and industry reports indicate that most of those contain plastic fibres. According to research, more than 90% of fatbergs found in our sewers are made up of wet wipes, which cause blockages that result in sewage flooding in homes and pollution in our rivers.
Anglian Water estimates that about 500,000 wet wipes are flushed into the east of England’s sewer system every day. That figure highlights the significant scale of the problem, which is why I fully support our Government’s commitment to banning the sale and supply of wet wipes that contain plastic fibres. Such action will reduce marine litter, decrease pollution and support progress towards a zero waste economy. However, we must continue with this progress.
I urge the Minister to ensure that manufacturers cannot label wet wipes as flushable or disposable. Those misleading claims cause confusion and directly contribute to sewer blockages, flooding and environmental damage. Will the Minister commit to meeting me to address the marketing and labelling of wet wipes, so that together we can put an immediate stop to these harmful and misleading practices that damage our environment?
Southend’s coastline is vital to our community and local economy. Flooding continues to cause stress and disruption to residents across my constituency. We must ensure that our rivers, seas and beaches remain clean and safe for generations to come. I am proud to support the ban and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I welcome the chance to set out the actions this Government are taking to tackle the problems caused by wet wipes that contain plastic.
I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for the work she has done to raise this important topic, and for her years of campaigning to bring it to the fore. She has had a high-profile campaign to ban wet wipes that contain plastic, including tabling a private Member’s Bill in November 2021. Her campaign has earned cross-party support and backing from major environmental groups, which have paid tribute to her, including Thames21, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the Marine Conservation Society and Surfers Against Sewage. She has also worked with major retailers, including Boots and Tesco, to encourage them to remove plastic wet wipes from their shelves.
My hon. Friend has been instrumental in getting us to this point. In fact, I would go as far as to say that without her contribution, we probably would not be at the stage we are now. I pay a full and complete tribute to her. She shows exactly what we can do when we persist. “Persist! Persist!” was the recommendation given to me as a new MP.
The Government are aware of the growing concerns about wet wipes as a source of plastic pollution often found in our natural environment, including in our waterways and on our beaches. They break down into smaller pieces in the water environment, causing huge problems with microplastic pollution, which is harmful to human and animal health.
The good news is that, on 16 September, we laid an affirmative statutory instrument to ban the supply and sale of those harmful products, alongside which we published a full economic impact assessment and explanatory memorandum. The SI debates in Parliament are scheduled to be held shortly, with the Commons debate on 3 November, and the Lords debate on 10 November.
Banning wet wipes that contain plastic will reduce plastic and microplastic pollution, as well as the volumes of microplastics entering waste water treatment sites when wrongly flushed. Additionally, it will reduce marine plastic pollution. There is strong public support for a ban. Very little unites the nation, but 95% of respondents agree with the proposal to ban plastic-containing wet wipes. We are pleased to be taking forward this long-awaited action.
We have been working closely with devolved Governments across the UK to agree a joined-up approach, which is going well. We welcome the decision that some retailers have already taken to stop selling wet wipes that contain plastic, but, of course, the Government need to show leadership from the top and introduce a ban.
Banning wet wipes that contain plastic is part of our wider commitment to encourage more sustainable behaviours around the consumption of single-use plastics. We are also looking more widely at the circular economy for plastics—a future where we keep our resources for longer, where waste is reduced, where we accelerate the path to net zero, where we see investment in critical infrastructure and green jobs, and where our economy prospers and nature thrives. We will publish the first ever circular economy strategy for England in the coming months.
The Government recognise the scale and impact of plastic pollution on the environment, and we are focused on preventing and reducing plastics, along with other litter, from entering the environment.
Liam Conlon
We have some fantastic local groups in Beckenham and Penge, including the Crystal Palace Park Trust, Friends of Cator Park and the Birkbeck community initiative, as well as eco-councils at schools such as Stewart Fleming primary and Langley Park school for boys. Will the Minister join me in thanking them for their incredible work to protect our local natural environment? Does she agree that the changes we are making in this place will support that effort to protect our natural environment for future generations?
Emma Hardy
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in thanking all the local groups and children. As has been mentioned, children are hugely interested in this topic, and in the disgusting stories about what ends up down the toilet—I find young children are particularly fascinated with that. I heard an amusing story about a mattress that ended up in the sewer. How on earth does a mattress end up in a sewer? But I was told that if it can be produced, it can end up in the sewers.
People are not always aware of how the actions they take in the home can have a damaging impact on their drains, sewer network and water quality. Admittedly, they may not be able to flush a mattress down the toilet, but they are certainly flushing many other things, including wet wipes, sanitary products, nappies, cotton pads, cotton buds, cigarette butts, plasters and dental floss—I am sad to say that, when I was a child, a few goldfish were flushed as well.
The public have a role to play in ensuring that cooking fats are also not poured down the sink, and that wet wipes and other unflushables are binned rather than flushed. Those are small steps, but they are significant when added together, and they will improve the quality of our rivers, natural environment and wildlife.
The Government are supportive of campaigns that encourage the correct disposal of wet wipes, including Water UK’s “Bin the Wipe” campaign, and we welcome the innovative steps that water companies and others are taking to tackle blockages. One of my favourite developments is Northumbrian Water’s Pipebot patrol. Pipebot is a tiny robot that goes around the sewerage network, inspecting the pipework and raising blockage alerts before a sewer floods. When I first saw it—a tiny robot that has little tools to break down fatbergs or whatever else it comes across—my reaction was, “You are putting WALL-E down the sewers!” [Laughter.] Good for WALL-E, but if he is patrolling the sewers, I do not think he will have quite the same happy ending as he did in the film. Such innovations are emerging, with devices being used to clear blockages, capture wipes and help to identify from which homes or businesses the wipes are coming, with the aim of educating people and advising them on the correct disposal methods.
I am also pleased that the Port of London Authority and Thames Water have cleaned up “wet wipe island”, which has already been mentioned—a huge, 180-tonne fatberg on the River Thames. I have also heard of an example of the circular economy at its best, because we are looking at ways to use fatbergs as valuable sources of biofuel and biodiesel to power buses and trucks. Trucks and buses powered by fatbergs—who would have thought it?
As for the next steps that the Government are taking, the Independent Water Commission has recommended that we take measures to stop pollutants, such as wet wipes, entering the system. We will consider all of the commission’s recommendations.
I will now answer the specific questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. On the lead-in times, we have had to act carefully. We are working with businesses to make sure there is time for them to adapt and to mitigate the risks of excess stocks of wet wipes containing plastics being sent to landfill or being incinerated, which is a concern. That is why we have given the time that we have; our ban is expected to come in from spring 2027, which provides for an 18-month transition period. We are working as quickly as we can, taking into account some of the unintended consequences that might arise from going more quickly.
There is also a medical exemption. Consultation responses and stakeholder engagement with healthcare professionals have indicated that a medical exemption is required until viable plastic-free alternatives are available for medical use. Obviously, research is ongoing and things are developing quickly in this area. However, it is essential to ensure that those who require these products for medical purposes still have access to them.
To account for those who require wet wipes containing plastic for medical care in their own home, the medical exemption will allow for the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic by registered pharmacists. This is particularly important for infection control purposes. Wet wipes containing plastic will not be permitted for sale on the shelves; people who require them will need to get them through a pharmacist. This is a similar model to the plastic straw ban, where there was a particularly strong reason why certain people might need to continue using plastic straws. It is the same situation with wet wipes.
We are obviously continuing to look at labelling and to consider further action in that area, if needed. And one of the recommendations from the Independent Water Commission was to look at extended producer responsibility for waste water treatment, and we are considering whether we would want that. As we know, a lot of this ends up in: “Write in at the end”.
I hope my responses have also helped to answer the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba). I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) for their contributions to the debate today, in which there is huge interest.
Together with the building blocks that the Government have already put in place, this change will mark the most fundamental reset of our water system in a generation, as we consider and take forward the recommendations of the Independent Water Commission on dealing with many of the problems facing water, including pollution, problems around waste water, and what ends up in our rivers, lakes and seas.
In conclusion, I reiterate that banning wet wipes containing plastic is a necessary measure that we are taking forward. I look forward to the debates on the draft regulations to ban these harmful products. I hope the proposals will have the support of all colleagues here today.
Question put and agreed to.
Independent Lifeboats: Government Support
(1 day, 9 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
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for independent lifeboats.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this important debate to Westminster Hall, and grateful to hon. Members attending the debate for championing their local independent lifeboats. I thank Chloe Swinbank, in my office, who managed to acquire me this tie, which has life rings on it to suit the theme of this debate.
When people think of saving lives at sea, they often think of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution—and rightly so: it is a world-renowned organisation that has saved countless lives, and it remains one the most respected charities globally. But there are other crews who do profound work to serve our coastal communities and to save lives in times of need.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In my Havant constituency, we are fortunate to have both the Hayling Island RNLI lifeboat, funded by the RNLI, and the Hayling Island coastguard rescue team, funded through the Department for Transport. Together they do outstanding work in our community and around Hayling. Will my hon. Friend and the Minister join me in thanking the crews and support staff on Hayling Island? And will my hon. Friend explain why independent lifeboats should receive similar funding and support?
Paul Holmes
I thank my hon. Friend, who is nearly my constituency neighbour. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to Hayling Island RNLI lifeboat and the coastguard rescue team based in his constituency. It is important to realise, as I will discuss later in my speech, that although the RNLI does an amazing job, there are independent lifeboat stations around the country. They particularly struggled with fundraising during covid. Fundraising for independent lifeboats is wholly voluntary; it is done by members of the public in our constituencies.
The crews of independent lifeboats across the country do profound work. Volunteer-run, community-funded rescue services provide an essential lifeline to coastal communities. As of March 2024, there are approximately 80 independent lifeboats around the UK, many of which are represented by the National Independent Lifeboat Association—a fantastic organisation founded by the former Member of Parliament for Totnes, Anthony Mangnall, who was a champion for his local area and for independent lifeboats across the whole UK. NILA has done extraordinary work to increase public awareness of these profound organisations. However, that work remains an uphill battle. They lack resources in comparison with the RNLI, and there is still a long way to go.
The majority of the public assume that all lifeboats and water safety services fall under the remit of the RNLI, meaning that independent lifeboats lack recognition, which impacts funding, recruitment and inclusion in search and rescue provisions in the UK. NILA has a probational seat on the UK Search and Rescue Operators Group, which is a fantastic achievement and a testament to NILA’s dedication to saving lives at sea. It is a positive and practical step to bring greater support for independent lifeboats. However, a permanent position would allow independent lifeboats a stronger strategic voice in national planning. It would mean that when national standards, such as the rescue boat code, are revised, NILA can ensure that the standards also work for independent lifeboats. A permanent position in the search and rescue frameworks would increase recognition and representation for independent lifeboats and for the immense work that the volunteers do.
I welcome the Minister to her place, and ask her what discussions are taking place to ensure that NILA has a permanent position on the UKSAR Operator Group. Does she agree that a permanent position is a necessary step to shape policy and ultimately save more lives? She can answer that question in this debate if she wants—that would show her calibre—but if she cannot, will she commit to write to me and NILA, clearly communicating an answer, after this debate?
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate on independent lifeboats and their support. In my own constituency of Hastings and Rye, we have the Pett Level independent rescue boat, which does amazing work saving lives at sea all year round. They are all volunteers and all the money they raise comes from public donations. Will the hon. Member join me in paying tribute to them, as well as our local RNLI in Hastings and Rye harbours?
Paul Holmes
I could not have put it better myself, and of course I pay tribute to the organisations that the hon. Lady set out. It is good that she has an RNLI lifeboat and an independent lifeboat working in lockstep in her constituency, to ensure that her constituents are protected. I know a bit about that independent lifeboat because her predecessor, alongside Anthony Mangnall and myself, was involved in setting up NILA—although Anthony did most of the work. I absolutely pay tribute to those organisations, and it is a credit to her constituents that she is here today to share in this debate.
At this opportune moment, I would like to commend the Hamble lifeboat, which provides a vital service in my constituency. Operating in some of the most challenging marine conditions, Hamble lifeboat has been the cornerstone of rescue operations, saving lives since 1968. The Solent presents intense challenges as it is one of the busiest waterways globally, accommodating cruise ships, freight vessels, naval ships and smaller boats, while also witnessing double tides and a few sand bars, which means that rescue operations are far more likely to encounter complications.
The River Hamble also offers its own unique challenges due to extremely fast tides and obstacles. In both 2023 and 2024, Hamble lifeboat was the busiest independent lifeboat in the UK, responding to more than 230 call-outs. They work they do is tremendous, and I am honoured to be their voice in this debate. However, the recognition of independent lifeboats touches on one of the many challenges that these organisations face: they are funded entirely through local donations, grants and the power of community, as the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) mentioned.
I am proud that, under the last Conservative Government, the rescue boat grant fund donated £5.7 million to more than 100 charities around the UK, including Hamble lifeboat, which as I mentioned is a fantastic independent lifeboat in my constituency. Sadly, the fund finished in 2020—and before Government Members shout at me about that, that decision was made by the last Government and I deeply regret it.
Many independent lifeboats have felt the financial pressures ripple through their organisations. The grant provided a lifeline of support to independent lifeboats, helping to upgrade equipment and allowing for quicker and safer launches in emergencies. Many independent lifeboats depend on community funding, which can take years to build up, in order to replace old and outdated boats.
For example, Hamble lifeboat operates two vessels, which together cost around £90,000 a year to maintain. Both are past their expected life service, having been in operation since 1997, but replacing them is estimated to cost around £1 million. It would take a small community, such as the people of Hamble village, years to raise such a sum, despite the amazing fundraising job those people do. That places significant pressure on the reliability of current boats and raises real concerns about operational resilience in future coastal emergencies.
My local lifeboat is just one example of the financial constraints that independent lifeboats face. I am sure we will hear from other Members from across the House about the difficulties that their independent lifeboats endure. Government funding would make a major difference, including by helping to upgrade vessels, crew equipment and communication devices, which are all vital to saving lives at sea. Volunteers risk a lot on these life-saving missions, so it is important that they are equipped with the appropriate gear to do their jobs.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. He is being uncharacteristically modest in downplaying his involvement in setting up NILA; I congratulate him on that, too. He mentioned the volunteers. I wanted to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the volunteers in Lyme Regis who have responded to 27 call-outs already this year and are responsible for saving many lives. He talks about supporting independent lifeboats, but it is also about supporting the brave volunteers who give up their time to do this hard work.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Member, my friend, makes a very good point. When writing this speech, I wanted to talk about the nuts and bolts of funding, and the operational difficulties that some decisions have involved for independent lifeboats. He is right, however, that we have to talk about the fantastic volunteers, who will be called out in wet and windy December—hopefully, not too many times this year, but they will be called out. They might have to be down at the harbour within four minutes, not knowing what they are going into. They take tremendous risks for the people of this country and their communities, and they do so on a voluntary basis. I also echo the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to volunteers who do not do those kinds of things, but something equally important—shaking the tins and going out every weekend of the year to raise money for local independent lifeboats. I pay tribute to his lifeboat in Lyme Regis, which has had 27 call-outs, showing the amazing job that they do.
Our seaside towns are vibrant areas that draw high levels of tourism, but with that comes more call-outs for seaside emergencies. Changes in climate, such as rising sea levels and more unpredictable weather conditions, are making rescue operations increasingly challenging. Additionally, rising temperatures are driving more tourists to our seaside towns. That is great, but in Hamble, which boasts an affluent sailing community, it is increasing the risk of accidents at sea and in our rivers. As we work to revitalise coastal communities, as the Government have said they want to do, we must ensure that our local rescue services and resources are equipped to meet these evolving challenges.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
In my glorious coastal constituency, we have the fantastic RNLI stations in Scarborough and Whitby, but we also have a brilliant independent lifeboat—the Runswick bay rescue boat. That is based in the scenic Runswick bay, popular for fishing, water sports and coastal walks. The volunteer crew play a critical role in saving lives and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) mentioned, we have an increasing need for these boats. In just the last few weeks, they have rescued a mother and son blown out to sea from a paddleboard, and rescued two walkers and their dog cut off from the tide. There is no alternative lifeboat based at Runswick bay, and the rescue boat is facing serious financial challenges. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government have a role to play in securing its continued presence?
Paul Holmes
I have been known to have some scampi and chips in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and I agree that it is beautiful. I challenge her to say whether it is as beautiful as Hamble Valley, as my constituents would expect, but she is absolutely right. I join her in paying tribute to the Runswick bay crew.
The hon. Lady hit the nail on the head about the role for Government. This is not a party political debate. I am a Conservative, and I think the state should remove itself from our lives on that basis. We have clear differences about some of the Government’s decisions on their fiscal responsibilities, but they have a democratic mandate to undertake that. What we are discussing involves such small resource, however, and would support the “invest to save” mentality of the services they provide around the whole of the country—£5 million was the last amount of money allocated to the rescue boat fund. That is worth doing, so that the Government do not have to take a greater role in our search and rescue services, whatever form they take in the years ahead. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady, and I am sure that she would have more success than I do in securing a meeting with the Maritime Minister to make that point.
Independent lifeboats save 25% to 30% of all lives on navigable waters. Independent lifeboats are a vital part of our national rescue capabilities, yet they operate under financial constraints. The work of Hamble lifeboat and all independent lifeboats around the country is fundamental to keeping our coastal communities safe. Their dependency on community donations underscores the need for Government support. A reinstatement of the rescue boat grant fund would not only alleviate the significant financial constraints on independent lifeboats, but ensure that life-threatening emergencies can be tackled without compromise. I strongly urge the Minister to take decisive action, reinstate the grant and support our independent lifeboats as they support our constituents. The grant would serve as more than just a financial relief; it would serve as Government recognition of their invaluable work.
Finally, I encourage all Members here, when they leave the debate, to tweet and put a Facebook post up to raise awareness of the role that our independent lifeboats play. They should also raise a tin for them as well—volunteer to raise money—so that some of the issues that come up this afternoon can be alleviated without our necessarily looking just to the Government for help.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris, not least because you will be very familiar with many of the places I will mention. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for securing this important debate on Government support for independent lifeboats.
I have the great privilege of serving as the MP for the constituency of Llanelli, which is surrounded by water on three sides. There is the Loughor estuary and the Burry inlet, which goes past Burry Port harbour to the stretches of Pembrey sands and reaches up to the estuary of the three rivers: the Gwendraeth, the Towy and the Taf. We enjoy spectacular views, including of the Gower peninsula--we have the best views of it, although my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) often disputes that. The peninsula is indeed spectacular, with its iconic Worms Head, which has itself been the scene of several lifeboat rescues this year alone.
However, it is important to note that that spectacular scenery hides the very treacherous waters beneath, which a huge tidal range, strong currents, shifting sands and mudbanks. There is also a lot of activity—notably the local cocklers and fishermen—as well as the usual range of leisure activities.
The area is served by three lifeboat stations. First, there is the independent Ferryside station. Although it came into my constituency only at the July 2024 general election—I visited it last year—it has served the area for almost 200 years. Just a few weeks ago, the station dealt with a very complex rescue involving three small fishing boats. Secondly, there is the independent Loughor lifeboat, which, although stationed on the Gower side of the Loughor, serves the whole area. Thirdly, there is the RNLI lifeboat in Burry Port, which is well supported by the local community there.
I pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of lifeboat crews. Their experience and knowledge of their local area is absolutely invaluable. They are willing to go out in all weather to rescue people who have got into difficulty. They are hugely professional, meaning that they can dovetail with the coastguard and the other statutory emergency services. Crews put in many hours of vital training to be ready for call-outs.
There is a significant amount of work and responsibility involved in maintaining a lifeboat station. Hours of work are put in by the crew and supporters to maintain buildings and equipment and to undertake training. That is, of course, in addition to the call-outs.
Then there is the cost. For example, running the Ferryside lifeboat costs around £20,000 each year. It costs £289 per year to buy and maintain a crew member’s drysuit, lifejacket, locator beacon and flare. The cost of a crew member’s helmet, which is absolutely essential for their protection, is £110. Those helmets have to be replaced every five years, and the helmets at Ferryside are shortly due for renewal. A can of petrol costs £16 and will power the Ferryside vessel in the water for about 30 minutes. Those are just some examples of the costs involved.
Our local communities are amazing in their fundraising efforts, whether that is the children of Ysgol Glanyfferi, the White Lion in Ferryside staging events for the Ferryside lifeboat, Llanelli Rotary club raising funds for the Loughor lifeboat, or the Burry Port community supporting the RNLI lifeboat there.
Then there is the valuable support from business, whether that is local businesses making donations in money or in kind, or specialist equipment companies providing supplies that are heavily discounted or provided for free. As the Ferryside lifeboat crew have said,
“It takes a team of people and industries to keep a lifeboat afloat. Beyond the volunteers are companies that support us with their generosity…such as Tohatsu Marine and Navisafe”
which supplied the crew with
“reliable navigation lights that can endure the elements”.
I pay tribute to the National Independent Lifeboat Association for the work it does on advocacy, advice and co-ordinating training. In total, NILA estimates that its members saved the taxpayer some £2.6 million in 2024. Of course, costs continue to escalate, whether it is insurance, repairs or equipment. As the Minister will know, the previous Conservative Government closed the rescue boat grant fund back in 2020. In spite of the entreaties from the chair of NILA and the warm words from Lord Davies of Gower, there was no commitment to reinstate it. The fund was not huge—£5 million over the previous five years—but the Ferryside lifeboat had a grant of some £7,000, and the Loughor lifeboat some £10,000. Again, those are not huge amounts, but it takes a lot of plant sales or pub gigs to raise that sort of money.
We all appreciate that financial times are difficult, but my plea this afternoon is for the Minister to look at whether there is any way additional support could be made available for lifeboats, to complement the valiant fundraising efforts of local communities and pay a real tribute to the dedicated and dangerous work of our lifeboat crews. We know that these small organisations manage funds very carefully and are good at making a small amount go a long way, so even a modest amount could make a significant difference. We also know that the public are very supportive of our lifeboat crews and would think that this was money well spent. So my plea to the Minister is, please look at this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to impose an informal six-minute time limit. I will start the winding-up speeches at 3.28 pm. Apparently, we are expecting a Division on a ten-minute rule Bill, but until we hear the bell, we will stick with 3.28 pm.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), on securing the debate.
People from my constituency have been saving lives at sea for hundreds of years—we are a coastal community. In fact, legend has it that Gosport even gained its name as a result of one such incident, in which King Stephen and his brother, Bishop Henry de Blois, were on a little medieval ship that was caught in a fierce storm in the Solent. In danger of drowning, they were rescued by brave local fishermen, who took them ashore, at which point the bishop declared the place “God’s port, our haven.” That is apparently the romantic lineage of the town’s name.
That tradition continues to this day. We have a couple of National Coastwatch Institution stations, staffed by a range of wonderful volunteers, and Lee-on-Solent in my constituency is home to HM Coastguard search and rescue helicopters, but I really want to talk about the team down the coast at the Gosport lifeboat station in Stokes bay, where the Gosport and Fareham Inshore Rescue Service—known as GAFIRS—is based. I pay tribute to the incredible work of that team, who work 24/7, 365 days a year. Anyone who watched “Rescue 999: Seconds to Save a Life” on Channel 5, which I am sure everyone here did, will have seen them in action, and seen the pressure our lifeboat crews are under on the water. Gosport lifeboat station is one of the busiest in the country; remarkably, on one day in July alone, the crew were called out for six separate incidents, beginning at 6 am and finishing 12 hours later.
The dedication of these crews is remarkable, but it is even more astounding when we consider that they are all volunteers who are being asked to disrupt their lives to save lives for free. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, has heard from organisations that they rely very much on these volunteers to continue operating. However, things could not be tougher. The trend in people volunteering is downwards, with 1.5 million fewer people volunteering in 2024 than in the previous year. It is particularly difficult for independent lifeboat charities, because their volunteers have to have a very high level of expertise, and there is a cost to them in terms of the training that volunteers have to be given.
As we have heard, there is also a huge capital cost involved in maintaining the station and the assets. These boats are technical pieces of kit, and GAFIRS does not have the facilities to request replacements for boats where necessary—it has to fundraise. And that is not to mention the cost of fuel.
Those costs have become increasingly difficult to meet. Research by the Charities Aid Foundation has found that fewer people are now giving to charity, compared with before the pandemic. I am especially concerned about the 34% real-terms fall in corporate or philanthropic giving by FTSE 100 companies in the last 10 years. That means that organisations such as GAFIRS have to spend much more time trying to fundraise, as opposed to doing what they are best at, which is saving lives at sea.
GAFIRS is helped perfectly in that by the people of Gosport, who come out in droves to help those fundraising efforts. Indeed, we have a local new year’s day swim, which I have taken part in. We are all encouraged to get dressed up in fancy dress and brave the cold waters of the Solent. I can tell you, Mrs Harris, that it is refreshing after a new year’s eve.
However, GAFIRS really needs more support. I am glad that it received a share of the rescue boat grant fund between 2015 and 2020, and I restate the pleas to the Minister—there is a strong argument for doing this—to reinstate it in recognition of the vital work rescue boats do and the lives they save.
In the context of rising demand and dwindling volunteers and funds, will the Minister also have conversations with colleagues about what more can be done to encourage philanthropy and charitable giving to organisations such as GAFIRS? I put the same question to the Prime Minister earlier in the summer. His constituency is the second-least generous in the country, based on the proportion of income given to charitable causes, so he has skin in the game and an interest in ensuring that people are encouraged to donate more to charities.
I know that there are reasons why fewer people volunteer. One is the economy: times are tough, people work for longer and they do not have much time to spare. But another is the bureaucracy that sometimes acts as an obstacle to people getting involved in volunteering. Will the Minister look at that as well?
The work GAFIRS does is literally life-changing; like many other organisations around the UK, its work is fundamental. I hope the Minister will comment on how the independent lifeboat sector can be supported into the future.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for securing today’s important debate. I also thank all those who work and volunteer in the independent lifeboat sector, as well as those who support the RNLI.
I would like to raise the issue of safety in rivers, although I pay tribute to colleagues who have raised the serious issue of safety at sea. My constituency includes a number of rivers and is densely populated. We have the River Thames, as well as the Kennet, which is one of the major tributaries, and smaller tributaries such as Holy Brook and Foudry Brook. These are all right next to large numbers of people: we have Reading festival every year, with nearly 100,000 visitors; there are people who walk along the Thameside promenade; and we have lots of boaters, and people who enjoy wild swimming and other activities on the river.
Sadly, as an inland area with a major river and some tributaries, we do not have the level of provision that we would wish. There are important services provided by the emergency services, such as Thames Valley police and Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue. However, I have been contacted by a resident asking what more could be done in our context, and whether it might be possible to empower local businesses and sports clubs to help rescue anybody who got into difficulty in the river.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. I thank him for indulging my having a second bite of the cherry, because he makes an important point. Recently, the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) and I spoke in a debate about water safety education. Does he agree that we in this House should be working together to ensure that people who live in constituencies like ours have better access to water education from a young age, through our schools and the businesses that he is describing?
Matt Rodda
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Education is a vital part of this. Where local businesses or sports clubs, such as those involved in rowing, canoeing or other activities on the river, have a supply of trained personnel available—not necessarily 24 hours a day, but certainly for large parts of the day—can the Minister look into what scope there is to support them? What more could be done to help those organisations provide a service in the first instance if they spot an emergency happening? I commend one of my constituents who did exactly that. His part-time role as a volunteer is to help ferry people to an island on the River Thames that is used by a local bowls club—it is the only bowls club in the world on an island, as far as we know. He saw somebody fall into the river and went to rescue them. I commend that type of behaviour and I believe that many more people would want to do exactly the same if they saw that happen.
In our town centre and nearby areas there are three boatyards, a number of sports clubs and other businesses with access to boats, with trained people who are familiar with handling a small boat and who might be able to rescue somebody at very short notice, before other boats could be launched. I wanted to raise that important matter with the Minister and ask whether she might be able to look into it for me.
I also want to mention the growing challenge of people living on boats that are not property registered, and where the Environment Agency and the police have concerns. I have had meetings and I commend our local councillors, the local police and the EA for their work on this matter. In and around our town centre, there are growing numbers of boats where people are living, and there is the danger of incidents related to them. In one of our meetings with these services, we heard about an incident where a boat that had a poorly maintained engine drifted towards a lock, which could have resulted in a tragedy. There have been other sad incidents where there have been problems relating to people living on a river or canal across the country, so I also wanted to raise that and ask whether the Minister has anything to add about trying to enhance safety for people who live on rivers and canals in boats and similar accommodation.
Mrs Harris, I appreciate that time is at a premium and I am certainly grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I hope the Minister will be able to answer some of these queries and I look forward to hearing more when she speaks later.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I commend and congratulate the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall and thereby giving us all a chance to participate.
As the MP for a coastal constituency with a very large length of coast—the name of Strangford is the giveaway and tells the story—I am incredibly familiar with the role of lifeboats and the vital nature of having a well-trained and well-equipped lifeguard in post. We have lifeboat stations dotted throughout the coastline. Indeed, Portaferry—on the Ards peninsula, where I live—has one of seven RNLI lifeboat stations operating a lifeboat funded by viewers of the BBC television programme “Blue Peter”. I am old enough to remember the first “Blue Peter” programme, and it has had a commitment to lifeboats ever since.
In the last 10 years, the lifeboats of the charity’s 10 lifeboat stations in Northern Ireland have launched some 9,500 times. Their volunteers have saved 1,535 lives and come to the aid of thousands of other people. There is so much they have done and so much more they can do. In the last five years, there have been almost 3,000 incidents. The lifeboats have come to the aid of 3,500 people, and 47 lives were saved. If anyone wants a reason for backing this, that is what it is all about—the lives saved and the commitments given. The coastguard operates from Bangor marina, in the neighbouring constituency, but without charitably funded lifeboats, it simply could not handle the need and the load. It is sad that the RNLI really is the last emergency service, yet—I say this very respectfully—the Government pay less than 1% of its funding. I believe that the service deserves more than that.
As well as the RNLI, which I argue is basically independently funded, Northern Ireland has independent lifeboat services, such as Lagan Search and Rescue in Belfast and Lough Neagh Rescue. These services operate on inland waterways and estuaries and are not part of the RNLI, but are part of the focus that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley put forward at the beginning. Other independent groups, such as Foyle Search and Rescue, also provide water rescue services, and many are recognised by the coastguard as declared resources.
Part of our tourism strategy for Strangford is to try to highlight the availability of great family fun on the water, and a lot of that is found on the beautiful waters of Strangford lough, in my constituency. I live just on the edge of it, so I am very privileged to be able to wake up in the morning and look out across the lough. The activities range from paddleboarding to standard sailing and from jet skis to canoes. Anyone who drives around our coastal areas will see people enjoying the lough in all seasons.
However, with all that fun must come safety, and we know how much we rely on the good men and women who volunteer on the lifeboats. The availability of those crews means that we can welcome families to the lough and know that there will be help if the worst happens. That offers great reassurance for me as the MP for the area, but also for those who want to mess about in the water. I think there is a song that goes along those lines. I probably can remember it very well. I can even sing it, but if I sing the rain comes so that would not be a good idea.
The fact of the matter is that the lifeboat service really should be recognised as an emergency service and funded accordingly. Whether we are talking about the coastline in Scotland, England, Wales or beautiful Northern Ireland, as people have less disposable income to give to charities, the need for Government to step up will increase. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place; I wish her well. In her reply, maybe she can indicate what the possibilities are to help lifeboats. There might be some law that prevents it, but she will clarify that when the time comes.
My last comment will be to once again thank every volunteer, past and present, who gave their time and talent to fundraise and co-ordinate fundraising events, every person who so generously gives and every volunteer who gives their time and puts their life on the line to carry out the rescues. There is nothing quite as dramatic as those RNLI lifeboat adverts that come on between the films on a Sunday afternoon. If we need a reason for supporting them, seeing the drama of the rescues that they do will convince people to do that. To them, I say: we could not do without you, and we respect you as we respect all those who serve our communities in emergencies.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for securing this important debate. As someone who previously worked for the RNLI and now represents the beautiful rural and coastal constituency of South East Cornwall, I see every day how lifeboats sit at the heart of our community. In Cornwall, all our lifeboat cover is provided by the RNLI, and those crews are part of our shared identity, heritage and economy. However, I recognise the huge contribution made by independent lifeboats, including in the constituencies that have been mentioned.
The south-west is one of the busiest regions to keep safe, with over 300 miles of Cornish coastline. Saltash in my constituency is the proud home of the RNLI’s south west flood rescue team, and I commend its work in having a regional response to such a crucial issue. The dedication is remarkable and the crews deserve real, practical support.
During the summer, I had the privilege of visiting the RNLI station in Looe during one of its training evenings. I met several dedicated volunteer crew members, including operations manager Clive Palfrey and crew member Vicky Thomas. Many of the crew, as hon. Members might imagine in an area such as mine, are also busy members of the local inshore fishing fleet, and it is truly inspiring that they make the time to be volunteers as well. I was deeply impressed by the team’s professionalism. I saw how vital every piece of equipment is to its operations, particularly the two lifeboats, and I had the opportunity to try on some of the safety equipment. As we watched the lifeboat launch, I have to admit that it quickly became one of my favourite visits.
The crew’s passion for keeping both the local community and visiting tourists—so important in Cornwall—safe on our waters is really inspiring and shared across all lifeboat crews, including independent lifeboats. The country knows about their dedication and the fundraising efforts involved, with communities coming together in support of crews. We owe a great deal to those volunteers, and I want to take the opportunity to thank them for their dedication and courage.
While the RNLI does such a fantastic job keeping our Cornish communities safe, I appreciate that those operating elsewhere perform the same lifesaving work, often through local fundraising alone. I believe that the Government should continue to recognise both RNLI and independent services as essential partners in maritime safety, ensuring that every coastal community, including mine, has the support that it needs to stay safe at sea.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on securing this important debate. It is only right that, as the Member for Poole, I should speak today. My constituency is the location of the RNLI’s headquarters, including the lifeboat support centre and the RNLI college, where crew and lifeguards are trained in their important work.
It is no surprise that, as a coastal town, Poole has a special relationship with the sea. The first lifeboat was stationed in Poole harbour in 1865, and this year the local station celebrated its 160th anniversary. Like other hon. Members, I have had the pleasure of visiting my local lifeboat station on a number of occasions since being elected, to see the tremendous work the station does 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It has 30 seagoing crew, with another 30 or so managers, medical advisers, water safety officers, administrators, fundraisers and those who look after the boat house.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I shall pick up where I left off when the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) rudely interrupted me.
In 2023, the Poole lifeboat crew launched 146 times. It launched 102 times last year, and 109 times so far this year. I therefore pay tribute to all those at Poole lifeboat station, and place on the record my admiration and respect for their tremendous work.
Those volunteers also work extremely hard to raise the funds they need to make all that possible, while also raising awareness of sea safety and encouraging people not to take risks in the water. An issue they have noticed recently is that, because many children no longer have swimming lessons in school, the basic safety messages are needed more than ever. Those volunteers still perform that vital role, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) said.
Poole station costs about £83,000 a year to run, and every shout that the crews attend means refuelling, replenishing medical equipment, carrying out mechanical repairs, training crew and paying for things such as radio licences, utility bills and general equipment that the crews need. In fact, Poole is one of the busiest coastal stations. The whole effort relies on volunteers and donations from the public to keep going; it is important that we understand that it does not have the largesse of a national organisation.
Locally, although the RNLI pays for lifeguards’ training and equipment, the council pays the lifeguards’ wages. Regrettably, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council is considering stopping that. That would place local water users at risk, so I urge the council to think again.
Figures show that 98% of all RNLI rescues are within 10 nautical miles of the shore. What makes the charity and the movement generally special is their mission to save those in need at sea, irrespective of their bank balance or their country of origin. We would do well to remember that approach. I appreciate that RNLI is not lobbying for Government funding, because it is concerned that that might impact on its independence, but the National Independent Lifeboat Association has a different framework and it is calling for funding to be reinstated, as we have heard this afternoon. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s response to that call.
We have heard today about the lifesaving work carried out by independent lifeboat charities across the country, almost entirely crewed by volunteers. Our duty in this place is to lift that burden where we can and help to keep those boats ready to launch whenever the call for help comes.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), a fellow south coast MP, on securing this important debate.
I am an avid sea swimmer and sailor who enjoys every opportunity to be in the sea, so it brings me great joy that more and more people are enjoying open-water swimming, paddleboarding, kayaking and coastal sailing. I am happiest when I am in the sea, but I am aware of the dangers of the sea: even on apparently calm and sunny days, it can be unpredictable and unforgiving. Tides change and winds rise rapidly, and that can turn a fun-filled day on the water into a tragic accident.
When disaster strikes, it is our brave lifeboat crews, many of them volunteers, who launch into the sea to keep people safe and to save lives. My wonderful coastal constituency, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, is lucky to be served by the incredible RNLI. There has been a lifeboat house in Littlehampton for more than 140 years—since 1884. Today, the RNLI’s inshore station on the bank of the river Arun provides vital lifesaving services along our beautiful stretch of Sussex coastline.
This year, that crew has been called out more than 50 times. It supports yachts and fishing vessels in difficulty, and waders and swimmers caught in strong currents. It also rescues pets who have fallen into the water and become stranded. I was delighted to attended the christening of its new D-class lifeboat, Spirit of Fidelity, in September.
I really cannot speak highly enough of the fantastic work that the RNLI and its many volunteers do to keep seagoers in Sussex safe. A true national treasure, the RNLI deserves all the plaudits it rightly receives internationally. But not every constituency is as fortunate as mine is to benefit from an outstanding RNLI lifeboat station. Maritime rescue off the coast of the British Isles is often provided by a remarkable network of independent lifeboats. Community-run and locally fundraised, these vital lifesaving organisations provide the same services as the RNLI, but often in areas far larger than they can reach quickly enough, with a fraction of the funding needed and without the same public and Government recognition of their work. The dedicated volunteers and generous donors who keep independent lifeboats afloat deserve acclaim equal to that of their RNLI colleagues.
Last year, independent lifeboats attended more than 1,800 incidents and assisted more than 2,000 people in the UK. We cannot take them for granted and must support their efforts to keep people safe at sea. The rescue boat grant fund was a key source of funding for independent lifeboats between 2015 and 2020. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley in calling for the Government to reinstate it. To do so would not only celebrate the tireless dedication of the volunteers who run independent lifeboats but invest in the future of those vital lifesaving services.
We would not settle for under-equipped ambulances, fire engines or police cars. We need to ensure that our lifeboats are properly funded, so that their crews can purchase the equipment they need and complete essential maintenance to keep their boats seaworthy and their stations fit for purpose.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Hope Cove lifeboat station in my constituency is considering purchasing a new rescue boat, which could cost in excess of £220,000—a vast amount of money for such a small organisation. Does the hon. Member agree that a specific grant scheme should be introduced to help independent lifeboat stations with capital expenditure?
Alison Griffiths
The hon. Member makes a good point. She would probably agree with me that asking the Government to reinstate the rescue boat grant fund is a first step in that direction. I hope the grant would include capital expenditure.
This is not a topic for political point scoring; it is about saving lives. The reintroduction of the rescue boat grant fund would send a clear message that this House values the commitment and bravery of our lifeboat crews. I hope the Minister has listened carefully to the calls being made, led by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, and that she reaffirms the Government’s support for all those who risk their lives to protect others at sea.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am delighted to respond to this debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and congratulate the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on securing it.
In coastal communities such as North Norfolk, independent lifeboats are not just a valued community asset but a vital part of our network of emergency response on the coast. North Norfolk is proudly home to two excellent independent lifeboat services in Mundesley and Sea Palling. Both have a long history of offshore rescues dating back to the early 1800s, but the current voluntary lifeboats date from the early 1970s. In both cases, villagers reached into their own pockets to support the establishment of an independent rescue service to protect locals and visitors along our coastline. Since then, they have served our communities loyally and saved countless lives.
It is not just coastal communities that benefit from the lifeboats: Mundesley lifeboat also supports floodwater rescues. It is a valuable service but, as with so much of the support for flooding, no additional funding is forthcoming to support that vital work. I hope the Minister will take that back to colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to think about further.
Independent lifeboats in Norfolk also keep us safe inshore. Just over the border, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), is the Hemsby independent lifeboat, which hosts the lifeboat Broads Marley, which serves inland rescues for those in distress on the Norfolk broads in my constituency and, no doubt, in that of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). It is a valued service that ensures that everyone who comes to our precious national park and enjoys its waterways can do so safely. I put on the record my gracious thanks to the crew at Hemsby for all that they do in my area and across Norfolk.
Lifeboat services are valued by my Lib Dem colleagues across the country, from the Hope Cove lifeboat in Devon to the Anstruther RNLI base in North East Fife. The issues that affect lifeboat services matter to a huge range of communities. Challenges at sea do not discriminate, and all coastal communities rely on their support. However, independent lifeboats face a range of challenges in carrying out their vital role. Their independent nature means that they can suffer from a range of funding struggles and do not have the same sure footing as many RNLI bases. In tandem with the rising cost of fuel, maintenance, training and equipment, this creates a difficult environment for these groups to survive in.
That is why we in the Liberal Democrats are encouraging the Government to increase their support for independent lifeboat organisations through targeted, practical assistance that strengthens the work of these volunteer teams. The Government could take many different steps to provide such support. They could introduce a specific grant scheme for independent lifeboat stations, similar to those available for mountain rescue of community fire services. That could help to cover essential operational costs, such as fuel, insurance, crew training and vessel maintenance. Furthermore, they could expand VAT relief for essential rescue equipment—which the RNLI receives for fuel and safety gear—to other independent lifeboat organisations.
Affordable access to training and skills is also vital for independent lifeboats. That is why we want the Government to offer all volunteer lifeboat crews free or subsidised access to training, accredited by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and to support volunteer crew members with access to maritime qualifications, which benefit both rescue operations and personal career growth. This upskilling would be hugely beneficial to the coastal communities where crew members live and work, and could create a wider economic boost, as well as keeping lifeboats staffed with the best possible experience and expertise. We are also keen for the Minister to see whether Government maritime agencies could share access to coastal radar data, weather tracking and communication systems, to enhance rescue co-ordination.
With the Budget coming up, I am sure the Chancellor will be pleased with any Minister who can provide her with a relatively cheap, impactful and universally popular policy, so here we go. I would like to share with her a reform that one of my local independent lifeboat services has encouraged: exempting charitable search and rescue vehicles from vehicle excise duty. Emergency vehicles are already exempt, but those that perform search and rescue for registered charities are not. Independent lifeboat groups may require large vehicles, such as Land Rovers or 4x4s, to pull their lifeboats in and out of the sea or transport them to other launch points. These vehicles attract a high tax, which adds hundreds or thousands to the groups’ expenses.
Modelling suggests that providing the charities with this tax break could cost the Exchequer as little as £500,000 a year, which would effectively be a direct cash injection back into the independent lifeboat charities, supporting their sustained existence and allowing them to carry out their important work. Will the Minister make a case for this tax break to the Treasury ahead of the Budget next month? It would be a hugely positive step and an important recognition of the work of our independent lifeboats.
There is no distinction in the urgency of emergencies that lifeboats respond to. When someone is in distress off our coast, every second counts, just as it would in responding to a heart attack or a house fire. The teams need the best vehicles for the job, and they should not be punished by a punitive tax regime that discourages them from owning them. As it stands, the original Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and the A-Team van are exempt from vehicle tax, but independent lifeboat vehicles are not. I hope that the Government can recognise that our lifeboat crews are a real-life A-team, and support them as such.
I will finish by acknowledging the incredible work of the independent lifeboats that support us across the country, particularly in North Norfolk. If I had endless time, I would be delighted to read into the record the names of all the crew members in my area who work so hard, but as I do not, I want to note my thanks to the coxswain of Mundesley lifeboat, Dave Francis; the coxswain of Sea Palling lifeboat, Mick Clarke; all the members of their hard-working teams; and all those who support their work. I hope the Minister will not only join me in thanking them for all they do, but go further by providing them with the hope that the Government will give them the support they need to continue their vital work in decades to come.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to appear before you, Mrs Harris.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on securing this debate. I know he is a long-standing supporter of independent lifeboats, and he hid his light under a bushel by understating his involvement in the creation of the National Independent Lifeboat Association. I will pause to remember the efforts of Anthony Mangnall, the former Member for Totnes, who was an excellent contributor—a very good orator—in the Chamber. He had his own style, stood with his hand in his pocket, right at the Front Bench where there is no protection at all. He was a very impressive Member of this House.
I should declare an interest. I do not think it is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but since my early 20s I have been an offshore member of the RNLI, having been a sailor and boating enthusiast all my life. During the debate I played a game with myself to see whether I had sailed or been on a boat in every constituency mentioned. The answer is that I have. I was a bit nervous when the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) spoke, because that constituency is quite a challenge, but then he mentioned the Thames, and I have been there. I was also concerned when the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke; I have of course been on Strangford lough, but I was challenged by Lough Neagh. I have been there, and I think I have been on a boat there. The hon. Member could have mentioned Lough Erne—I have been all over that. So I know of what I speak, having followed every Member round their constituencies and their references to the lifeboats.
I can say I have been in those areas, but actually I was under the unseen protection of each and every independent lifeboat that was standing ready and willing to come to my aid had something bad happened. We need to remember that. Being out on the sea is a wonderful recreational experience. It is fun until it is not, when it becomes very dangerous very quickly. These men and women stand ready to put their own lives at risk to protect us, whether we are working on the sea or there for recreation. It is important that we remember that throughout this debate.
Independent lifeboat services offer important support for lifesaving, both on the sea and on inland waters, such as those in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham. The National Independent Lifeboat Association says that more than 80 independent lifeboat organisations operate along the coastline and inland waterways, and it estimates that in 2024 there were getting on for 3,500 volunteers, of whom over 1,000 were operational. They attended almost 2,000 incidents, assisting more than 2,000 people in distress or need. As has been mentioned, that work has been valued at £2.6 million in savings to the Government. This selfless work, carried out by inspirational people, many of whom have been mentioned by name in the debate, not only saves lives but saves the taxpayer money.
I want to join in the local celebrations. I am a bit stretched, because I represent an inland constituency, although it includes a part of the Norfolk broads—the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) and I share them. At Great Yarmouth we have Caister lifeboat. I am told, although I stand to be corrected, that it is the oldest lifeboat in the country. It has existed since 1791—consider that: well over 200 years. It is at the heart of the Norfolk coastal community that raises the money to support it. That money goes towards lifesaving equipment and training.
This year, Caister came out not just to save lives but to save a historic vessel. As a keen sailor, I have watched the complete restoration of the former royal yacht Bloodhound—I read about the progress in the sailing press over the course of months—which sprung a devastating leak off the Norfolk coast. The Caister lifeboat went out, helped to pump out and secure the vessel, and escorted it safely to the shore. Bloodhound is the vessel in which Prince Philip taught Prince Charles how to sail. It was a royal yacht from 1936 until 1969.
On the other side of the Wash is the Humber Rescue lifeboat. On 23 May this year it was launched multiple times over a 10-hour period to deal with a series of serious incidents on the Humber, and it saved three lives in a single day. That is just one example of the incredible work that independent lifeboat has done.
An interesting point, which some Members have raised, is that a local lifeboat knows its waters, some of which have particular characteristics that mean that specificity of training pays dividends. Where we have local conditions, we need local lifeboats—independent lifeboats, in particular—to provide the coverage we are all looking for.
Last year, the Felixstowe coast patrol and rescue saved six lives and provided assistance to 58 people while taking part in 55 patrols covering thousands of miles. Closer to home, the hon. Member for North Norfolk will recall that, just last month, Hemsby Broads rescue was tasked by Humber coastguard to assist in the rescue of six people on the lower Bure on its approach to Great Yarmouth. We fight over the Bure; it is the barrier, or the demarcation point, between our two constituencies. I have not researched sufficiently to know whether it happened on my side of the river or the hon. Gentleman’s, but the vessel that ran aground was listing heavily near Great Yarmouth. All the casualties were safely evacuated, but without that swift and co-ordinated approach, the situation could have ended very differently. We owe a debt of gratitude to independent lifeboats, whether they operate in inland waters or out at sea.
There is a wider point here. For all these institutions, their strength comes from their independence. Although state provision can provide funding and coverage, it comes at the very significant cost of disenfranchising local communities. It comes at the cost of undermining their sense of belonging and the network of social ties—the community resilience—that supporting, running and manning a local independent lifeboat brings about. The strength of independent lifeboats is their very independence.
More widely, this is a model for devolution—not the Government’s version, devolution from above, where we destroy the lowest level of government and bring it up to county or bi-county level as a vehicle for undertaking the directions of the national state, but devolution down to communities that empowers them to take decisions on their own behalf. That is the kind of devolution towards which independent lifeboats lead the way.
Although these organisations are a celebration of independence, there is a difference between independence and funding, which remains a huge challenge. We have heard that between 2014 and 2020, the previous Government granted a total of £5.66 million to 104 different independent inshore and inland rescue boat charities through the rescue boat grant fund. Sadly, that was stopped in 2020. I hear the lament of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, and I join him in it. It was a mistake that, to save £1 million pounds a year, the capital advantage given to these independent charities, which do so much for their local communities, was stopped. That leads me neatly into my request to the Minister to consider that as we approach the Budget on 26 November. What is she going to do about it?
We need to make sure that independent lifeboats are able to act to protect those in need. Are regulations in place to that ensure independent lifeboats can act effectively? Does the Minister agree with everyone in the Chamber about the importance of independent lifeboats? If so, will she update us on the Government’s approach to funding—that is important—and on how she can encourage local lifeboat institutions to thrive?
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) made a very important point about the bureaucracy of volunteering. That is an increasingly significant constraint. There are lots of requirements, each of which is no doubt sensible on its own, but the accumulation of bureaucracy, when taken en masse, prevents people from volunteering. We need to do something about that. Will the Minister commit to a permanent position for NILA on the search and rescue framework?
This debate has been a celebration—of civic society, not the state. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley on drawing our attention to this very important part of our civic society and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s speech.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the Minister, may I ask her to wind up by 4.11 pm, so that we can allow Mr Holmes two minutes to sum up before I conclude the debate?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for bringing this debate to the House. It is extremely important to highlight the role of our dedicated lifeboat services, which seek to rescue any persons in distress or difficulty around our coast. It is important that we continue to celebrate these lifesaving services and recognise their contribution to search and rescue services across the United Kingdom search and rescue region. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to the brave volunteers who are a critical part of the UK’s maritime search and rescue provision.
I am very happy to join all those hon. Members here today who have highlighted the volunteers on their own independent lifeboats and, indeed, RNLI lifeboats. The hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak) highlighted Hayling Island lifeboat station; my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) highlighted the Pett Level independent rescue boat; the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) drew our attention to Lyme Regis and its independent rescue boat; my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) referred to the boat at Runswick Bay; my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) referred to the Ferryside and Loughor boats; the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) referred to the Gosport and Fareham inshore rescue service; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted independent lifeboats on Strangford lough, Lough Neagh and the Lagan; and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) highlighted the RNLI in her area—I have witnessed its work myself while on holiday, and obviously the RNLI’s headquarters are in Poole.
We heard from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) about the lifeboat service in her constituency; the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) talked about the lifeboats at Sea Palling and Mundesley; and we heard about the lifeboat at Caister from the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). I apologise if I missed anyone and I know that there are many other independent lifeboats around the country that I have not mentioned. I feel somewhat guilty for not having done so, but I know that they will be doing incredible work too, and they similarly deserve our thanks.
I am sure that all hon. Members across the House will be aware of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution—a charity that provides lifeboat and lifeguard services across the UK, Ireland and the Crown dependencies—and the role that its brave volunteers undertake, but this debate is a welcome opportunity to call attention to our independent lifeboats, which are not part of the RNLI but provide vital lifeboat and lifesaving services in their local communities.
We are very lucky also to have volunteer life brigades, volunteer lifeguards and His Majesty’s Coastguard volunteers, all of whom regularly risk their own lives to save others at sea and around our beautiful but sometimes treacherous coastline. Those volunteers undertake search operations and water, mud and cliff rescue 24 hours a day, sometimes in the most terrible circumstances and conditions. Indeed, the conditions in which they deploy to save and protect others are often challenging and potentially life-threatening. We recognise and greatly appreciate their service, and I know that all Members of the House will join me in thanking them.
Our volunteer lifeboat services in the UK have a long and proud history spanning more than 200 years. The saving of lives at sea and on the coast, and the volunteer ethos of these services, is a cornerstone of British society. While the RNLI is recognised as a world leader in lifeboat services and operations, the UK is also very proud to have approximately 40 independent lifeboats declared to His Majesty’s Coastguard—and others besides, as we have heard. Those organisations provide lifesaving services around the clock in support of our maritime and coastal emergency service. His Majesty’s Coastguard’s own volunteer coastguard rescue officers are also proud to maintain the traditions of voluntary lifesaving and have worked alongside their colleagues in the lifeboat services for over 200 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) spoke about the issues in his constituency and the potential interest in establishing a rescue service on the River Thames. His Majesty’s Coastguard is responsible for search and rescue on the lower River Thames to Teddington. Beyond that, inland water safety is the responsibility of the police. However, should small boat operators want to form a rescue service, His Majesty’s Coastguard can provide advice and guidance, and the rescue boat code is a good benchmark for the formation of rescue boats. I am sure that the responsible Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather)—would be happy to provide my hon. Friend with further information should he so wish.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central also asked about the safety of boaters, who take part in an increasingly popular activity. Inland search and rescue is the responsibility of the police, but the fire services have water rescue capability and His Majesty’s Coastguard search and rescue helicopters can also be asked to support those services.
The work undertaken by our independent lifeboats is often not fully recognised. Each is run by dedicated volunteers who provide a vital lifesaving capability to offer assistance to any person who may be in difficulty around our coasts and countryside. As we have heard, independent lifeboats operate in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, both on the coast and inland.
The hon. Member for Hamble Valley rightly highlighted the challenges our independent lifeboats face. In common with all search and rescue services, they are responding to an increasing number of call-outs. As so many hon. Members highlighted, they also face significant challenges to maintain their operations. We know that volunteers not only crew the lifeboats but undertake magnificent fundraising efforts to provide the resources they need. They of course require our recognition and support, and a number of bodies and initiatives work to support them.
In September 2022, the National Independent Lifeboat Association was formally launched, with support from Members of Parliament, the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. NILA was founded with the intention of supporting our independent lifeboats and providing a cohesive voice for those smaller but vital organisations. His Majesty’s Coastguard continues to help, support and guide the development of the association, which aims to provide ongoing support to the individual charities through the provision of a national voice, including by representing them in the United Kingdom Search and Rescue Operators Group.
UKSAR is the representative organisation for search and rescue in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is an amalgam of Government Departments, the emergency services and a number of search and rescue charities and voluntary organisations. Those authorities and organisations are committed to a cohesive and co-operative partnership in support of an effective, cost-efficient national SAR capability. UKSAR is chaired by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on behalf of the Department for Transport and it has various workstreams that look to support all volunteer SAR groups, including independent lifeboats and many others, such as mountain rescue and lowland rescue, which I had the pleasure of meeting recently. The workstreams cover a broad spectrum, including interoperability, national operating guidance, medical response, volunteer support and recognition of SAR organisations.
As we heard, NILA is currently a probationary member of the UK Search and Rescue Operators Group, while it continues to establish and move to full membership. Importantly, probationary status does not limit NILA’s access or influence, or the benefits it receives as part of UK Search and Rescue. NILA has done fantastic work representing independent lifeboats since its founding only a few years ago, and it must be commended for that work. HM Coastguard and UKSAR will continue to support NILA as it moves towards full membership. I understand that following discussions between NILA trustees and its sponsor, HM Coastguard, NILA concluded that remaining a probationary member at this stage was in its best interests, but it is clearly on a journey towards full membership.
UKSAR has worked with the DFT to ensure that all SAR responders, including independent lifeboats, will be recognised in ongoing work, including the revision of section 19 of the Road Safety Act 2006 to allow the appropriate use of emergency warning devices. It will also support wider workstreams, including, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) highlighted, allowing potential vehicle excise duty exemptions—I assure him that that work is in hand.
The hon. Member for Hamble Valley and a number of others raised the issue of the rescue boat grant fund. As we heard, the fund provided grants to inshore and inland rescue boat charities to support major capital purchases. The Department was able to subsequently extend the fund with a further £1 million for an additional round in 2019-20. But at the end of that period, the then Government closed the fund because its specific objective of enhancing capacity was considered to have been met.
While the Department does not currently have any plans to reintroduce the rescue boat grant fund, the Government regularly make new grants available to charities, and the process of identifying suitable opportunities, checking eligibility and making applications has been simplified through a single online portal. His Majesty’s Coastguard provides guidance and support to all its declared independent lifeboats through its local management teams and declared facility officers. Since April 2015, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has allowed search and rescue charities, including independent lifeboats, to recover VAT on the purchase of goods and services used for their non-business activities.
Earlier this year, the all-party parliamentary group for volunteer rescue services was established, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—a constituency that is quite challenging to say. My hon. Friend could not be in the debate today, but I know the APPG is supported by many MPs. The aim of the group is to advocate for legislation and policies that support and strengthen the volunteer rescue sector, ensuring that volunteers are equipped, protected and empowered to carry out their lifesaving work effectively across the UK in all emergency and disaster response situations. I am sure that we all look forward to a further opportunity to debate and discuss those issues in the House.
The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) rightly spoke about the reduction in charitable and corporate giving. As I am sure she will appreciate, this issue falls outside my portfolio, but I will ensure that the concerns she expressed today are heard by the Minister for Sport, Media, Civil Society and Youth, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock). The hon. Member is right to raise the importance of addressing what we can do as a Government to support the growth of charitable giving and philanthropy.
I am very proud to be speaking on behalf of the Department responsible for maritime search and rescue, and I am very proud of the volunteers, and their supporting organisations, who form such an important part of that provision. I pay tribute to those organisations and the individuals who work both in response and behind the scenes to provide lifesaving services in whatever circumstances, to whoever needs them. I hope I have managed to answer the questions and concerns of hon. Members, but if not, I know that the Minister for Maritime and Aviation will be reading our exchanges—I am afraid he is visiting another part of the UK today—and will reflect on them. I am sure that he would happy to respond to any questions in writing, if I have not covered them.
I finish by thanking the hon. Member for Hamble Valley for raising this important issue and providing the opportunity for us to debate and celebrate the contribution of our lifeboat services to search and rescue.
Paul Holmes
I genuinely thank all hon. Members for their fabulous contributions extolling the virtues of their lifeboat services. I thank the Minister and shadow Minister for being here this afternoon. I am delighted that the shadow Minister has not had to use the services of the many independent lifeboats that he listed. It just shows what a good skipper he is—for now. He is, however, a much better skipper than I am on my little 23-foot motorboat. I am not a sailor; I get shouted at too much.
We have heard about so many services, but let us imagine what it would be like if those services were not there and we had no volunteers around our country. It would be a disaster for our coastal communities. The number of people who lose their lives on the water would go up, and we do not want that. The Minister’s speech was very welcome, as was her willingness to thank all our volunteers and independent lifeboat services. That is something that I really wanted to achieve this afternoon, as this debate was intended on a non-party political basis; this is not a party-political issue.
Despite that, and although I am aware that a former Government Chief Whip is now sitting next to me, the Minister knows that I think it was deeply regrettable that the rescue boat grant fund was stopped under the last Government. I do not think that it is too much money. As the Minister said in regard to whether the grant should have been continued, there was an assessment that the mission was largely complete, but I think that that was the wrong assessment. There is certainly much more to do to make sure that our independent lifeboat stations get the finances that they need.
I will write to the Minister again about the interpretation of whether NILA wants to stay as a probationary or permanent member. That is certainly not the message that I got a few days ago from it, but it may be an issue of communication, so I will write to her again. Lastly, we will be holding another one of these debates next year, and I hope that someone else will feel able to pick up the mantle, but let us go out and celebrate the contribution that independent lifeboats make.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for independent lifeboats.
Civil Justice Council Review of Litigation Funding
(1 day, 9 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
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I will call Sir Julian Smith to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Civil Justice Council’s review of litigation funding.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—until the summer, I was voluntary chair of the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution. I pay tribute to Mr Justice Simon Picken and Dr John Sorabji, who co-chaired the review, along with each member of the working party and the Civil Justice Council secretariat.
Third-party litigation funding plays an important role, enabling citizens in the UK and businesses to bring claims against larger and often better-resourced firms and organisations. Litigation funding involves an investment company that is not involved in a particular legal case providing all or a portion of the legal costs of a claim, in return for any damages awarded. The typical area in which litigation funding operates is in high-value commercial, arbitration or group litigation claims, particularly in the Competition Appeal Tribunal—a key route for competition-based group claimants to attempt to seek redress and, alongside the Competition and Markets Authority, one of two pillars of the UK’s globally recognised competition regime.
Litigation funding provided financial resource for cases to be taken in the initial stages of the Post Office Horizon scandal, Bates v. Post Office, as well as providing resources in cases taken up against car manufacturers, such as one over false diesel emissions, cases focused on data breaches, those involving car financing and, most recently, a high-profile case last week involving Apple and charges for app use on the App Store.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way at such an early stage in his speech. I want to highlight another positive example of the use of litigation funding. It was essential in helping 52 former franchisees of Vodafone—essentially, small business owners, including one in Chester-le-Street in my constituency—to bring a claim against the company, which they would have struggled to bring without funding. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this example demonstrates that litigation funding can play a crucial role in enabling access to justice for those who would otherwise be denied it?
Sir Julian Smith
I agree with the hon. Member; the Vodafone case, which involved franchisees across the UK, is another example of how litigation funding can help.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the PACCAR case in July 2023, which involved a claim against truck manufacturers for anti-competitive behaviour, rendered many third-party funding agreements unenforceable by bringing them in scope of another type of legal funding agreement, damage-based agreements. The impact of the judgment on the litigation funding market has been two years of instability and a lack of clarity about its contractual operating terms. The last Government sought to remedy the issue by introducing the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, which had reached Second Reading in the House of Lords immediately prior to the election.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate; he was right to do so. Although no win, no fee seems like the only reasonable option for those seeking compensation in the civil courts to fund their cases, they can be easily taken advantage of, so does he agree that we need a framework that allows for a reasonable exchange of risk and benefit to consumers, rather than putting the ability to fight for justice just beyond their reach?
Sir Julian Smith
I agree with the hon. Member; I will come to some protections that I think he might be attracted by.
The last election stopped the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, which was going to overturn the PACCAR judgment, but on 1 August 2024, Lord Ponsonby said in a written answer to a parliamentary question that the new Labour Government
“recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in ensuring access to justice.
Following the PACCAR judgment, concerns have been raised about the need for greater regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements…The Government is keen to ensure access to justice in large-scale and expensive cases, whilst also setting up adequate safeguards to protect claimants from unfair terms.
The Civil Justice Council is considering these questions and others in its review of third-party litigation funding, and hopes to report in summer 2025. The Government will take a more comprehensive view of any legislation to address issues in the round once that review is concluded.”
The Civil Justice Council review concluded in June this year. The litigation funding industry, businesses and the legal sector await the Government’s response. The current lack of response to the report is causing significant uncertainty to the sector and additional costs for those fighting for businesses and consumers. Although the Government are inevitably busy on many fronts, action on this is needed now and will be positive for the UK economy.
I will return to the recommendations of the CJC report shortly, but I just want to emphasise two broader points. First, the legal sector in the UK was worth about £52 billion in 2024, up by about 10% on the previous year. Litigation funding is estimated to have quadrupled since 2013, with more than £1 billion capital estimated as currently available to litigation. In 2023, PwC UK predicted growth at a compound annual growth rate of more than 8% over five years.
On a global basis, the global litigation funding market was approximately $20 billion in 2025 and is expected to be closer to $49 billion in 2035. Legal services with litigation funding are an important component and a vital export opportunity as the UK continues to be the leading centre for global disputes of all kinds and can stand to win significant revenues from deals such as the ones the Government have done with India, the US and, this week, Turkey. Services of all shapes and sizes, but particularly legal services, are a key UK economic sector and we should bear that in mind during this debate.
The second broader point is that litigation finance significantly assists with access to justice, as we have heard, discouraging large companies from anti-competitive or anti-consumer behaviour. Litigation finance funds cases of all shapes and sizes, but particularly class actions where there is a potential case against large and often global firms who unknowingly—or often knowingly —have breached the UK’s competition law.
UK competition law was crafted over many years to ensure an efficient market protecting consumers and fostering fair competition between companies, encouraging better and more effective growth. Both issues matter to UK citizens as they directly impact incomes and financial costs for families across the United Kingdom. We need one of our most successful service sectors to operate with a full focus on expansion and growth. That means more jobs, which mean more tax revenue. We need UK consumers to have routes to take on the huge might of the global companies from which they buy products and services, but that have such large market share and resources that they can more or less do what they want.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal was extended in 2015 by the coalition Government to include opt-out collective actions to enhance competition, ensure prices stay fair and that businesses do not abuse their position and keep innovating. As Ministers said at the time:
“Competition is one of the great drivers of growth”,
For many consumers, who are often on low incomes, cases in the CAT, funded by third-party litigation funding, is the only route to challenge and hold large companies to account.
Neither point is intended to imply that everything is perfect, but the PACCAR judgment and the need for legislation to remediate the situation, the CJC report that is the topic of this debate and a recent call for evidence on the opt-out regime at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, run by the Department for Business and Trade, all risk slowing down an important growth market for the UK if Government responses are not executed quickly, proportionately and with vision. Improvements can clearly be made to the oversight of the litigation funding sector, and also in the operation of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Having said that, despite heavy lobbying for change, there is no evidence that the UK’s ranking as a destination for foreign direct investment has been affected by our vibrant competition regime. Moreover, private enforcement of the regime through the CAT seems to be good value for money, with just over £5 million in costs for the Competition Appeal Tribunal and £118 million for the Competition and Markets Authority.
The first recommendation of the CJC report is:
“Legislation should be introduced to make clear that litigation funding is…a distinct form of funding”.
It also recommends that the effect of the PACCAR Supreme Court judgment should be overturned. Although the market has, to an extent, adapted to that judgment in June 2023, the bulk of submissions to the review and elsewhere highlighted the impact on the provision of funding. Less money has been delivered to claimants, and there has been a reduction in the number of CAT cases. The report’s main ask is to get legislation in place and to overturn PACCAR. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on when that will happen, and a clear timeline. It would be good to get it done in this Session of Parliament. I would also be interested in the Minister’s comments on the change being retrospective, which seems fraught with complications. On the previous Bill’s Second Reading debate in the House of Lords, Members raised concerns.
Other flagship recommendations in the CJC review relate to the move from self-regulation by the Association of Litigation Funders not to the Financial Conduct Authority, which some proposed, but to light-touch regulation put in place by the Lord Chancellor. The proposals are for differential regulations for the type of claimant: very little for commercial disputes, and lighter touch for consumer, representative or class actions.
The review proposes a minimum baseline set of regulatory requirements, focusing on case-specific capital adequacy, codification that litigation funders should not control the litigation process, conflicts of interest and money laundering. Additional light-touch regulation is proposed for groups and consumer claimants, to include a consumer duty, early court approval of the funding agreement and a court assessment of whether the lender’s return is reasonable. Further measures include the provision of independent legal advice for consumers before entering into funding agreements, and a prohibition on litigation funders controlling proceedings or settlement proceedings.
In reflecting on the proposals, the Government must be alive to the risk of fettering an innovative and successful industry that enables consumers to mount challenges against Goliath-sized firms. I encourage them to take a pragmatic view, driven by the market. There may be merit in applying some elements of the CJC report through regulations, but it is worth considering strengthening the current self-regulation regime, including by getting all players operating in the UK market to join the Association of Litigation Funders—it is a self-regulation body has a code of practice, but not all litigation funders are in it. I call on the industry to get everybody operating in litigation funding in the UK on board in the association.
There are proposals to use redress schemes and other forms of non-court-based resolution more regularly. I believe strongly in alternative routes to settlement, so I agree strongly with those proposals. Much more can be done to offer settlement options, including encouraging settlement rather than litigation, offering mandatory mediation in parts of the CAT process, and making mediation a clause within the process for litigation funding agreements. Avoiding costly disputes is generally a good thing. Focusing on settlement, not litigation, in the Government response would help in that regard. Mandatory mediation would also help to ensure that disputes between litigation funders and law firms are handled more clearly.
Although I acknowledge that improvements need to be made, I hope that the Minister and the Government will reflect on the potential motivations of some of those who look to impose heavy changes on opt-out. Opt-out, and its reliance on litigation finance, offers consumers a powerful opportunity for redress. The Government opt-out review, introduced earlier this year, references perceived burdens of the current regime on business, but there seems to be little evidence of our competition law putting off inward investment. The UK is seen to be a great place to invest and the same arguments that helped to build the UK competition rules stand today. If there is no fear of being brought to book, some companies will continue to rip off and abuse consumers. If they are abiding by UK competition law, they have nothing to fear.
While acknowledging that improvements can be made, we should be sceptical of those who seek to fetter consumer rights and should instead make the case for an expansion of those rights in the interests of our citizens and UK economic growth. A strong defence of consumer rights is the best way for the UK to continue to thrive, for the UK economy to grow, and for inward investors and domestic businesses to stay lean and competitive.
Whatever the Minister’s response today, I hope that the Government will soon introduce a Bill to address PACCAR, the primary recommendation of the CJC report, and will seek to look at practical ways to implement elements of that report while avoiding adding burdens, cost and micromanagement on to an innovative and important sector.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I will bring this debate to a close at 4.42 pm. Hon. Members should bear that in mind so that there is time for the Minister. I call Oliver Ryan.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for securing the debate and allowing me briefly to contribute.
When people go to court, they deserve justice, not a financial system that puts investors before victims, yet that is what litigation has too often become. We all remember the Post Office case, which the right hon. Gentleman eloquently discussed. It was one of the darkest chapters in recent legal memory. The postmasters fought for years to clear their names, yet when the settlement came in, around 80% of the damages—£46 million—went not to them, but to funders and lawyers. That is not right.
This is not some distant issue that affects courts in London. In my constituency of Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield, many households were drawn into cavity wall insulation claims by legal vultures only to be left thousands of pounds in debt when the funder and law firm behind them, SSB, collapsed. Ordinary families were left exposed, with no resource and no protection. That failure should shame us all. We can do better by having effective regulation of the market. The Solicitors Regulation Authority and others still have questions to answer about SSB.
More than 70 litigation funders are active in the UK, managing billions of pounds but operating with very little formal oversight. That gap leaves consumers exposed and confidence in our legal system weakened. The right hon. Gentleman has ably explained some of the practical recommendations in the Civil Justice Council report—in which Seema Kennedy, previously of this parish, although on the Conservative Benches, was also involved—so I will not go into them now. However, I hope that this Government take on board recommendations for greater transparency and oversight, clearer limits on funding controls, the strengthening of the ombudsman and alternative dispute resolutions, as has been mentioned, and court scrutiny of the profits and sources of funding of those taking these legal cases through. Those steps would restore fairness and integrity to collective actions and make sure that outcomes serve the people involved in these cases and not the profit motive.
I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has ambitions to address concerns in this area, perhaps in legislation. I look forward to hearing her response and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to contribute.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) for securing a debate on this very important subject. It gives me an opportunity to cover three of my favourite themes: consumer protection, access to justice and growth, especially as it is delivered by the very successful legal services sector in this country.
We are here to discuss the Civil Justice Council’s review of litigation funding, which was published in June. As others have said, litigation funding refers to the mechanism by which litigation is privately funded in England and Wales. Third-party funding is where a party unconnected to a dispute, most often a financial institution, funds the cost of the legal action in return for a share of any damages awarded. As others have observed, this performs two functions: a social function and an economic function. Third-party funding is an essential tool in ensuring access to justice for many. It enables those who would not otherwise be able to afford to litigate—ordinary people, the small businesses referred to— to assert their rights before a court of law, against often far better resourced opponents, often large corporations and institutions.
Without third-party funding, as others have noted, the sub-postmasters would not have been able to bring their landmark civil claim against the Post Office. Those individuals without the financial means or legal clout to bring a claim themselves, were able to secure compensation for their losses as a result of third-party litigation funding. Such funding has also been used to support equal pay cases, environmental challenges, consumer claims against multinational companies regarding data breaches, and the other sorts of cases mentioned today.
As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) notes, this also makes a huge economic contribution. Along with the quality and calibre of our judiciary and legal services, third-party funding is an important factor in attracting international business to England and Wales as a jurisdiction of choice. That is because third-party funding is also used in high-value commercial cases, where there is a significant financial imbalance or where parties do not wish to use limited capital resources on legal proceedings.
It is important for the House to recognise that third-party funding plays a critical role in supporting the attractiveness of our jurisdiction as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration. Legal services contributed £42 billion to the economy last year. I am happy to be their greatest champion, but it is fair to say that the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in the PACCAR case has created a degree of uncertainty for funders and litigants alike.
As we have heard, the case concerned litigation funding agreements—LFAs. The Supreme Court held that third-party litigation funding agreements were damages-based agreements. The ruling rendered many such LFAs unenforceable, by bringing them into the scope of the regulatory regime for damages-based agreements. As others have noted, that has created a degree of uncertainty. There is a concern and very real risk that funders are beginning to pivot away from London, England and Wales to look at other jurisdictions, such as New York, Paris and Singapore, more favourably. In short, that is not good for UK plc.
The PACCAR judgment and the report of the Civil Justice Council that followed present an opportunity for the sort of debate we are having. What would it look like to reverse PACCAR? Do we want to go back to exactly what the regime looked like before? Can we evolve an even better regime, which provides the right regulatory balance, ensuring access to justice, and that damages-based agreements work for client and funder alike? How do we develop that? For that reason, the Government have taken time to ask the CJC to conclude its work, and we are considering carefully how to achieve that balance.
Third-party funding is currently subject only to self-regulation via the Association of Litigation Funders’ code of conduct. I welcome and echo the invitation by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon to those who are not currently subject to the code’s ethical and operational standards to seize the opportunity to bring themselves within what is currently a voluntary regime.
Despite litigation funding’s importance to effective access to justice, not all feel that current third-party funding arrangements always work in the client’s best interest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) pointed out. Some have questioned funders’ role and level of control in legal proceedings. Those weaknesses in the pre-PACCAR regime are ones we recognise and want to take time to consider, so that we can ensure that third-party funding works for all.
In the light of the judgments and those concerns, the Civil Justice Council, an advisory body chaired by the Master of the Rolls, has conducted a thorough and learned review. It looks at this issue and the wider ecosystem for third-party litigation funding and its regulation. The scope of the review was to set out the current position of litigation funding and third-party litigation funding, and to consider access to justice, effectiveness and a host of regulatory options. Specifically, the review considered whether the current arrangements for third-party funding deliver the effective access to justice that we all want to see. We are incredibly grateful for the report.
We are now taking the time, as I said, to consider the report and its recommendations very carefully. I am sure that hon. Members here today will appreciate that it is essential to take this detailed and considered approach to what is a technical area but one that is fundamental to the human aspects of access to justice. We must ensure that the right balance is struck to ensure fair and effective access to justice, while enabling economic growth, which is, as so many others have said, the primary mission of this Government. We are aware that many are eagerly awaiting the Government’s response, and I look forward to announcing our way forward in due course. The stakes are high: access to justice, consumer protection and economic growth. We have to get this right.
I will say one more thing in response to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon on retrospectivity. I think it is highly unlikely, given the general rule-of-law principle against retrospectivity, that we would look to have that, but as I said, we must get this right; we have to get the balance right. We want an improved regime that works for the funders and for their clients and consumers.
Question put and agreed to.
Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards
(1 day, 9 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
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a new standard for vehicle headlight glare.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am grateful for the opportunity to present this motion today; it is the first time that I have been successful in an application for a Westminster Hall debate, and I feel that I have been incredibly lucky with the coverage that it has received so far in the news. But I suppose that I should not be surprised. This issue has been raised with me by many constituents, and polling indicates that 80% of all drivers are concerned about headlight glare. I am sure that most Members have at one time or another struggled to see the road because of the glare of oncoming headlights—I certainly have.
No one should deny the valuable role that headlights play in enabling people to drive safely. They enable drivers to see potential hazards, and other people to notice vehicles in motion. It is for that reason that we encourage cyclists to ensure that their bikes are properly illuminated at night—the conversation about their lighting, and particularly the flashing lightbulbs that they often have, can wait for another day. However, in recent years the glare from headlights has begun to tip over from enhancing road safety to compromising it. On average each year, police are called to 280 collisions and six fatal collisions where headlight glare is cited as having played a role in causing the accident.
Several factors have a role to play in driving the increase in headlight glare. Poor alignment of headlights means that often car headlights are angled too high up in the road, and consequently the light enters into cabins. There is increased adoption of SUV-style cars, which sit higher in the road, so again the light is more likely to enter a car’s cabin and impact drivers.
However, the most significant change has been the replacement of traditional halogen lightbulbs with light-emitting diodes. LEDs are a significant improvement on halogen bulbs; they are far more energy-efficient, last far longer and have the ability to be brighter and better directed than traditional lightbulbs. Unfortunately, although car companies feel the advantages of the increased brightness of LEDs—which, due to emitting large volumes of blue light, unlike halogen lightbulbs, take far longer for the eye to recover from—they do not appear to have considered the impacts on other road users. It is hard to say whether that is by accident or design. Brighter headlights may well be attractive to those purchasing a car; they can be more aesthetically pleasing, and drivers benefit from increased visibility, but that all comes at the cost of other road users.
The tension between the conflicting interests of those living in this country sits at the heart of our politics. It is our job as representatives to decide where that appropriate balance sits—curtailing the freedoms of some to protect the freedoms of others—and there will always be winners and losers. Fortunately for the Government, on this issue the balance seems clear. When four out of five drivers are telling us they are concerned about headlight glare, we know that the balance of freedoms in this country rests clearly on one side. We cannot have a road network where one in 20 people have stopped driving completely and a further 22% would rather not drive at night at all if they a choice.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
From my hon. Friend’s research, how concerned is he about the role that increasing glare from headlights could be playing in increasing social isolation? A lot of my older constituents say they are quite frightened about going out at night, particularly in winter as the nights are drawing in, which leaves them feeling more isolated.
Peter Lamb
Although the researcher involved did not look into particular age groups, I think we all know that on balance, it is often older citizens who are far more inclined to feel the issue of headlights and problems with driving in general. When looking at the numbers, which show the scale of people who are simply staying at home because they no longer feel safe in the road, we realise that something clearly has to be done. The overwhelming majority of those who say that they are no longer driving at night, or would not drive if they had the choice, cite headlight glare as the primary reason.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing his first Westminster Hall debate. I thought this was an issue of personal annoyance until I met Alan, an old colleague from Heriot-Watt University, who said he found it difficult to go out in the evening and was not looking forward to winter. He is a young man—even younger than me—so does my hon. Friend agree that we need more research to fully understand the negative impacts of these lights?
Peter Lamb
Certainly, there is probably work to be done in general around how transport impacts social isolation, and particularly at different times of day. We know the impact that losing bus routes has had on rural communities, and the age brackets for which that causes huge problems. Transport for many people is an essential part of daily life; they do not have the options that those of us lucky enough—I say lucky—to live in an urban area have available to us. We have to think of the enormous impact that this issue has not only on convenience, but on someone’s ability to get through life.
There are options available to drivers to reduce headlight glare. They can try keeping their windscreen and glasses clean; they can adjust mirrors to reduce glare; and they can ensure that their own headlights are properly aligned and avoid buying SUV-type vehicles. [Interruption.] Well, they could. Although all those things would see an improvement in our roads, driving-related law in the UK should not be reliant on voluntary measures by drivers. The law relating to driving begins from the starting point that every vehicle is a lethal object and rigid rules are required to manage that risk.
The track record of accidents stemming from headlight glare is now sufficiently clear, but it is time for that to be recognised in law with a new standard to ensure that headlights in the United Kingdom do not exceed safe levels of brightness. I am glad that the Department for Transport appears to have recognised that, with the Transport Research Laboratory having been commissioned last year to study the impacts of headlight glare. I understand that research was supposed to have been completed in the spring, but it has not yet been published. Despite that, there have been positive noises, certainly in recent days, about headlight glare being addressed, in part through the new road safety strategy. I hope that hon. Members will receive assurances about that from the Minister, and I hope that this debate will help to maintain pressure for the action that our constituents deserve at the earliest opportunity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that if they wish to speak they should bob so that we can work out the timings. Hon. Members should also please bear in mind that we are expecting votes.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for securing this important debate. The statistics are stark—as stark as bright light coming around the corner at night on a dark country road. The RAC tells us that four in five drivers complain of bright vehicle lights on the road, that 95% of drivers think that at least some headlights are too bright, that 53% have been temporarily blinded while driving, that 79% find it hard to tell when vehicles were indicating because of the bright lights, that 77% find it difficult to judge the position of an oncoming vehicle in the road, that 25% avoid driving at night due to headlights, and that 22% would like to drive less at night.
There is an issue that drivers with automatic headlight dipping, and indeed the manufacturers of the systems, may not be aware of: the sensors that dip the lights automatically do not seem to do so until they directly sense an oncoming light, so for those of us who can see a light in the distance and consequently dip our headlights manually, that courtesy is not returned until the first flash of the lights as they round a corner. That makes for more bad temper on our roads, occasional retaliation and of course the danger of being blinded.
Some may have seen advertisements for night driving glasses, which have yellow lenses that take out the blinding, blue part of the light. I have found them effective, but it would be useful if the Government’s Transport and Road Research Laboratory, the TRL, could undertake research into the effectiveness of these driving glasses. It could perhaps, along with the British Standards Institution, issue a kitemark for approved night driving glasses and make the case for them more obvious.
Other problems, such as the fitting of LED bulbs to standard car light housings are already illegal. Making that point of law more widely known and publishing statistics on the issuance of penalty points for that offence would be widely welcomed, and be a public benefit.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I am imposing an informal time limit of four minutes.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for securing this important debate, for bringing this issue to national attention and indeed—forgive the pun—for shining a light on it. [Hon. Members: “Ooh.”] I know, I could not resist; I apologise.
Many of my constituents have raised this issue with me, not just in the town of Hemel Hempstead and areas such as Adeyfield and Bennetts End, but in our rural communities—in Bovingdon, Chipperfield and Flaunden. The growing problem of the glare from modern vehicle headlights is now a real concern for drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Hon. Members have shared their personal irritation at this issue. I, too, cannot now drive at night without adjusting the rear-view mirror to reduce the glare. I also recognise the occasional issue of flashing an oncoming driver because it appears that they have inadvertently left their full beams on, only to find that they have not—those are just their natural headlights.
According to the RAC, nine out of 10 drivers say that they are affected by this issue, and seven in 10 believe that it has got worse in recent years. The BBC, among others, has reported how serious this problem has become across the country. In my constituency, the impact is clear. On dark, unlit rural lanes in Bovingdon and Chipperfield, the glare from oncoming cars can cause a driver to go blind for several seconds. On busier roads in urban areas, such as St Albans Road in Hemel Hempstead, drivers face a constant dazzle from modern LED lights.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) have said, the issue also affects older residents. We do not want to inadvertently create a situation where they are isolating themselves because they are avoiding driving at night altogether. I welcome the Labour Government indicating that they will review headlight glare as part of the wider road safety strategy. It shows that this Labour Government are listening to people’s real experiences and acting on them.
I associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said about his wish to see safe levels of brightness imposed on vehicles going forward, be that from stronger regulations that force manufacturers to adjust the vehicles they are producing, better MOT alignment checks or enforcement against illegal modifications. If we can force these headlights to be dipped downwards, that would address some of the major issues, particularly with the increasing number of mini-SUV vehicles on our roads. Everyone in Hemel Hempstead, whether in our towns or villages, deserves to travel safely at night without being dazzled by oncoming lights. I once again thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important issue to our attention.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. I declare that I have personal experience with this issue as a practising NHS optometrist, so I can say with some clarity that it is of great importance and concern, with potentially significant consequences. Many of my patients have told me of their utter despair when they want to drive at night. Some only take the keys out if it is a real emergency, while others have abandoned it altogether, which feeds into the narrative that elderly people in particular will not go shopping or go to the pharmacist to pick up medication. That can result in loneliness and other problems.
There are also those who continue to drive despite knowing that night driving is really difficult for them. That becomes a matter of life and death, as some of the statistics bear out. As an optometrist, I have only anecdotal evidence, but although excellent research has been done by the College of Optometrists, the Association Of Optometrists and the RAC, among others, it does not take an expert to know the link between eyesight and safety for everyone who uses the road.
I want to focus on two intertwined challenges: the impact of modern car lighting, and the lack of research and subsequent legislation around it, and the failure of our system to ensure that drivers meet basic vision standards.
Modern vehicles are brighter than ever. LED and xenon technologies have replaced many older halogen bulbs. They are much brighter and more efficient, and provide better clarity on the road for the driver, but unfortunately the increased brightness comes at a cost, which is a rise in glare and dazzle for other road users. The RAC, drawing on Government collision statistics, reported that since 2013, an average of 280 crashes a year in Britain have involved dazzling headlights as a contributing factor. Six of those crashes a year involve a loss of life. Campaigners believe that the real figures could be a lot higher.
The shift from halogen to LED, combined with higher headlight positioning because of SUV cars, is part of the problem. Experts at the light and health research centre at Mount Sinai hospital in New York have identified three factors driving the problems: the rise of taller vehicles, incorrect alignment of lights and the blue light of modern LED bulbs. Due to their shorter wavelength, they can potentially scatter more light in the eyes, and are more uncomfortable than other light forms. No research, as far as I am aware—there have been some anecdotal studies and very small-scale studies, but nothing conclusive—confirms that they help night driving.
The RAC also found that it takes 68% of drivers—this is really worrying—up to five seconds to recover after they have been dazzled, and more than 11% say that it takes six seconds or more. That is the time it takes to travel 160 metres at 60 miles per hour, without any clear vision. That is worse for anyone who has other eye health conditions, such as corneal opacity at the front of the eyes, cataracts or macular degeneration problems, but also a dirty windscreen or glasses lenses.
The greater, and quieter, threat is the number of drivers who already have poor or unsafe vision and continue to drive anyway. According to statistics by Mortar in October 2024, one in seven people knows of a relative, friend or co-worker who they believe is breaking the law by driving despite poor eyesight. Almost 30% of motorists admitted they would continue to drive even if they knew their vision was below the legal standards. More than a quarter said they are worried about someone they know who drives despite having poor vision.
These figures are deeply concerning, and reveal that our current, self-referral system is failing and many people either do not know their vision has declined or choose to ignore it. Earlier this year, a coroner in Lancashire issued a prevention of future death report following a fatal crash caused by undiagnosed sight loss. We need to change the legislation and have more research done on lighting.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) on securing this important debate. I have worked on this issue for some time, and I am really pleased that the Government are picking it up. I thank the Minister for engaging with it following my written questions in March and my early-day motion in April. I also thank Rod Dennis from the RAC and Denise Voon from the College of Optometrists for meeting with me around six months ago to discuss this in detail.
Constituents have contacted me about the dazzling effect of modern car headlights and the disorientation and loss of confidence that causes when driving at night. That is particularly concerning in rural communities, such as those in Newton Abbot, where driving is essential for work, appointments and, as we have heard, social contact. Losing confidence behind the wheel can quickly lead to social isolation, especially among older residents—it is delightful to see such continuity and consistency on this across the House.
LED headlights can be up to 10 times brighter than traditional halogen bulbs and that the glare they produce can lead to photostress with recovery times of up to 30 to 60 seconds. That is a long time to be effectively driving blind. Glare will always exist to some extent, but we can manage it by regulating brightness, colour, temperature and headlight height and angle. By working with drivers, manufacturers and medical experts, we can make real improvements.
From my own experience as a former non-executive director at the Department for Transport’s Vehicle Certification Agency, I know how crucial type approvals and manufacturing standards are. Let us use that system to ensure new vehicles meet safe and consistent lighting standards. Of course, we must also use the MOT test to ensure that headlights are correctly aligned and comply with the regulations.
Finally, the UK has the opportunity to show international leadership on this issue, contributing to the UN taskforce and helping to set a global example in road safety and driver wellbeing. Let us get this sorted, so that headlights help us see the road ahead, and not blind us to it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I commend the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for setting the scene so very well. This is an important issue as road safety is important to us all. Keeping ourselves, as well as other motorists safe, is part of that. There have been reports of concerns from across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland about the impact of vehicle headlight glare. Indeed, just this week BBC Breakfast had a story on this very issue.
I recently read a news article back home about how the Fermanagh and Omagh district council on the west of the Province wrote to the Committee for Infrastructure at the Northern Ireland Assembly raising concerns that vehicle headlights are becoming an increasingly distressing and potentially dangerous aspect of driving at night. It has also been noted that the intensity and resulting glare from headlights are not currently tested. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), who spoke before me, referred to the MOT test. We really need to include this as part of that.
I know, from my experience living in rural areas, that there are safety concerns regarding vehicle glare. For example, on the roads leading down to my house, there are minor and major dips and hills. I live in the Ards Peninsula in a very rural part of Strangford. I know that some, on these country roads at night flash their main beam on, but perhaps do not turn it off when other cars approach. There is no doubt that that has a significant impact on public safety, and that is not to mention the fact that streetlight provision is next to nothing on these types of roads, so the spotlight glare of a headlight does not in any way increase safety. Indeed, it has the very opposite effect.
A more general UK survey found that 61% of drivers who suffer headlight glare say the problem has worsened in the past year, and I believe it has as well—certainly based on the evidence I have seen. Some 26% say that they try to reduce night-time driving because of bright headlights. If someone is not sure of being safe on the road, that would be the right thing to do. I would argue that the actual number is much higher; that figure is based purely on personal reports and anecdotes, and not on the many motorists who experience this issue daily.
It is evident that the issue affects many constituencies, but the narrow and unlit roads in rural areas, such as my constituency of Strangford, mean that beams and headlight glare stand out even more. As the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) asked, are people safe on the road during the 30 seconds or 50 seconds afterwards, as their eyes try to adjust again? That is a question I ask as well. There is space for human consideration, too: we certainly can be more mindful of where we are driving and the impact we will have on others.
I understand that the Department for Transport’s research into glare for 2024-25 is studying how to incorporate practical glare tests into annual inspections. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government are intending to bring about. Future MOT guidance may include brightness and levelling checks.
I happen to have a four-wheel drive—it does not make me better than anybody else, but we are high up off the road. If someone lives in the countryside, they probably have one, but they have it because they use it, not because it is a status symbol. I look forward to seeing what more the Government can do to improve road safety collectively throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the near future. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. He is doing his business this week, yesterday and today—two days running. Well done.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.
As the clocks go back and evenings grow darker, drivers in Devon are finding that dazzling headlights are no longer just a nuisance, but a real danger on our roads. This week, for the first time since summer, many of the people I represent are trying to get around in the dark along the dark lanes and long roads that surround Sidmouth, Honiton and Seaton. A burst of a full beam before it is dipped can leave drivers disoriented. Add in a wet road, a scattering of potholes and maybe a cyclist, and it is a recipe for a near miss. Those do not always make it into the statistics, but anybody who drives knows them, because they have been there.
Many people in Devon are saying the same thing to me: headlights feel brighter than they used to. They are right. I remember when halogen bulbs were first introduced. They cast a much longer beam than we had known before, but now those have been surpassed by LED. The RAC’s recent polling backs this up: almost every driver thinks that some headlights are too bright, and more than half have been temporarily blinded. A quarter now do not drive for fear of such temporary blinding.
Richard Foord
I honestly do not think that we can make this the responsibility of every individual driver; it is our job to come here and legislate on collective problems such as this one.
The problem is especially serious in rural areas such as the one I represent, where the population tends to be older than across the country as a whole. Age changes how the eye copes with bright light at night. A report by road safety consultants released yesterday highlighted that an older person’s eye can take around nine seconds to recover from glare, compared with about one second for a 16-year-old. That could mean not being able to see anything properly—potholes, pedestrians or cyclists—for the length of an entire football pitch.
In 2024, more than 600 people were injured on Devon and Cornwall’s roads, and sadly 56 lost their lives in road traffic collisions. Plainly, the sort of glare we are talking about will not have been responsible for all of those incidents, but I know from a constituent who came to see me in a surgery that at least one of those fatalities related to glare from sunlight. If adapting headlights to reduce glare helps to prevent even one of those tragedies, it is worth looking into it.
LED headlights give the driver a clearer, crisper view but, when they are not properly fitted or aligned, their tight, blueish beam can cause real discomfort for others on the road. Penalties for sellers peddling unsafe kits would make a difference. When the Government’s report is released in the coming weeks, it is vital that its recommendations are acted on quickly. Following the evidence could help us to save lives on the roads.
People in Seaton, Sidmouth and Honiton want to get home without feeling that they are gambling every time with a bright set of lights coming around the bend. Let us make sure that our vehicles light the way home safely, rather than blinding those who share our roads. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for bringing this issue to the fore.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I join other hon. Members in commending the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for bringing this very important topic to Westminster Hall and, indeed, for his impressive efforts in getting media coverage before the debate had even occurred—I might ask him later for his tips on that, if he might be so generous, because hitherto I have not had quite such success, but it is very good to see. He is quite right to talk about the fear of driving at night that this issue instils and offers some good tips for mitigating the effects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) talked about the economic impact of reduced night driving and the problem of automated light dimming—I shall return to that subject, because I have some very strong views about it. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) joined other hon. Members in talking about the rural context and how important night-time driving is for people who live in rural areas and for the rural economy. It was once again great to hear the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) bring his professional optometrist’s experience to the debate and quite rightly highlight the impact of the issue on elderly people’s mobility, as well as the safety aspects of those who continue driving even though their eyesight may be compromised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) gave us an excellent summary of his very strong and robust campaigning on this issue, which this debate will hopefully accelerate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was very articulate about the need to strengthen MOT requirements and the fact that the data under-represents the problem at hand, a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord).
Following a petition with more than 14,000 signatures, the previous Government committed to commissioning research into headlight glare, a project that was taken up by the current Labour Government, with the results eagerly expected. While LED headlights improve driver visibility and energy efficiency, they can cause discomfort or temporary blindness to oncoming drivers. An RAC survey in December 2024 found that 95% of drivers believe some headlights are too bright, with 53% reporting being temporarily blinded and 25% avoiding night driving altogether because of glare.
Research shows that glare particularly affects people with cataracts or other vision issues. Headlight alignment and condition are checked during the MOT test, yet overly bright lights can still pass if technically compliant. There are concerns about poorly aligned or aftermarket LED conversions sold online; police reports list dazzling headlights as a factor in around 200 to 300 collisions annually in Great Britain. However, as hon. Members have suggested, that is almost certainly an underestimate.
The UK raised the issue at the UN Economic Commission for Europe, which agreed to tighten rules on headlamp alignment and to make automatic levelling systems mandatory by 2027. Ongoing Government-funded research by the Transport Research Laboratory will include real-world glare assessments across different road types.
This issue is close to my heart, because my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has many rural components, and my main method of transport around the constituency is a bicycle. I assure the hon. Member for Crawley that I certainly do not use a flashing light outside street-lit areas, nor am I one of those covered in dark clothing who is invisible. However, despite wearing high-vis clothing with retroreflective strips and having panniers with retroreflective elements, a front light, a rear light and loads of reflectors, I encounter a growing problem of car drivers taking too long to dip their headlights. Often it is so bad, particularly on roads that do not have a white line, that I just have to stop until the offending vehicle has gone—perhaps after some creative hand gestures in front of my light, as a last-minute attempt to make sure that they see me.
Some people dip their headlights and others do not, so it seems unlikely that it is to do with my visibility. I therefore wonder whether the automation that some hon. Members have mentioned is the factor; possibly some drivers rely on that, whereas others are observant, keeping a close eye and dipping as soon as they can. I can say from my experience as a cyclist that this is a real safety issue: if somebody is behind me when I have to stop suddenly, they will not be expecting to have to stop too.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Department for Transport’s decision to commission an independent review into headlight glare and we urge the Government to develop an updated road strategy including vehicle design, including lighting, within its scope. I know that that is something they are working on. We are deeply concerned about increasing reports of overly bright or poorly aligned LED headlights causing discomfort, temporary blindness and heightened safety risks for other road users, including drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. For all those reasons, this debate is very welcome and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for securing this debate.
We have all heard from constituents who say that they now avoid driving at night altogether because of dazzling headlights. The BBC recently reported on this issue, highlighting the frustration of drivers who say that modern lights, while being brighter and more energy-efficient, are simply too intense for oncoming road-users. Drivers have spoken of being momentarily blinded by glare or of feeling unable to judge distances, and consequently of losing confidence behind the wheel. For many, that means avoiding night-time journeys altogether.
However, this issue is not just about comfort; it is also about access and safety. When people tell us that they no longer drive at night because the glare from other vehicles hurts their eyes or makes them anxious, that represents lost freedom and independence, particularly for older drivers or drivers in rural areas, such as my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire.
The data supports those stories. According to the RAC’s headlight glare study, which was published in February, a quarter of drivers who have been dazzled by the headlights of oncoming vehicles now stay off the roads more at night; 61% of drivers said the problem is worse than it was a year ago; and three quarters of those who are driving less say that it is because others cars’ headlights make the experience uncomfortable or more difficult.
The issue matters because glare does not just cause discomfort; as I have already said, it interferes with people’s ability to process visual information quickly. Older drivers are particularly affected. The evidence shows that a 70-year-old’s eyes can take nine seconds to recover from glare, compared with about one second for a teenager. Nine seconds is a very long time to be effectively blinded while driving at any speed, let alone at national speed limits on a country lane.
However, we should also be guided by the data on collisions. The Department for Transport’s records show that the number of road traffic accidents in which dazzling headlights were recorded as a contributory factor has not risen sharply in recent years; the figures fluctuate from year to year, but they do not indicate a dramatic upward trend. However, although the statistical picture does not suggest that glare is causing more crashes, it does confirm what drivers have been telling all of us: that glare is making people feel less safe, which in itself is a serious issue.
We know that several factors contribute to glare. Misalignment of headlights is one of the most common. Of the 32.4 million MOT tests carried out in 2022 on cars and light vehicles, 1.6 million vehicles—1.6 million!—failed because their headlights were misaligned. Even a small upward tilt can make a big difference to the intensity of glare experienced by other road users.
Newer lighting technologies also play a role. LED headlamps, which are now fitted to most modern vehicles, produce a whiter and more focused beam than traditional halogen bulbs. The human eye reacts differently to such light and although LEDs improve visibility for the driver using them, they can cause real discomfort for oncoming traffic.
I also want to raise a related concern about the glare from powerful bicycle and personal lights. Many drivers and pedestrians now report being dazzled by high-intensity LED lights that are poorly aligned or excessively bright. Some of these lights are designed for off-road use, yet they are now being used on busy streets and in shared spaces, creating unnecessary discomfort and danger for everyone else on the road. Some cyclists and runners even wear head-mounted lamps, which can shine directly into the eyes of other road-users.
The issue is not about stopping people being seen; clearly, visibility is vital. However, it is about balance and consideration. It might be time for the Government and the British Standards Institute to consider introducing clear standards for all lights used on the public highway, whether on a car, a bike or a person, to ensure that they are properly focused, safe and considerate to others.
Of course, we also have the problem of illegal retrofitting—drivers replacing their halogen bulbs with cheap LED kits that are not compatible with their vehicle’s design. These conversions are not road-legal; they fail the MOT test and make glare far worse. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has increased surveillance to tackle this, but more needs to be done to stop the sale of unsafe aftermarket products online. The Government have said that research into that is under way, but it was first announced by the previous Conservative Administration in May 2024.
The research, commissioned by the Department for Transport and undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, was meant to include real-world testing to examine how different lighting technologies, vehicle designs and driver characteristics affect glare. However, here we are more than a year later and the findings have still not been published. I ask the Minister directly: when will the research be released and will the full findings be made public? Until that happens, drivers will rightly question whether the issue is being taken seriously enough.
It is also worth recognising the international progress made under the previous Government. They raised the issue of dazzling headlights with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which oversees global vehicle standards. In April 2023, that body agreed to tighten rules on headlamps, aiming to make automatic headlight levelling mandatory for new vehicles. That technology ensures that when a car is heavily loaded with passengers or luggage, the headlights automatically adjust downwards to avoid dazzling oncoming drivers.
Those rules with tighter tolerances come into force in September 2027, which is welcome progress. But it only applies to new vehicles; millions of older cars will remain on our roads for years and decades to come. We should be asking what more can be done to mitigate glare in the existing fleet of vehicles—whether that is tougher and better MOT checks, awareness campaigns, proper headlight alignment or encouraging wider adoption of adaptive headlight systems that dip automatically when other vehicles approach.
A lot of evidence has been put out and it has been a good debate. The issue is about balance: making sure that headlights are bright enough to see, but not so bright that they blind. It is also about fairness—ensuring that drivers of all ages in all types of vehicles can travel confidently and safely, whether it is noon or night.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) on securing this debate about the potential merits of a new standard for headlight glare. I am sure that it will have not gone unnoticed that the UK has some of the safest roads in the world. But the effect of every death or injury on our roads is devastating for the individuals and families involved.
I make it clear that this Government treat road safety seriously and are committed to reducing the number of those killed and injured on our roads. The Department is working to develop its road safety strategy, which will include a broad range of policies, and will set out more detail in due course. More widely, the Department recognises the importance of the road network to many people’s lives and to the economy. But we know that not everyone shares the same positive experience. Glare from headlamps is a perennial issue, as there is a compromise between providing illumination with sufficient intensity and distance to enable drivers to see and anticipate potential hazards, and the propensity to cause glare for other road users.
To strike the right balance, all vehicle headlamps are designed and tested to follow international standards developed under the United Nations to ensure that they are bright enough to illuminate the road but do not unduly affect the vision of other road users. Those standards define the beam pattern and include maximum and minimum light intensities. None the less, we know that lots of people raise concerns about headlamp glare, and we are told that some drivers, as has been mentioned, choose not to drive at night because of its effects. While police collision statistics do not indicate an increase in collisions caused by headlamp glare, the issue can lead to social isolation, which impacts on people’s wellbeing and their ability to undertake everyday tasks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley highlighted the impact on older residents in particular. Obviously, we have an ageing population with increasing numbers of older drivers. As people age, their eyes become more susceptible to glare due to changes in the photobiology of their eye. Better vehicle technology such as power-assisted steering, automatic transmission and improved braking and parking aids have made the driver’s task easier, and people tend to drive for longer before surrendering their licence. The number of adults more than 70 years old in England holding a full car licence has actually increased by more than 50% over the last 10 years.
Shockat Adam
I agree wholeheartedly that better cars mean that we are driving for longer, but does the Minister share my concern that the UK is the only country in Europe that allows people to hold a driving licence until the age of 70 without ever being required to take a sight test? Perhaps we need a sight test at initial licence application, at every 10-year renewal and at every three years from the age of 70 because we are driving for much longer.
Simon Lightwood
We will always keep all these considerations under review, but, as with anything, we will be evidence-led on the measures that we put in place, working with our international partners.
Road users will have experienced discomfort from headlamp glare when driving. From personal experience, I know that that is not pleasant. A few Members raised headlight aim, which is checked in an MOT once a year. During normal wear and tear, headlights can become out of alignment. The manual controls that many of us have to adjust our headlight focusing need to be changed if we have passengers in the back seats or luggage in the boot. Many Members I spoke to in advance of the debate did not know that, if they have luggage in their boot or people in the back seats, they should adjust their headlights. There is more education to be done there.
Over the years, the Department for Transport has raised the issue at the United Nations international expert group on vehicle lighting, and it was asked about the UK playing an international role. Following lengthy and significant negotiations, proposals to amend headlight aiming rules were agreed in April 2023, together with requirements for mandatory automatic headlamp levelling —a system that automatically recorrects the aim of the headlights based on the loading of the vehicle, to go back to the issue of when passengers are in the back seats or there is luggage in the boot. Those new requirements are expected to take effect in September 2027, to permit sufficient time for vehicle manufacturers to redesign their products and adapt the manufacturing process. Once implemented, those tougher requirements will help alleviate the number of cases where road users feel dazzled by vehicle headlamps.
There is, however, still much to do and much that we do not know about the underlying causes. To address the lack of clear evidence into which factors are impacting on drivers, the Department for Transport commissioned independent research in 2024 to understand better the root causes of the glare. Over several months, researchers gathered real-world glare data when driving at night, using an instrumented vehicle and machine learning analysis tools to determine the main factors that influence glare. That work was recently completed, and the final report is due to be published in the next week.
As might be expected, the results indicated that road geometry, in combination with brightness, is a key factor in glare events. The second most important factor, however, was identified to be vehicle type, suggesting that certain vehicle characteristics may be contributing to problems of glare. Given the findings of this innovative and groundbreaking research, the Department plans further research examining a range of vehicle makes and models, aimed at identifying what vehicle design factors may be responsible for increased glare. That can then be used to generate proposals for amendments to the international vehicle lighting regulations at the United Nations.
Lauren Edwards
Given that SUVs, which are generally larger, higher cars and have LED lights, now make up more than half of new cars sold in the UK and demand is growing, does the Minister agree that it is critical that the Government address this issue urgently?
Simon Lightwood
I heed the comments of my hon. Friend. Again, it is important that we are evidence-led, hence the commissioning of further research to drill down on the cause and effect.
In parallel, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, which leads for the Department on market surveillance of vehicles and automotive components, has stepped up its activities to intercept the sale of illegal retrofit headlamp bulbs for on-road use, which we believe is one of the contributing factors. Anyone caught could face a fine of £1,000. The Department is also an active member of the Euro NCAP consumer information programme, which assesses a range of vehicle characteristics to determine a vehicle’s safety rating. Work is under way to develop a new vision protocol for 2029, which is planned to include an assessment of vehicle lighting systems to ensure that they provide forward vision while minimising the risk of dazzle for some road users.
Much has already been achieved, but we have listened and we understand that more can and must be done. We will continue to develop the evidence and work domestically and with our international partners to help ensure that people feel able to drive at night without experiencing glare or dazzle.
Peter Lamb
I am very grateful for the time that we have been given for this debate, and I am grateful to all the Members who have taken the time to come along and participate. I thank the Minister for his response. We look forward to the publication of the existing research into the issue and for the research due to begin shortly. I very much hope that it can be completed promptly.
It is recognised across the House that there is a need for action. There is support among Members, the public and the press to act. Politically, this is something of an open goal, readily available to the Government. We know from the figures that headlight glare poses a risk to life. It is putting real limits on people’s freedom to go out and exercise or to go places at night. It is beyond time that we finally put an end to it by introducing a new standard, which I hope will be forthcoming on the basis of the research.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a new standard for vehicle headlight glare.
Post Office Capture Redress Scheme
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
Today I have launched the Capture redress scheme, which is now open for applications.
This represents a significant milestone in our commitment to provide redress for postmasters who suffered financial shortfalls due to the Capture software.
Following the independent investigation on Capture, the Government announced that we would be providing redress for affected postmasters. In June we set out our approach to redress, and I am pleased that today we are delivering on that commitment.
The experiences shared by affected postmasters have been invaluable in shaping the scheme that we launch today.
Who is eligible?
Postmasters who used the Capture software in their branch between 1992 and 2000 and suffered a financial shortfall as a result of the Capture software can apply. Applications are also open to those with legal authority to act on behalf of deceased postmasters or those who lack capacity to apply themselves.
This scheme is specifically for those without a criminal conviction related to Capture. If any convictions related to Capture are identified as unsafe and overturned by the courts, we remain committed to ensuring that appropriate redress is given.
Payments
As a demonstration of our commitment to swift action and to provide immediate support before the cases are assessed by an independent panel, eligible claimants will receive a preliminary payment of £10,000 upon confirmation of eligibility.
Once eligibility is confirmed, an independent panel will assess all the evidence provided, taking a holistic view, and decide upon an appropriate award. The award will be based on a banding model ranging from £10,000 to £300,000, reflecting both financial and personal impacts. The preliminary payment will reflect the lowest band and where, following assessment, a postmaster has been awarded a higher band, this amount will be topped up.
In exceptional cases, where circumstances are particularly severe and supported by detailed evidence, the panel may consider an award exceeding the £300,000 upper band limit.
All awards will be exempt from income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. They will also be exempt from national insurance contributions and, where applicable, corporation tax, and will be disregarded for the purposes of means-tested benefits, including universal credit and housing benefit.
How to apply
As previously set out, we are launching the scheme starting with a phased roll-out for an initial group of 150 claimants. This approach will allow us to test and refine the process. Applications for phase 1 can be made via an online form. Full guidance and application details are published on gov.uk.
Any lessons from the first phase will inform any refinements needed ahead of wider roll-out in phase 2, which will launch swiftly after completion of phase 1. Ipsos, an independent research agency, will be delivering an evaluation to inform this. Should we enhance any payment aspects of the scheme following phase 1, these improvements will be applied retrospectively to early participants.
Appeals and legal support
Claimants who, following assessment of their applications, are found ineligible can request an independent review of this decision.
Additionally, claimants have the right to appeal the award offered in certain circumstances where there is new evidence, procedural error or material error. If appeal grounds are met, the award may be amended following a review by the scheme’s independent panel chair.
We encourage all claimants to seek legal representation. The Government have published a legal cost framework that law firms can sign up to. The framework will ensure that postmasters can seek legal representation from the firms listed in the framework without having to pay legal fees. The Government will pay these legal fees directly as part of the scheme.
We strongly advise that postmasters check that a legal representative is content to operate within the terms of the cost framework to avoid being charged.
Today we deliver on our commitment to provide redress for those negatively affected by the Capture software.
[HCWS1000]
UK Export Finance Contingent Liability: Jaguar Land Rover
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
A departmental minute is being laid before Parliament today setting out the particulars of a new contingent liability associated with Jaguar Land Rover.
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
Given the particular urgency of the Jaguar Land Rover financing requirement, particularly in order to provide urgent support to members of its supply chain, it is regrettable that we were unable to provide the House with the normal period for consideration prior to the guarantee being entered into. Due to an administrative error, it is also regrettable that we were not able to provide the House with a departmental minute with the previous WMS on this matter. We are rectifying that today.
JLR requested that UKEF provides its export development guarantee product to a commercial loan for working capital of £1.5 billion, repayable over five years, to help it manage the impact of the recent cyberattack on its export business and wider operations. UKEF had existing exposure to JLR and providing this additional support fell outside UKEF’s normal underwriting criteria. If this liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
[HCWS1003]
Clean Energy and Climate Action Plans
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
Today, I am making a statement on the Government’s approach to meeting our carbon budgets, and the benefits this brings to the British public and industry—delivering growth, increasing energy security and lowering bills. I am proud of the progress the UK has made to date, but further action is needed to build on that success and fully embrace the opportunities clean energy and climate action present for our country.
We are publishing the carbon budget and growth delivery plan, which sets out how we will meet our targets while driving economic opportunity and delivering for those across the UK.
We are also publishing the government response to the Climate Change Committee’s 2025 progress report in reducing emissions. This responds to the points that the CCC raised and sets out key Government achievements in the past year.
Alongside this, we are publishing an investor prospectus, which signposts the opportunities for companies and investors that will drive clean economic growth.
Finally, we are also publishing the methane action plan. This is forward looking and action-focused, detailing the key methane abating policies we have developed as part of our carbon budgets, alongside highlighting progress the UK has made so far.
Together, these publications demonstrate the rapid progress we are making towards our mission to become a clean energy superpower, showcasing the breadth of action across Government. We will grow our economy and create good jobs, while improving our nature and biodiversity. These plans will deliver a wide range of economic and societal benefits, protecting our country for the long term and delivering immediate benefits for households:
Energy security
This government is taking back control by investing in homegrown clean power to protect the British people. Great British Energy, our publicly owned clean energy company, has kicked off its first projects —putting solar panels on around 250 schools, around 260 NHS sites and 15 military sites to cut their bills and save money that can be reinvested in frontline services. We are also ushering in a new golden age of nuclear. In July, a final investment decision was taken to build Sizewell C in Suffolk with £14.2 billion funding allocated for this Parliament, as well as investment in nuclear fusion and over £2.5 billion for small modular reactors.
Jobs and growth
Clean energy and climate action will create new businesses, attract huge levels of investment into the UK, and create highly skilled, well paid job opportunities across the country. Our recently published clean energy jobs plan sets out how Government, industry and trade unions will work together to recruit the workers needed for our mission and ensure people across Britain can benefit from the good jobs with high wages that clean energy brings. For too long the competitiveness of British industry has been held back by the high cost of electricity. In the industrial strategy, we announced additional support for 7,000 energy intensive firms through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce electricity costs by up to £40 per megawatt hour. These reforms complement the Government clean power 2030 target, which is the only way to bring down bills for good by ending the UK’s dependency on volatile fossil fuel markets.
Improved quality of life
From warmer homes to cleaner air to more affordable travel, clean energy and climate action will improve the lives of people across the UK. We will shortly publish our warm homes plan, kicking off Britain’s biggest programme of home upgrades in generations. This will be backed by £13.2 billion of public investment to upgrade up to 5 million homes over this Parliament to lower bills and tackle fuel poverty. Meanwhile, the electric car grant, launched in July, is making EVs cheaper by offering discounts of up to £3,750 on eligible models. This complements wider efforts to make electric vehicle charging easier, fairer and more accessible for all.
Protecting our natural world
We must address the climate and nature crisis together. That is why we are supporting farmers with up to £2.7 billion per year of funding for farming and nature recovery which includes funding for nature schemes such as tree planting and peatland restoration. In addition, the Government are investing £816 million in our tree planting programme through to 2030. By 2030, we will also invest £85 million to bring back our wild peatland.
We have moved at speed on our mission over the last 16 months, but we have much further to go to address the long-term challenges we face as a country and bring the benefits to families and businesses as quickly as we can.
This Government will keep fighting to seize the opportunities that clean energy and climate action offer, acting to protect the British people now and for generations to come.
[HCWS1004]
Extending the Right to Work Scheme: Consultation
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
The Government focus is on restoring order, control and fairness to the UK immigration and asylum system, bringing down net migration and promoting economic growth. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill creates a range of new measures to strengthen UK border security. The immigration White Paper, “Restoring control over the immigration system”, presented to Parliament in May, sets out the planned reforms to legal migration. A core principle behind our approach is that the rules must be respected and enforced.
I am launching a consultation on extending the employers and businesses within scope of the legal requirement to carry out checks on workers and prevent illegal working. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Library of each House, and it will also be available on gov.uk.
It remains a criminal offence for migrants to work illegally in the UK. However, modern labour market models are becoming more attractive to illegal workers due to the perceived lack of consequences for working without permission. Illegal working acts as a pull factor to the UK for irregular migration and is inextricably linked to low or no pay, as well as indicators of modern slavery such as inhumane working hours or conditions.
Legislation setting out employer responsibilities to prevent illegal working has been in place since 1997. Since 2008, employers have been required to carry out prescribed right to work checks on all employees regardless of a person’s nationality prior to the start of employment: the right to work scheme. However, this scheme only applies to individuals classified as an “employee”.
The risks associated with this long-standing, narrow scope have been brought into sharp focus by developments in the modern labour market. There are whole sectors where businesses can engage workers without the legal responsibility to complete a right to work check, for example agency workers and casual contract arrangements in the gig economy.
Therefore, through changes being made by the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Government are extending the scope of employers and businesses required to carry out checks on their workers and prevent illegal working. This will ensure that those who engage individuals as casual or temporary workers under a worker’s contract, individual subcontractors and online matching services who provide details of service providers to customers will all be required to carry out right to work checks. This safeguard will ensure that businesses acting lawfully will not be undercut on labour costs by those who exploit the system.
The Government are committed to supporting employers in preparing for this change and adapting their processes to ensure compliance.
The consultation seeks views on how the measure will be enforced, shaping the guidance and statutory codes of practice that will be published when the regulatory changes are commenced. The consultation provides an opportunity to further develop understanding of the recruitment and employment practices in the labour market.
The consultation will run for six weeks, closing at 11.59 pm on 10 December 2025. The Government will publish its response thereafter, and will finalise the guidance and amend the statutory codes of practice through secondary legislation.
[HCWS1001]
Whiplash Reform Programme: Post-Implementation Review and Call for Evidence
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I would like to inform the House that today we are launching a post-implementation review of the whiplash reform programme.
The review will assess the measures introduced in part 1 of the Civil Liability Act 2018. This includes the statutory definition of a whiplash injury, the fixed tariff of damages for whiplash injuries where the duration of the injury, or injuries, does not exceed two years, and the ban on seeking or offering to settle a whiplash claim without medical evidence.
The review will also consider the supporting secondary legislative change to increase the small claims track limit from £1,000 to £5,000 for road traffic accident-related personal injury claims. The impact and effectiveness of the industry owned and operated official injury claim service, introduced to help claimants affected by the reforms, will also be assessed.
To inform the review, we are launching a stakeholder call for evidence today to gather expert opinion, data and evidence on the impact and effectiveness of the whiplash reforms. This call for evidence will run for eight weeks and will close on 22 December 2025.
The responses to the call for evidence will provide vital insight into the effectiveness of the measures in achieving their intended aims. They will be considered alongside data provided by operational partners and other Government Departments to inform the final assessment of the reforms.
We plan to publish the post-implementation review of the WRP in spring 2026.
[HCWS1002]
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
12:49 - Division on Amendment 117 - Ayes: 97 / Noes: 128 - Amendment 117 disagreed.
13:01 - Division on Amendment 119 - Ayes: 133 / Noes: 188 - Amendment 119 disagreed.
Lord Ravensdale
“Duties in relation to mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in relation to planning(1) The Secretary of State must have special regard to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in preparing—(a) national policy, planning policy or advice relating to the development or use of land,(b) a national development management policy pursuant to section 38ZA of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.(2) A planning authority when exercising a relevant function under the planning Acts shall have special regard to the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change.(3) When making a planning decision relating to development arising from an application for planning permission, the making of a development order granting planning permission or an approval pursuant to a development order granting planning permission, a relevant planning authority (as defined in section 91 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023) must have special regard to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.(4) For the purposes of interpretation of this section“the mitigation of climate change” includes the achievement of—(a) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,(b) applicable carbon budgets made pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and(c) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets)(5) “adaptation to climate change” includes—(a) the mitigation of the risks identified in the latest climate change risk assessment conducted under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and(b) the achievement of the objectives of the latest flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy made pursuant to section 7 of the Flood and Coastal Water Management Act 2010.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause places a duty on the Secretary of State and relevant planning authorities respectively to have special regard to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change with respect to national policy, local plan-making and planning decisions.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I thank my supporters on this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Parminter. I also thank the Minister for all the engagement we have had on this issue between Committee and Report. I feel a slight sense of déjà vu bringing this amendment before the House, because it is very similar to one tabled to the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill a few years back. We have made some really good progress in the intervening period across both guidance and legislation. I will concentrate my remarks on some of the issues I have discussed with the Minister between Committee and Report. I think we and the Government agree on the general direction of travel; our differences may be in how this should be implemented.
I come back to the point raised by the Government that we now have guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework, which is really positive, that climate and nature should be considered within planning decisions. The difference between having the duty in the NPPF and having the special regard duty in statute is that, with the NPPF, a climate and nature duty is just one consideration among many others for decision-makers on the ground to take account of. It does not have any elevated weight within the planning system. This is quite analogous to issues I have talked about earlier in Committee around duties on regulators; at the moment, regulators do not have that specific strategic direction in line with the Government’s goals, which has led to some of the issues around consenting of large infra- structure, for example. Our duty, using that “special regard” wording, would effectively prioritise or upweight climate within the planning system, which would really make a difference in ensuring that it is adequately considered. That is the core of our difference with the Government. They need to consider how climate can be better embedded and have weight within the planning system.
The other area we have talked about is the concern around litigation and possible legal cases in the court because of an amendment such as this. Actually, since this amendment was first debated during the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, around eight other legislative or regulatory frameworks—ranging from pension scheme trustees to financial regulators, NHS trusts, Ofgem, the Crown Estate, Great British Energy and Ofwat—now have climate and nature duties. As far as I am aware, that has not resulted in any legal cases. On the contrary, the feedback from organisations with these duties appears to demonstrate that they are effectively driving the decision-making and delivery of climate and nature-friendly policies and strategies in these institutions.
The amendment has been reviewed by planning and legal experts and has been derisked by using that well-established legal term “special regard”, which has been tried and tested in the courts over many years in relation to Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It also provides clarity. We have had a number of cases go through the courts that are stopping sustainable developments in the UK. It would go in the reverse direction and provide welcome clarity to the planning system. The amendment has had wide support, including from the Chartered Institute of Housing, Rights Community Action, UK100 and the Town and Country Planning Association.
We have a potential way forward here in that the National Planning Policy Framework, is being updated between now and the end of the year. There is a good opportunity here for the Government to consider the wording of the NPPF in the updates they are making. I have proposed some wording to the Minister for how the NPPF could be updated to go back to that point about adding weight to climate and environment within the planning system. If the Minister could consider those updates in the revision to the NPPF and meet me and other stakeholders after the passage of the Bill, that would be a good step forward and a good way to address the outcomes aimed at by this amendment.
In the final analysis, this is about letting local authorities get on with the job of building sustainable developments and infrastructure right across the country to support growth and support our climate and nature targets. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, when I saw Amendments 206 and 114, I knew that I had to table my Amendment 121F, so that biodiversity was not forgotten again as all attention focused on climate change. I say again, and for the last time on this Bill, that with enormous political will and expenditure, it is possible to reverse climate change, but when a species is lost, it is gone forever.
Local authorities have no locus on climate change—no climate change laws apply to them—but they have many obligations under the Environment Act 2021 to save biodiversity. Therefore, I risk saying to the distinguished and noble Lords who have signed Amendment 114, and are far more expert on this matter than I am, that my amendment is more important than theirs.
Proposed new subsection (2) is, I would assert, rather vague. It states:
“A planning authority when exercising a relevant function under the planning Acts shall have special regard to the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change”.
I think the Government already have all the powers and housing regulations to impose standards on insulation, heat pumps and issues relating to net-zero targets. Indeed, a House of Commons 2023 report stated that the role of local authorities is already defined, namely:
“Implementing enforcing minimum energy efficiency standards for new builds … Delivering funding to retrofit existing homes and improve their energy efficiency … Shaping housing, infrastructure and renewable energy development in their area in their role as local planning authorities … Developing and delivering heat network connections … Encouraging active travel, decarbonising public transport and installing public chargepoints for electric vehicles”.
That is why I say that Amendment 114 is unnecessary.
Although there is only one target on climate change—net zero by 2050—the UK has 23 targets on halting and reversing biodiversity loss. They were published in March, as referred to in my amendment, in the policy paper Blueprint for Halting and Reversing Biodiversity Loss: the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030, which is the UK plan to implement the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, agreed in 2022, in which the UK played a leading role and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee played a very important role.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 206 and apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, as I might add more ad nauseam to the debate. I very much take his point on biodiversity; of course, climate change and biodiversity are not either/or. They are interlinked, interconnected and completely dependent on each other. I very much welcome his amendment and the other amendment, from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, in this group.
My amendment gives a duty to have regard to the Climate Change Act. This is a light-touch, non-prescriptive amendment, but it is a vital step to ensure that all of our planning and infrastructure decisions are aligned with our binding climate targets and commitments. The Climate Change Act sets a clear target for us to get to net zero and it is important that these targets are not held with the Government. I also support the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which is making its way through this House. Too much in the original Act is still too centralised around government. The Government need everybody’s help to ensure that we make the progress we need to make in the little time we have left to do it on these matters. That means that we need devolution of these responsibilities. The Government need to work in partnership with all these associated bodies and authorities to make sure that all this urgent action that we have to take can get done.
My amendment is not prescriptive; it is not telling the Government what to do. I think it has power, because it would be a general overarching duty—and a light-touch one, as I say. We know that our infrastructure and buildings contribute significantly to our carbon. We also know that, if we do not get this stuff right in the face of a warming planet, we will have roads that flood, railways that do not work, houses not fit for people to live in in a warmed climate, greater health and other inequalities, greater illness and an inability to conduct the business of state and to lead our lives in the way that we want to. This stuff is not a “nice to have” and it is not additional; this has to be core and fundamental to what we are building today, to make sure that it still works and is fit for purpose tomorrow. This is not just a “nice to have”; this is essential. I do not think that this is overly prescriptive. It would not in any way prevent the Government reaching the growth and progress that they want. We share that goal as well, but we have to make sure that the things we build today are fit for purpose, have a lifespan and can achieve their desired outcomes.
I also greatly welcome Amendment 114. I recognise the wording in this amendment, which is crucial. The “special regard” wording is important. I note that the noble Lord said that it has been through a number of processes to make sure that the wording works. It is important that the Government bring forward more guidance on the NPPF and that it is updated as part of the broader suite of documents on planning.
I also support Amendment 121F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. To go back to where I started, we must not forget about biodiversity in these matters. It is important and the noble Lord is correct that, when species go, they are gone forever—they will not come back and we are the worse off for that. I will bear in mind his comments that they must not be an afterthought, and I hope that we can continue to all work together on these matters.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 114 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ravensdale, to which I have added my name. I thank my noble friend for his excellent introduction to the amendment and also for his hard work in the background with the Minister. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment, which I support—it has a similar intent to Amendment 114—and I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his reminder that biodiversity is also important. I was a little surprised, in fact, because when we debated my Private Member’s Bill, which placed a climate and nature duty on all public authorities, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was not totally supportive. Perhaps in the meantime he has reflected and come to my side—I welcome him.
I want to make one specific point, because I do not want to extend the debate beyond the limited time that we have. I will focus on an illustrative example to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already alluded: the problem of overheating in buildings. We should all remember that the climate change agenda is not just about mitigation, but adaptation; so there are in fact multiple targets. The Government are committed to net zero by 2050 on the mitigation side, but they have also committed in a variety of ways to adapting us to the inevitable consequences of climate change, however good we are at mitigating it. One aspect of adaptation is to future-proof our buildings in the face of more extreme climate events.
I make particular reference to overheating because, in Committee in September, I asked the Minister how many homes being built today are resilient in the face of overheating, which is highly likely to become increasingly important. The noble Baroness kindly wrote to me on 18 September to answer the question, and the short answer is that in 2025, roughly 50% of new homes are future-proofed in relation to heating. That means that half the people who have bought new homes will find them very hard to live in during the decade ahead. That is shocking. We should be really embarrassed about allowing people to spend their valuable money on homes that will be unsuitable in the decades to come.
However, the Minister also pointed out that Part O of the building regulations introduced in 2021 requires new residential buildings to be built in a way that reduces the risk of overheating. The letter goes on to explain how that is done, and it includes making windows that can be opened when outside temperatures are cooler. When outside temperatures do not get cooler—when it is 25 degrees at night and 39 degrees in the day—opening windows will not help you: the ingress of heat must be prevented during the day. Therefore, although Part O of the building regulations alludes to making buildings resilient in the face of excess heat, it does not go far enough.
The recent letter from the Adaptation Committee to Emma Hardy, the Environment Minister, written by my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge—my successor as chair of that committee—emphasises that the risks of overheating will double in the decades ahead. In the foreseeable future, there is an 80% chance of extreme heat in the summer in this country. It is unacceptable for us to allow builders to build houses, and indeed other public buildings such as hospitals and schools, that are not resilient in the face of excess heating. I hope that the Minister will go back and discuss with her officials how we can strengthen the building regulations, or the NPPF, to ensure absolutely that people do not move into new homes or new public buildings today that will be unhabitable in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I briefly add one further point to the support for Amendment 114, to which I put my name. I am sure the Minister will tell us that local authorities and Ministers already have responsibilities for the roles outlined in the amendment, including in the NPPF, but this would bring the responsibility up to date and in one place. In these times, when one could infer from “build, baby, build” that only development matters and nothing else, this amendment would provide clarity and a long overdue appropriate sense of the importance of balance.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments at this stage of the Bill and, clearly, we are heading towards Part 3. I am trying to understand why bringing aspects of this into primary legislation is necessary, given existing legislation and, indeed, a plethora of programmes put in place by government. I support my noble friend’s Amendment 121F, because we were successful with the Environment Act, and we put in place a biodiversity duty through regulation, similar to what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to do with Amendment 206 in applying the Climate Change Act. But there are very different circumstances here. Through climate change and carbon budgets, we have national programmes that in effect already control what is happening for local authorities in carrying out their duties. When it comes to biodiversity, what is significant is quite how different parts of the United Kingdom are—or, in this case, in terms of the legislation in England. The beauty of the local nature recovery strategies—which we are yearning to get into place—is that the principal thing a local authority can do is to decide how land is used, and what planning permissions are granted to enhance biodiversity. That is the whole point behind the local nature recovery strategies.
There is merit in my noble friend’s amendment trying to link that directly—in primary legislation, not a regulation—to the achievement of the requirements of the 2021 Act, to achieve, in effect, the stopping of the halting of biodiversity by 2030. Combining the direct links and helping local councils to continue to navigate that way is why I think there is a lot of merit in Amendment 121F. If my noble friend Lord Blencathra were to consider testing the opinion of the House on it, I would of course support him.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond on this group of amendments, I convey my get-well wishes to my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, who, as noble Lords will realise, very much hoped to be here with us today, but unfortunately is unwell. I know that she wanted to take part in today’s discussions. We all send her our very best wishes for a speedy recovery.
I am grateful to hear the passion around the Chamber on both climate change and biodiversity, and the healthy tension that seems to have arisen between the two in this morning’s discussion. The key issue is that they are, of course, interdependent, and we have to consider both.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his Amendment 114, which seeks to require the Secretary of State and relevant planning authorities to have special regard to climate change mitigation and adaptation in national planning policy, local plans and planning decisions. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his engagement on this subject and other matters concerning the Bill.
We support the principle that both central and local government should be held to a high standard of accountability in considering climate change throughout the planning system. Of course, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that local government has a vital role in all this. However, as made clear in previous debates, planning policy and existing statutory requirements already cover much of the content of this amendment. For example, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires local planning authorities to include in their local plans policies that contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. There is also a requirement in the Environment Act 2021 that environmental factors are considered in the planning system. It also includes the environmental principles duty, which applies to Ministers when making policy.
Furthermore, the Environment Agency produces the flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy, in line with the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which all risk management authorities, such as district councils, lead local flood authorities and internal drainage boards, are required to act in accordance with.
The National Planning Policy Framework incorporates the principles of sustainable development, including climate change mitigation and adaptation. We have committed to consulting this year on a clearer set of national policies to support decision-making. This will fully recognise the importance of the issue, set out more explicit principles to be followed in the planning system and include further consideration of how the planning system can best address and respond to climate change adaptation and mitigation. I encourage the noble Lord to engage with this consultation when it is launched. The exact wording of these policies and how they interact with other policies in the NPPF will need to be subject to careful consideration, so it would not be appropriate to commit to a specific wording in advance of this or prior to the public consultation that needs to take place.
I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about overheating. As he will know, we always keep building regulations under review, but I will take his comments back to the team about what more we need to do to promote the issues around overheating and how we deal with it.
It is crucial that we address climate change in an effective way that avoids being unnecessarily disruptive or giving rise to excess litigation. A legal obligation to give special regard to climate change across the planning system risks opening many decisions to potential legal challenges, especially given how broad climate change is as a concept. I understand the noble Lord’s good intentions, but there is a very real risk that the potential for legal challenge opened by this amendment could impede the production of the policies and decision-making needed to tackle this important issue.
I should stress that, although planning policies do not at present carry specific legal weight in decision-making, this should not obscure the significant influence they carry in the operation of the planning system as important material considerations that must be taken into account where they are relevant. I have written to all noble Lords on this matter.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestions related to the NPPF, and I am happy to continue meeting him about that. Although we agree that climate change is an extremely serious matter in the context of planning, I hope your Lordships will agree that the approach I have set out is the more appropriate route to ensuring that this happens. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 121F, tabled by noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to require the Secretary of State to consider the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 when preparing national planning policy. It also seeks to require relevant planning authorities to have special regard to the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan for 2030. I welcome the principle of the amendment, as it seeks to embed the environment in planning policy. However, it is unnecessary because it duplicates existing legislation. When setting policy, Ministers must have due regard to the Environmental Principles Policy Statement. This applies to all new policy, including planning policy. It sets out a robust framework on how to embed environmental decision-making into policy-making.
Current national planning policy is clear that local development plans and individual planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment, including by protecting sites of biodiversity value. Individual planning applications are assessed against national policies to ensure that decisions are made considering the natural environment. For example, if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused.
Where relevant, legislation such as the environmental impact assessment regulations and habitats regulations also applies, which ensures that the environmental impacts of individual planning applications are considered thoroughly before relevant planning authorities decide whether to grant consent. Local development plans themselves are subject to strategic environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, which require the likely significant effects of a plan or programme to be reported and include reference to biodiversity.
As the UK’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for 2030 says, we have created
“powerful new tools such as Biodiversity Net Gain in England, a mandatory approach to development which makes sure that habitats for wildlife are left in a measurably better state than they were before the development”.
I therefore trust that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, agrees that existing legislation and policy is in place and this amendment is not needed. I ask him to consider not pressing his amendment.
Amendment 206, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require those performing functions under Part 3 to have regard to the Climate Change Act 2008. I recognise that the noble Earl is seeking to deepen engagement with the Climate Change Act but suggest that the existing approach in the Bill is sufficient to ensure that such matters are properly considered where appropriate.
Clause 88(3) already requires Natural England or the Secretary of State to have regard to relevant strategies and plans, which would include the Climate Change Act where it was relevant to an EDP. This ensures that the Climate Change Act is factored in where appropriate but avoids adding undue burden to the preparation of EDPs where it is not relevant. The noble Earl will be aware of the wider consideration of the Climate Change Act throughout the planning process, so I hope he understands why including explicit consideration in the EDP process in this way is not necessary. On that basis, I hope he feels able not to press his amendment.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, provided an excellent sum-up about climate change not being the only game in town. That is an important consideration, which is why I attempted in my Amendment 114 to join things up and include the Environment Act alongside climate change considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, also made an important point about systems join-up and said that we need to consider adaptation very strongly as well in how we take all this forward.
I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. She listed a number of other areas of legislation and guidance in which this issue is mentioned. But, of course, that is partly the point of this amendment—that it would provide a link-up between all the scattered mentions of climate and environment throughout the existing legislation and guidance.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that the “special regard” wording has been well tested in respect of heritage buildings. I recognise that it is already reflected but I am trying to drive at the fact that it needs weight within the planning system.
I am encouraged by what the Minister had to say about the NPPF and the opportunity to engage with that process. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Local plan compliance with Habitats Regulations assessmentsWhen developing a local plan, a local planning authority must—(a) consider whether the plan complies with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012); and(b) conduct strategic environmental impact assessments for all sites being proposed as suitable for development.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable local plans to guide developers towards sites most appropriate for development and speed up and simplify the subsequent planning application process by conducting Habitats Regulations strategic environmental assessments at local plan stage
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I have retabled slightly amended versions of Amendments 115 and 116, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support. These amendments try to ensure that compliance with habitats regulations assessments happens earlier in the process, at the local plan and spatial development strategy stage. This would better direct development away from the most vulnerable habitats and would help speed up the pre-planning process for developers by enabling them to focus on sites that are more suitable for development.
This approach is very much in line with conversations I had a number of years ago when, as a biodiversity scientist in Oxford, I was asked to provide advice to senior officials from a certain extractive industry. They made the point that, in looking for areas in which to work, they often get extractive rights for around 10 kilometres but their footprint is only half a kilometre. I asked them what information they needed from us biodiversity scientists, and the answer was, “We want to know, where can we damage?” As a biodiversity scientist, I was slightly alarmed by that reply, but that is the nub of the problem, and it is a really good question. Can we inform people before the pre-planning stage which areas are suitable for development and which are not, based on the ecological risk they would carry if they were damaged? This is about looking in a totally different way at where to put our energies, and it would do what it did for those extractive industries and provide, in this Bill, a pragmatic and fast way for developers to move on.
These two amendments are very much in line with that sentiment. We already have in place a mechanism that should be doing this—land use frameworks— but in the absence of that, I bring forward my Amendment 115. It would provide that, when developing their local plans, local authorities must consider the habitats regulations and conduct strategic environmental assessments for all sites proposed for development. Amendment 116 seeks to ensure the same with spatial development strategies, so that local authorities will have already done the work on the habitats regulations, and planners can then move on to the areas where they know they are not going to get huge pushback the minute they submit their plans to the planning authorities. Such measures would highlight the areas that can be developed, streamline the process and protect those really important areas of biodiversity—all things that the Bill’s key objectives set out to do. They would just change where these things sit in the process to ensure that it is good for building and good for nature.
Finally, although the majority of planning delays are caused not by environmental regulations but by other pressures, such as lack of resource and expertise in our planning departments, I want to emphasise that my amendment would also reduce costs. The work would have been done already, so we would not have a whole slew of environmental impact assessments, for example, coming in at a later stage, and the duplication that causes much of this delay. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her introduction to this amendment, to which I put my name.
I have read carefully what the Minister said in Committee and during the various meetings that have taken place, which she kindly arranged. I am comforted somewhat by the assurances given that both local plans and spatial strategies will be required to take account of the habitats and species regulations and to conduct appropriate environmental assessments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, outlined, the aim of these amendments—in conjunction with Amendment 130, which we will debate later—is very much to encourage as much of the heavy lifting on habitats regulations compliance as possible to be undertaken in advance of planning applications, in order to guide developers away from more sensitive sites so they can achieve a faster trip through the planning process.
There is, however, one issue that remains unresolved in my mind, which is the question raised by Amendment 116 as to whether the spatial strategies will be required to take account of the land use framework. I was encouraged on Monday when the Minister spontaneously referred to the land use framework. At least that must mean that the land use framework is still alive; I thought it might have been parked by new Ministers. Perhaps the Minister could assure us about the relationship between strategic spatial plans—and indeed local plans—and the land use framework, and when we might expect to see the land use framework. If used properly, it would obviate many of the requirements of Part 3 by having a rational approach to competing land use demands.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 115, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who is of course our total champion on the land use framework. I share her desire to see progress in that area as soon as possible.
I will just highlight what this is about and why we should have these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said that the question being asked is, where can we cause damage? That is what will happen. We are talking about the sites and species protected by the habitats regulations, which are of the highest international importance. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that we have had reassurances from the Minister that this is taken into account in local plans. I would be interested to hear what further reassurances the Minister can provide, because I do not think that that is what is happening. We are continually told, “Don’t worry about this. We don’t need this amendment because this is already happening; it is already covered by existing rules, regulations and laws”, but we all know that these things are not happening. Perhaps the Minister can answer that question. If those are indeed the rules, why is this not happening and what will the Government do to make sure that it does?
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I rise to address Amendments 115 and 116, introduced with such eloquence by the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown, Lady Young and Lady Bennett. These amendments attempt to reinforce safeguards within our planning system on a very strategic level. They are precise and would embed formal compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and they go directly to the preparation of local plans and spatial development strategies. They would ensure that environmental due diligence is not left until the late stages, when it is most vulnerable to oversight or to legal challenge—an aspect of the Bill that makes us very nervous.
Amendment 115 would oblige local planning authorities to conduct strategic environmental impact assessments for every site considered for development during plan making, and it would require that the plan’s compliance with habitats regulations be established from the beginning. This would ensure the first step of something close to our hearts in this Chamber, and which I hope we will discuss later in considering other groups: the all-important mitigation hierarchy. Avoidance of harm to sensitive habitats in advance would be actively enforced before development locations are finalised. The current system’s reliance on site-by-site reactive checks too often leaves nature protection exposed to the risk of retrospective fix or reactive compensation.
Amendment 116 would extend this by compelling authorities to guarantee habitat regulation compliance at the highest strategic levels. Both amendments would make environmental improvement an explicit statutory purpose within planning, a principle that aligns tightly with our belief on these Benches that operational planning must be future-facing and nature-positive, rather than solely a mechanism to accommodate growth. Their adoption would help steer development to appropriate places, supporting broader non-negotiable national goals to halt and reverse nature decline by 2030 and double nature by 2050. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to both amendments.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I would like to convey from this side of the House our hopes for the swift recovery of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
As I raised in Committee, spatial development strategies and local plans should be the strategic documents that map out development in an area. This could be the stage where all the complex issues and trade-offs can be addressed to deliver the housing, commercial infrastructure and community facilities that we need, while also addressing the environmental impact and other issues. As such, there is a strong argument that these should include the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation and strategic impact assessments, as well as many other regulations that must often now be carried out on a site-by-site basis.
It would also be an alternative, as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned, to the Government’s proposed EDPs. This, if done correctly with the appropriate legislation, regulation and powers given to those local plans and local authorities, could deliver both better outcomes for the environment and a faster, simpler planning system, particularly had some of our previous amendments been included—for instance, my noble friend Lord Banner’s amendment on proportionality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, pointed out, this could facilitate at an earlier stage a focus on areas and sites more appropriate for development. For landowners and developers, it could reduce the cost and speed up the process.
We support the intentions of these amendments, however—unfortunately, there is a however—the amendment as laid out does not address the key second part: ensuring that developments in line with an approved spatial development strategy or local plan satisfy the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, with no further need for environmental impact assessments on a site-by-site basis. To address this latter part would require substantial additions to the Bill, which are not being proposed. As such, these amendments risk adding stages and processes while still needing to substantially repeat these subsequently on a site-by-site basis, with that additional burden adding delays to the planning process and further costs for no particular benefit. For those reasons, while we support the intentions, we cannot support these amendments.
I should also like to take this opportunity, as we are discussing habitats regulations, to ask whether the Government still intend to block the development of tens of thousands of much needed homes by giving force to the habitats regulation in Clause 90 to Ramsar sites.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. Amendment 115, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, seeks to ensure that local plans comply with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and that an authority which prepares a local plan carries out a full environmental impact assessment for all sites designated as suitable for development in that plan.
I hope I can deal with these matters quickly and reassure the noble Baroness that local planning authorities are already required to undertake habitats regulations assessments where there is the potential for impact on a site or species protected under the regulations. Additionally, local plans need to undertake strategic environmental assessment, which will form part of the local plan that is consulted on and then considered for adoption. The noble Baroness’s amendment would go further and would require not only a strategic environmental assessment of the plan, but project-level environmental impact assessments of sites designated as suitable for development under the plan.
As I mentioned in Committee, this would require a depth of information about a specific development proposal that simply would not be available at the plan-making stage, and it is adequately captured by any development that comes forward, which meets the threshold for requiring this further assessment. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance, and I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to Amendment 116, the noble Baroness has rightly highlighted an important matter regarding the application of habitats regulations to the preparation of spatial development strategies. However, I reassure her that the amendment she proposes is unnecessary. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 to the Bill already ensures that the requirements of the habitats regulations are applied to spatial development strategies. This provision obliges strategic planning authorities to undertake habitats regulations assessments where appropriate.
The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to mandate habitats regulations assessments for specific site allocations within spatial development strategies, but the Bill explicitly prohibits such allocations. As a result, strategic planning authorities will not be in a position to carry out site-specific habitats regulations assessments during the preparation of SDSs. Such assessments, if required, would need to be conducted at a later stage in the planning process, even if this amendment was accepted by the House.
I shall answer a couple of the questions asked. My noble friend Lady Young asked about the land use framework. This is being actively worked on by Defra and is due for publication next year. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asked about Ramsar. We shall have a debate about that later in the course of the Bill, so I am sure he will have his questions answered at that point. Given those clarifications, I hope the noble Baroness will consider not pressing her amendments.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply. I shall make a couple of points. What we are talking about here is a matter of both scale and timing. If we had a land use framework in place, it would look, I hope, at the habitats regs for different areas that had been earmarked as appropriate for development, farming and all the other land uses that we need in this country. But we do not have it in place, so it comes down to a matter of scale.
We can argue that we have to wait until we get to the very fine detail of a plan coming in from a developer and then, at that point, they have to get the habitats regs in place but—this is where I am afraid I disagree with the Conservative Benches—that is not the point of these amendments. The point is to do it before the developers go in. If you do it before, it makes it faster and cheaper, and they can then move in quickly. Right now, there is one barrier after another for the developer, so I do not understand this matter of timing and detail. We keep coming back to the detail, but we have to take a strategic approach. Is that not what strategic plans are for? If we are not going to put them in strategic plans, where will they be?
However, I appreciate the response from the Minister and, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath
“Permission for gambling premises: cumulative impact assessments(1) A planning authority shall, when considering any application for planning permission or change of use for premises which are to be used for gambling, take into consideration any relevant cumulative impact assessment published in accordance with subsection (2), and where such an assessment has been published they shall in the absence of very special circumstances refuse the application.(2) A licensing authority may publish a document (“a cumulative impact assessment”) to inform the planning authority’s decision under subsection (1), stating that they consider that the number of premises licences granted under section 163 of the Gambling Act 2005 (determination of application) in one or more parts of their area described in the assessment is such that it is likely that it would be—(a) inconsistent with the licensing objectives in section 1 of that Act, or(b) harmful to the wellbeing of the community,for there to be any increase in the number of such premises in that part or those parts, and where it does so it shall include a summary of the evidence on which it based its assessment.(3) Before taking a cumulative impact assessment into consideration in accordance with subsection (1), the planning authority must satisfy itself that the licensing authority, before it published the assessment or a renewed or revised version of the assessment, consulted any persons who in the licensing authority’s opinion have business interests which might be affected by the assessment, and provided them with the following information—(a) the reasons why they were considering publishing a cumulative impact assessment;(b) a general indication of the part or parts of their area which they were considering describing in the assessment.(4) The planning authority may only take a cumulative impact assessment into consideration in accordance with subsection (1) if the assessment is less than three years old.(5) In section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005 (principles to be applied), at the end of subsection (1) insert—“but this subsection does not prevent a licensing authority from publishing a cumulative impact assessment as described in section (Permission for gambling premises: cumulative impact assessments) of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025”.”
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform. I intend to speak only to Amendment 117 in my name. I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her support for the amendment.
I raised this issue in Committee and explained the urgent need to give local authorities additional powers to limit the number of gambling premises on our high streets. It is no coincidence that gambling operators wish to locate their premises in deprived areas where people can least afford to gamble yet sadly gamble most. Research shows that the most deprived local authorities have three times as many gambling premises per head of population as the least deprived local authorities. There are not only clear links with increased crime but, crucially, higher levels of gambling harm and the problems that this creates for individuals, their families and those communities.
But councils that wish to reduce this harm by limiting the number of gambling premises come up against the most pernicious part of the Gambling Act 2005: Section 153, which actually requires them to permit the use of premises for gambling in the absence of very specific reasons not to do so. Therefore, the power they need, which they already have in the case of alcohol licensing, is to be able to conduct prior evidence-based assessment of the impact of the number of gambling premises in particular areas. If that assessment shows that in any area there are already so many gambling premises that any more would be harmful to the well-being of the community, they can publish that assessment—a cumulative impact assessment. Once they have done so, it then acts as grounds for refusing permission for yet more gambling premises. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, the relevant Minister at the time, knows that it is exactly what the Conservatives supported in their 2023 White Paper. It is also what the current Government have said they want to achieve. On 9 June, in reply to a Written Question in the other place, the DCMS Minister said that
“cumulative impact assessments … would allow local authorities to take into account a wide range of evidence to inform licensing decisions and to consider the cumulative impact of gambling premises in a particular area. We will look to complement local authorities’ existing powers in relation to licensing of gambling premises … when parliamentary time allows”.
Even the Prime Minister has made clear that he supports it on behalf of the Government. He said:
“It is important that local authorities are given additional tools and powers to ensure vibrant high streets. We are looking at introducing cumulative impact assessments, like those already in place for alcohol licensing, and we will give councils stronger powers over the location and numbers of gambling outlets to help create safe, thriving high streets”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/9/25; col. 281.]
The Minister and the Prime Minister both spoke about local authorities, and so have I. However, we have to bear in mind that, where a gambling operator wishes to open new gambling premises, it needs both planning permission from the local authority, wearing its planning authority hat, and a gambling premises licence from the local authority, wearing its licensing authority hat. Because this is a planning Bill, the amendment that I moved in Committee would have given the powers to make the cumulative impact assessment to the planning authority. In reply, the Minister said:
“The Government are … of the view that the most appropriate body to assess the cumulative impact of licensed gambling premises is the local licensing authority, rather than the planning authority”. —[Official Report, 9/9/25; col. 1449.]
That is why they were not willing to support it.
The amendment that I am now moving would accordingly give the licensing authority the power to make a cumulative impact assessment, exactly as happens for alcohol licensing, and the planning authority the duty to take it into account when deciding whether to grant planning permission for gambling premises, again, exactly as applies to alcohol licensing. I have been absolutely assured that this falls within the scope of the Bill.
This is a power that local authorities urgently need to prevent the undue proliferation of gambling premises. On Monday, in the other place, the Minister from MHCLG, in a Written Answer, extolled the virtues of cumulative impact assessments to tackle these issues. She said:
“We will introduce Cumulative Impact Assessments when parliamentary time allows”.
The Bill provides the parliamentary time, and the amendment can deliver what the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister and the Government say that they want.
I am more than happy to accept that the Minister may say there are some technical deficiencies with the amendment. I genuinely do not think there are. But if that is her response, and if she is willing to agree to have a meeting to discuss it before Third Reading, I assure her that I will not delay the House and will be willing later to withdraw the amendment. At this stage, to enable the debate, I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister also send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Sorry, Lady Hayman. The noble Baroness is always an ally on the topic of small businesses, which is the subject of my Amendment 121G; I will concentrate on this rather than on gambling premises, which are also considered in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, spoke with great eloquence, for which I thank him.
I tabled Amendment 121G following our discussion on Amendment 119. It is an attempt to persuade the Minister to think again. Although it was a late debate, there was considerable support in the House for my attempt in Amendment 119. I continue to prefer that formula and am planning to divide on it; however, this alternative formulation would ensure that the public bodies discharging duties under the Bill gave due consideration to the difficulties often faced by SME developers in engaging with the planning system. Such businesses, spread across the country, could make a much larger contribution to the Government’s house- building target of 1.5 million homes. The achievement of this target is going backwards—as we know from the leaked letter sent by the Home Builders Federation to the OBR—with productivity, which I care a lot about, also adversely affected.
Small entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of this country. If they are freed up, as we recommended in the cross-party report by the Built Environment Committee on demand for housing, they can make a huge difference. The difficulties that they face have meant that, in the past 30 years or so, the share of smaller operators in housing has officially declined from 39% to 10%; actually, I heard from a noble Lord last week that it has now declined to a new low of 9%.
The good news is that there seems to be a wide measure of agreement that we must reverse this trend. I believe that we must use the Bill to make things easier. My new amendment, to which it may be easier for the Government to agree, would introduce a duty to reduce the difficulties faced when engaging in the planning process, but it would do so in planning guidance. This would leave the Minister much more room for manoeuvre than my previous amendment did. It would ultimately be for MHCLG Ministers to decide how best to achieve the shift towards SMEs, and to translate that into guidance, but we must have in the Bill a reference to reducing barriers for SMEs if such businesses and their charitable counterparts are to start resuming their historical place in housing.
The changes in the site size thresholds working paper, which the Minister referenced, are generally welcome. However, we need something more concrete to deliver the crucial diversification of housing. For example, perhaps we could have an SME target for local authorities, Homes England and/or Natural England—or some other means; that can be decided on later—but a reference to the SME mission, which the Government purport to support, is needed because, in Whitehall and among these bodies, there is limited support for small businesses. I know this from my long career in dealing with all of them.
As noble Lords know, I am passionate about reducing barriers for SMEs. Referring to this in the Bill is, I believe, the way to inject more competition, diversity and enterprise into the sector. SME building in small developments is good for community cohesion, local employment and, above all, growth. It is extraordinary that there is nothing in the Bill to promote it. I hope that the Minister will be willing to agree to amend the guidance accordingly, either in a formal undertaking to the House—going beyond the consultations that are going on—or through a government amendment. She would gain many plaudits, and I encourage her to think again.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak solely to Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, to which I have attached my name. The noble Lord has already introduced it eloquently and powerfully, but I want to add a bit of context and a little more information to what he said.
The context is that, at the Treasury Select Committee yesterday—it was, of course, talking about taxing gambling rather than licensing it; none the less, this is a relevant comment—the head of the Betting and Gaming Council was asked about the social ills of gambling. She said that there is no social ill and that the industry is doing
“everything that it possibly can in order to mitigate any harms that may be caused by our products”.
I would suggest that that testimony is either not honest or is astonishingly, unbelievably ignorant. What the industry is doing is everything possible to make money. We have an extreme inequality of arms. You have the industry, and then you have local authorities—particularly those in deprived areas, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said—that cannot do anything to stop the social ill and the damage that they can see being done.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a few remarks on Amendment 121G in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I also support Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, on gambling premises. I am a former MP who represented a town centre, Redditch, where we often saw these challenges in maintaining a healthy mix of shops and businesses. Thinking about planning decisions on a holistic basis would have been very beneficial. These challenges cannot be fixed by planning alone, but planning can play a part.
Turning to Amendment 121G, I declare my interest as someone who was a small business owner and an entrepreneur for more than 30 years. I thank my lucky stars that that was not in the construction sector because, honestly, that is one of the hardest sectors to operate in—particularly for a small business. When I was the Housing and Planning Minister, I spent a lot of time with small and medium businesses. It was really difficult to hear their stories, which were often frustrating, heartbreaking and tragic. Ultimately, we as a country are losing out if we fail to support and nourish these incredibly hardy and resilient people. Many of them are at risk of losing their livelihoods; in fact, some recent statistics suggest that around half of SME construction businesses are at risk of insolvency by the end of this Parliament. That is why I support this amendment.
What my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has put forward is very sensible. She makes the point that, too often, the system defaults to one-size-fits-all requirements, which land heaviest on smaller firms. We talk about the NPPF. It has 76 pages and is relatively concise, I agree, but it sits on top of a very large and complex ecosystem of guidance. This is one of the concerns that businesses repeatedly raise: the real burden lies in all of that additional guidance, not just in the 76 pages of the NPPF. Volume housebuilders can navigate such things easily, but it is not so for SMEs. For instance, negotiating Section 106 agreements hits them disproportionately harder, on top of all of the cost burdens that they face.
Anyone who has been a local representative—whether a councillor or a Member of Parliament—knows well that opposition exists to virtually all housing of any kind, no matter where it is. However, in my experience, SME local builders with roots in the community are in a much better position to overcome these hurdles and contribute to desperately needed housing.
In conclusion, these are practical amendments that support local authorities to plan for places in which families want to live, shop and invest.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I am appalled by the statement read to the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Noble Lords have to understand that it is very embarrassing for me to be on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I have to say that what she just read out shows what a disgraceful industry this is and how much money is being made out of the poorest and most deprived places.
I have lived with this problem for many years. My father was a clergyman in one of the worst slum areas of Britain. He always said that gambling was much more damaging than drink or any of the other things to which referred. It was particularly damaging in his parish, which contained a large number of military personnel, both retired and present.
I hope that the Minister will not make the speech that I suspect I might have had written for me as a Minister. It goes like this: “This is a planning Bill, and this amendment refers to the licensing duties of a local authority. I know that we already said that it was more appropriate for licensing authorities than the Planning Bill but, because this is a planning Bill, we really believe that it should be left for a different piece of legislation”. Yet the Government have said that they will make these changes immediately when there is some opportunity in Parliament to do it.
This amendment is an opportunity. What is more, it has been shown to be within the long title of the Bill, so, if the Minister says that it cannot be done because it is not appropriate, I will have to say to her that I do not believe the House should accept that. The House should simply say that it is clearly appropriate and that this is a clear opportunity. If the Government do not support that, I say something very tough to them: this is about the very people whom this Government are always banging on about and are supposed to be supporting. These are the people who are most at risk from the bloodsuckers who run the gambling industry and know what they are doing. They are applying to the very people who are most vulnerable and from whom they get most of their money.
I say this to the Minister: there is a growing anger around the country at what is happening and at the vast sums of money that some of the people who own these companies make. The biggest payer of income tax in Britain runs a betting company. That says something deeply offensive about our society; I do not believe that any of us should stop the battle to change this.
I wish also to say one thing about my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment. I hope that the Government will not say that it is not necessary to make the point about small businesses. My noble friend has concentrated on the construction industry but, very recently—in the past three years—I applied to the local authority to change a residential building back to what it had originally been since 1463: a public house.
That piece of planning change for a very small business —I do not know what I was doing starting a small business at my age, but there we were—for the benefit of the community, took a year. It was the year in which construction prices rose faster than they had for generations. At the end of that year, the cost of what one was trying to do for the community was significantly greater than at the beginning. The reasons for holding it up included the conservation officer complaining that we were going to use second-hand pamments and bricks; we were obviously going to do so because that is my attitude to these things. My architect said, “My client is strongly concerned about climate change and wishes, therefore, to use second-hand materials”. He got back from the conservation officer a note that said, “I don’t care about climate change; I’m interested only in conservation”.
Even if you know something about these things, it is very difficult to put up with a year of that kind of conversation. I merely say to the Minister that it is essential that we have in this Bill a clear statement that small businesses must be treated with the consideration that they do not have the means to do things that big businesses have. I really hope that we can resurrect small construction businesses, but we will not do that unless they have special understanding as far as planning is concerned.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief; I had not intended to speak but I want to say a few words.
First, I completely agree with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s excellent amendment; I pay tribute to her persistence and indefatigability in defending small and medium-sized enterprises. However, I find myself agreeing with my noble friend Lord Deben—not always a common phenomenon—and with his excellent, passionate remarks in support of Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I say this only because my own experience leads me to believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that there is balance and fairness in the planning system between betting companies, which have significant resources at their disposal—in particular, legal resources—and planning departments, which are often in small local authorities and do not have the capacity to push back against some of the planning policies that allow betting companies to put fixed-odds betting terminals in very deprived areas, for instance.
I raised this issue when I had the privilege of serving in the other place with, among others, my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, the Member of Parliament for Chingford and Woodford Green. As a communitarian, not a libertarian, I believe that civic society is about protecting those people who are most likely to be the victims of market dysfunction. This is another example of market dysfunction. It is zeroing in on people who have very little money; advantage is being taken of them. This is not a draconian proposal to close down betting shops, gaming arcades and other facilities; it is about redressing the balance to allow there to be a cumulative impact assessment on issues around adult social care and on the depression, illness and penury, frankly, with which many people suffer; I saw this in my constituency of Peterborough a number of times.
You do not have to be liberal, anti-capitalist or anti-free market to support this amendment. It is about fairness and equity, treating people equally giving planning officers, in our local councils and on planning committees, the weapons to make a reasoned, fact-based case for preventing development that would be undesirable and damaging to their local communities. It is on that basis that I support the noble Lord’s excellent amendment. I hope that the Minister will give it a fair hearing, because it is well thought through and considered. I know that my Front Bench will do a similar job in analysing the amendment. I think there is consensus that fair play should be at the heart of this and that planners need weapons to deal with potentially very unsuitable developments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on getting a permission within a year—perhaps he could give us all a few tips on how to achieve that. I really want to support Amendment 119, but I am concerned that it is so general. It does not specify what the barriers are—we may know what they are from personal experience—or how to overcome them. I have a question about what its practical impact would be. If I can be persuaded that putting in the Bill that they must “have regard to” and “consider” the barriers will not simply be a tick-box exercise and one more thing for the planners to get over, I would be happy to support it. At the moment, however, while I entirely agree that there are issues for SMEs in this sector, it is difficult to see what real impact this amendment would have.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and, by extension, the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I was for six years the chairman of a local enterprise partnership. It is often overlooked that the prosperity of the parts of this country that are having greatest difficulties can be majorly improved by enabling SMEs to take forward their projects. As has been said, the rules are the rules for everyone. It is much easier for big enterprises, which have large head offices and all the rest of it, to deal with the very considerable amount of administrative and other paperwork that is increasingly a part of the planning process. That in turn makes it discriminatory. We should not allow that discrimination. The kind of impact that major projects have on a place is very often qualitatively different from the impact that smaller, much more minor and modest proposals will have.
The underlying point behind the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is a very good one, because we are favouring the big boys over the small boys. I come from a part of England that is a long way from many centres of population; there is a very real concern that, increasingly, with the way the local economy is going—thanks to the activities of venture capital and large companies, for example—the profits that may be made from activities in these areas are being expatriated to other parts of the globe, or certainly to more prosperous parts of our country. It is an essential component of balancing the interests of the various parties engaged in these things that we look very carefully at the way in which the administration of the system is carried out, to make sure that the small man gets a fair crack of the whip. It is as simple as that.
As I have been listening to the debate on this and other parts of this Bill, I have remembered the words of Robert Burton in The Anatomy of Melancholy, a now almost unread book from the 17th century. He said: “Are not men mad to write such stuff who intend to make others so?”
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, in Committee we were sympathetic to the intentions of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. The Government should consider this carefully. We have heard some powerful speeches on it that I will not repeat. I will go back on just one point that the noble Lord raised. A few weeks ago, the Government reassured the House from the Dispatch Box that cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing would be considered when parliamentary time allows. We will hold them to account on this promise. Will the Minister give the House a timescale for it?
I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendments to support small and medium-sized businesses. As we have raised elsewhere, the planning process is overly bureaucratic and time consuming, and I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that 12 months is frequently a very short time. This places a significant financial and resource burden on applicants, which falls particularly hard on smaller businesses that do not have the resources and expertise of larger enterprises.
As we debated previously on Report, the cost per property of the planning process can be significantly higher for smaller developments. It is right that planning authorities should have regard to this, and I ask the Minister what the Government will do to ensure that this burden is lowered, particularly for SMEs. Supporting SMEs is one of the most effective ways to inject greater competition and diversity into the sector and, ultimately, to strengthen the wider economy. Therefore, we will support my noble friend’s amendments should she choose to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I would be enormously grateful if he would make it clear to the House what his position is on Amendment 117. He said that he will hold the Government to account but wants to know what the timescale is. Well, the timescale is a couple of minutes, if we have a vote on this. Will he just explain where he stands, bearing in mind that noble Lords behind him have made very clear their intention to support this amendment?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I believe I have made our position very clear, and we will hold the Government to account.
Lord Deben (Con)
Before he sits down, will my noble friend accept that he has not made the position clear? The Benches behind want to know why we are not supporting this but merely giving the Government yet another chance to get off the hook. Can we not be a bit tough and actually do what we are here for—to oppose them when they have got it wrong?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will put the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, out of his misery. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his Amendment 117. He raises a very important issue, and I will explain how we intend to address it. I assure him that the Government intend to introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing when parliamentary time allows; I will elaborate on that in a moment. He will have noted that we reiterated this commitment in our Pride in Place Strategy, published since we last discussed this issue. I imagine that is what prompted the comments from my honourable friend in the other place, which the noble Lord referred to.
There is no doubt in my mind about the potential harms that can come from gambling, particularly in relation to cumulative impacts. I heard the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about what was said in the Select Committee, but I think there is consensus across this House that harms undoubtedly come from gambling. Cumulative impact assessments will strengthen local authorities’ tools to influence the location and density of gambling outlets. We intend cumulative impact assessments to be used to assess gambling premises’ licence applications, rather than applications for planning permission or change of use, as in this amendment.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill concerns the planning system rather than the licensing system— I will come to further points on the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in a moment—and it is unfortunately not the appropriate vehicle for the introduction of cumulative impact assessments for gambling premises licensing. Under the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, the cumulative impact assessment would be published by the licensing authority but be used during the planning process by the planning authority. I am concerned that his amendment would risk creating inconsistencies between the approaches of the local authority’s planning policies and the licensing authority’s statement of licensing principles. The Government’s view is that it is essential for the licensing authority to consider the cumulative impact assessment in the exercise of its licensing functions when considering whether to grant a premises licence, rather than at the planning stage. This is a planning Bill, not a licensing Bill—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Can I just finish what I am saying? It might help. The issue is out of scope, but we have Bills coming forward where licensing will almost certainly be in scope. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are actively working to introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing when we have a suitable vehicle. However, for the reasons I have set out, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
Just before the Minister sits down, she has said that it would cause confusion between licensing and planning. However, the amendment that is now before the House took account of all the concerns that she raised when we debated it earlier. It has now changed in such a way that it would absolutely replicate what is already in statute in relation to alcohol licensing. That has not caused a problem, and I do not begin to understand the difference she is now saying there is between my amendment and what already exists in legislation in relation to alcohol licensing. It would be helpful if she could explain.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As drafted, the amendment would require planning authorities to make decisions based on assessments published by the licensing authority, effectively placing planning and licensing authorities into potential conflict with one another. It would also not provide for the licensing authority to assess licensing applications with respect to its own cumulative impact assessments. I hope that that is helpful. Turning to Amendment 121G—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Just before the Minister moves on, I am puzzling over the use of the word “scope” here. We seem to have two different understandings of scope. This is within scope of the Bill; that has been agreed by our experts in the Legislation Office. Yet the Minister is saying that, in the Government’s view, it is somehow not in scope. Can she say what the difference is between scope as defined legally and scope as the Government are defining it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am loath to explain the Legislation Office’s rationale. I am surprised that the amendment was allowed for the planning Bill, but we are where we are. I am trying to respond as straightforwardly as I can: we want to put this cumulative impact assessment in as quickly as we can, but we do not believe that this Bill is the right place for it. We want to put it in a Bill where it is in scope and will do that as quickly as possible.
Lord Deben (Con)
Can I help the Minister on this? Why does she not just say that she will accept this in the same terms as the regulations on alcohol? Then she would not be promising anything that is not there. Frankly, it is very worrying for us that she cannot accept, having listened to the debate, that the Government have got the measurement of scope wrong and have said something about gambling which, if it were true, would mean that the present law on alcohol is wrong. I am sure that she does not mean to say that to the House. Therefore, is not this the moment for her to say to the House: “I will take this away and come back having looked at it”? In that case, we would not need to have a vote on it, which would be much more sensible.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
This is Report, and I believe that the Government’s position that this should be related to licensing and not planning is right, so I will hold my line on it. I know that that will be disappointing to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, but it is very important that we take the issue of cumulative impact assessments as part of the licensing regime. We will endeavour to bring that forward in an appropriate way when the relevant legislation comes forward.
I turn to Amendment 121G, which seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this Bill pay consideration to the difficulties faced by small and medium-sized developers when engaging with the planning system. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her strong championing, as ever, of this sector. I share her passion for ensuring that we do all we can to support it. I also commend the work of my noble friend Lord Snape on the APPG for SME House Builders; he continues to keep me informed on the concerns and challenges within the sector. I welcome the recent launch of its report setting out all the issues that they are facing and what the Government can do.
The Government are committed to increasing support across the housebuilding sector, especially for SMEs. SMEs have seen their market share shrink since the 1980s and this long-term decline raises concerns about the sustainability of the construction sector and the loss of weaker firms weakening market diversity and resilience. I gently point out to the noble Baroness that there was a period of 14 years when her party was in government and might have looked to support the sector a bit better during those years.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will join me in thanking all noble Lords who participated in the debate. I particularly thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Maclean, and the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Jackson, for their support for my amendment.
I want to make it clear to the House that I have spent many hours in the Public Bill Office discussing various iterations of this amendment to ensure that it is absolutely in scope for this legislation. I absolutely assure the House that this amendment replicates exactly the procedures already in legislation in relation to alcohol licensing. I assure all noble Lords that local authorities around the country support passing this amendment as quickly as possible, and that Ministers and the Prime Minister have categorically said—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Is the noble Lord going to push his amendment to a vote or withdraw it? We are at that stage now.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
We are at that stage, but I want the House to be aware that there is support from all quarters to ensure that this is passed. The Minister has said that she does not accept my offer of further discussions to see whether we can find a way forward before Third Reading. She has not accepted the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I am disappointed that the Front Bench of the Conservative Party does not appear to be listening to what Conservative Back-Benchers are saying. Since there is no opportunity to bring this back at another time, the time for decision is now. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Planning process: duty to consider small and medium-sized enterprises(1) When discharging any duty under this Act relating to planning and development, the people and bodies in subsection (2) must—(a) have regard to the fact that small and medium-sized enterprises may in practice face more difficulties when engaging in the planning process, and(b) consider whether such barriers can be removed or reduced.(2) The people and bodies are—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) mayors,(c) local authorities,(d) Natural England, and(e) all other people and bodies with duties under this Act.(3) In this section, “small and medium-sized enterprises” are companies with fewer than 250 employees involved in the design, application for planning consent or construction of between one and nine residential dwellings.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that public bodies discharging duties under this Act pay consideration to the difficulties often faced by small and medium sized developers when engaging with the planning system.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have tried to get a reference to SMEs in the Bill and I thank everybody who has supported me. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, Amendment 119 is workable, but I know the system and, if we pass it, the Government with the help of parliamentary counsel will amend it suitably. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on this important amendment.
“Play sufficiency duty(1) A local planning authority in England must, so far as reasonably practicable, assess, secure, enhance, and protect sufficient opportunities for children’s play when exercising any of its planning functions.(2) In fulfilling the duty under subsection (1), a local planning authority must—(a) undertake and publish play sufficiency assessments at intervals to be defined in regulations;(b) integrate the findings and recommendations of such assessments into local plans, relevant strategies, infrastructure planning, and development decisions;(c) not give permission for any development which would lead to a net loss of formal or informal play spaces except where equivalent or improved provision is secured;(d) require new developments to provide high-quality, accessible, inclusive play opportunities which incorporate natural features and are integrated within broader public spaces;(e) consult regularly with children, families, communities, and play professionals regarding play provision.(3) A play sufficiency assessment produced under subsection (2)(a) must specifically evaluate and report on the quantity, quality, accessibility, inclusivity, and integration of play opportunities within the planning authority’s area.(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, specify—(a) the frequency, methodology, content, and publication requirements of play sufficiency assessments;(b) minimum design standards and quality expectations for formal and informal play provision;(c) developer obligations regarding play infrastructure contributions to be secured through planning conditions.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(6) For the purposes of this section—“play” means activities undertaken by children and young people that are freely chosen, self-directed, and carried out following their own interests, in their own way, and for their own reasons;“play opportunities” include formal and informal play spaces, parks, open spaces, streets, schools, neighbourhood spaces, natural green areas, active travel routes, supervised play settings (including adventure playgrounds), and community recreation facilities;“sufficient” means adequate in quantity, quality, accessibility, inclusivity, and integration within community infrastructure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that planning authorities must take all practicable steps to ensure a sufficiency of play opportunities for children.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it was my intention, as signalled, to call a vote on this amendment. I believed we would have significant support from other parties, as I knew I was going to have from the Cross-Benchers. But without this, I am left in a position where I can do nothing but see the children in England fail to get the support for their health and development through play that those in Wales and Scotland now enjoy.
Lord Roborough
“(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to Natural England, and/or a person designated under section 86 of this Act, about the making of an EDP.(5) Natural England, or a designated person, must comply with any such guidance.(6) Guidance issued under subsection (4) may include—(a) where and how draft EDPs should be published for public consultation,(b) guidance on minimum development thresholds for an EDP, (c) the types of measures that may be included as conservation measures,(d) the need to define the proposed conservation measures relating to an EDP during a pre consultation period and to seek expressions of interest from appropriate persons or bodies to deliver them, and(e) the use of its compulsory purchase powers, with a particular view to ensuring that—(i) the powers are not used in a manner which would threaten the viability of an existing agricultural business,(ii) the use of the powers takes account of the need to protect domestic food security, and(iii) the impacts of the use of such powers on important social and cultural traditions, such as those that exist around common land, are protected.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confirms that the Secretary of State has a power to issue guidance to Natural England, and/or a designated person about the preparation of an EDP.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will also introduce Amendments 201 and 203. Most of the amendments in this group propose alternative solutions to environmental blockages to planning and development, either as replacements for Part 3 of this Bill or as substantial improvements to it. To my mind, the most important amendment in this group—and the most important to Part 3—is Amendment 130 from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I added my name in Committee and on Report. For transparency, I again refer the House to my entry in the register of interests as a farmer, a forester, a landowner, a residential, commercial and renewable energy developer and a shareholder in various natural capital-related businesses and partnerships.
I am very grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—who, sadly, is unwell today; we send her our best wishes—for their time during the passage of this Bill and for listening to our concerns. We have fundamental objections to Part 3. First, it undermines the existing mitigation hierarchy and is a retrograde step in nature protection. Secondly, it attacks the rural economy by giving Natural England enhanced CPO powers without explicitly saying that the private sector should be engaged in delivery, as well as undermining nascent biodiversity net gain markets. It gives little or no accountability by handing all that responsibility to the arm’s-length body of Natural England, which appears highly unlikely to have the capacity to deliver the environmental delivery programmes, as is envisaged.
Not only is there no evidence that this will have any immediate benefit to the housebuilding sector, but, after the CG Fry decision by the Supreme Court last week, this part of the Bill will reimpose habitats regulations on decisions related to Ramsar sites and immediately reblock tens of thousands of houses. We also hear concerns from industries that should stand to benefit from Part 3 that there is no visibility of the level of the nature restoration levy or control over outcomes of environmental delivery programmes, and therefore reputational issues if they were to go wrong.
The amendments in this and further groups will address these and other issues, but there is a bigger question that I challenge the Minister to answer. What exactly is Part 3 designed to solve that cannot already be solved through existing structures and more targeted tweaks to that system, as we and others propose? We asked this repeatedly in Committee and I do not yet feel that I have had a satisfactory answer. It would also be helpful to the House to have some comfort that the Government are listening to our concerns, which echo every interested wildlife and rural organisation outside this Chamber. I am grateful to all that have provided briefings—there are simply too many to list.
Amendment 122 is designed to force the Secretary of State to take final responsibility for the actions of Natural England and place parameters around that responsibility, to provide greater protection to the rural economy, our food security and rural community and traditions. We on these Benches distrust these supposedly independent arm’s-length bodies and, for that reason, would like the Secretary of State to take this responsibility and be answerable to Parliament and the wider community for the performance of these EDPs. Why do the Government not want the Secretary of State to take this responsibility?
Amendment 201 is a simple amendment that would allow the Secretary of State to deal specifically with the nutrient neutrality issues that are said to have been blocking 160,000 new houses. This is a repeat of our amendment that was defeated by the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I have two questions that I have previously put to the Government that have not yet been answered. Without this amendment, how many of those 160,000 blocked houses can be released immediately on Royal Assent? How many houses will be reblocked by Clause 90 reimposing habitats regulations restrictions on Ramsar sites, beyond the 18,000 already identified in the Somerset Levels?
Amendment 203 would require the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to publish a report on how to consolidate the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, to allow us to have a framework dealing specifically with nature protection in the UK. There have been news stories that the Government are considering a nature Bill. That would appear to be in line with what we suggest. Would that not be the appropriate place to undertake such a far-reaching re-evaluation of the protections that our natural environment deserves, rather than a planning Bill?
I will leave the introduction of Amendment 130 to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, but I want just to highlight the benefits of the approach that we see in this amendment and to underline our support. We hope that this approach will find favour with all Benches, given that it addresses so many of the concerns from different viewpoints. Nature and species would not be put at risk should this amendment pass. CPO powers would be much less likely to be required for Natural England. The private sector would be the natural counterparty to achieve these aims. Finally, nutrient neutrality appears to be the key challenge from environmental considerations in planning, as emphasised by the Home Builders Federation in its briefing; Natural England could focus on this particular issue and increase the chances of success.
We hope to hear a constructive response from the Minister to Amendment 130. We would like to hear that the Government might at least accept the principle of limiting EDPs to these impacts until they are proven to work. We on these Benches are a responsible Opposition and would like to work in the manner in which this House works best in order to improve the Bill and to make it both workable and successful in the real world. The Government’s approach to data in Part 3 does not give us full confidence that they are approaching this in the same manner. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 128 and 129 in this group, which are in my name. I suggest to noble Lords that, if they want to follow the purposes of these two amendments, it is best to have a look at Clause 55(1), since they are, in essence, about understanding how the drafting is intended to work and what that means in relation to the practices of an environmental delivery plan in due course.
In Committee, we had a useful probing debate in relation to these issues to try to understand whether all of the environmental impacts of a development should be identified in an environmental delivery plan. The debate showed that it was not the Government’s intention that an environmental delivery plan—EDP for short—should identify all of the environmental impacts resulting from a development to which that EDP relates. Relevant in this group is that, for example, the EDP could focus on a specific subset of environmental impacts, or one or more environmental impacts, such as river quality or nutrient neutrality. Given that that is the intention—I am arguing not with the intention of the Bill in that respect but, simply, with the drafting of this provision to give effect to that—how should that potential focus be reflected in the structure of the power for making an environmental delivery plan?
Clause 55(1)(a) provides that the EDP will identify
“one or more environmental features”.
An environmental feature is either a protected feature of a protected site—Clause 93 can be seen for interpretation —or a protected species. An example that I think is relevant and useful, not least to the debate that we are shortly to have on Amendment 130, is the effect of a development on a protected site, such as through nutrient pollution arising from a development in, say, south Norfolk, which might have an impact on the nutrient level in the Broads. The Broads, as the protected site, and the nutrient level, as the feature concerned, could be the environmental feature to which the EDP relates. That being the case, if that feature is the subject of the EDP, should each of the ways in which a negative effect on that feature arises be identified in the EDP? I think that it should.
Amendment 128 would change “one or more”. I direct noble Lords to Clause 55(1)(b), where it refers to
“one or more ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”.
That defines the environmental impact. I propose in Amendment 128 that we take out “one or more”, so that the sentence would read
“the ways in which that negative effect is likely to be caused by the development”—
that being the environmental impact.
That would preclude the possibility that there may be ways in which the development causes the negative effect on that feature but they are omitted. I do not understand why it would be at all reasonable for them to be omitted. That being the case, I hope that the environmental impact is always defined by reference to the ways in which a development impacts on a protected feature of a protected site or species. The focus can be narrow—which precise feature?—or it can be wide.
However, the next line after Clause 55(1)(b) says:
“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”.
It feels a bit as though Ministers have decided not only to not necessarily to deal with all the effects of a development—they can focus down; we have accepted that—but that they definitely do not even need to explain to us in the EDP how the negative effects on a protected site, or a protected feature of a site, are to be understood and incorporated into the work of the EDP.
Instead of taking that out, I have chosen, in Amendment 129, to define it a little more precisely. Why are the Government doing this? I think they are trying to say that we might be looking at an environmental feature, such as algal bloom in the water in the Broads resulting from a change in the nutrient level, but we do not want to focus on the question of allowing things to be left out of a count in the EDP because they simply relate to that effect; we want to focus on where the development gives rise to the effect.
Amendment 129 proposes adding to Clause 55(1) so that after
“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”,
it states,
“unless they are environmental impacts expected to result directly from the development to which the EDP relates”.
I hope that clarifies the purpose of the Bill, which is to focus, in an EDP, on the feature that is concerned and the specific ways in which a development might create a negative effect in relation to the feature that gives rise to the EDP.
I hope that makes clear what the amendments are intended to achieve. I hope that what this does is in line with the Government’s intentions in relation to an environmental delivery plan and that, from the Government’s point of view, Amendments 128 and 129 would therefore do no harm to the purposes. Even if Ministers are not immediately able to accept them, I hope that they might reproduce something of this kind at Third Reading.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 130 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their support. When preparing this speech, I went back to remind myself of the core objectives of the Bill: to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure and, as part of this, to simplify the process by which we address impacts on the natural environment.
I would argue, however, that what we have before us is a further layer of potential bureaucracy. I say that because, if the Bill passes as it is—this has been confirmed in the other place but also in this House—developers will have to take on an additional layer of assessment. They will now need to do an environmental impact assessment, a habitats regulations assessment and a biodiversity net gain assessment, and then apply for an EDP for specific features, before they even pay into this nature restoration fund. I struggle to see how that streamlines the process for developers, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell us how this will speed up the process.
Lord Markham (Con)
I speak to my Amendment 132 and fully support the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, which is trying not to add another layer to what we would all hope would be a streamlined process. With my amendment, I am trying to make a very simple point on proportionality: where there is an environmental assessment, there should be some sort of indication on how reasonable the cost within it is.
We all know about the very famous £100 million High Speed 2 bat tunnel story. What we do not know is the cost per bat saved. As a former Health Minister, I am very familiar with being asked these questions in the health space all the time: which medicines should we approve? We have a process for this called NICE. It very explicitly puts the value of a human life at somewhere between £20,000 to £30,000 per year in terms of a quality adjusted life year. It will approve medicines if they cost less than that and will explicitly say that we cannot afford a medicine on the NHS if it is above that. It explicitly puts a value on a year of a human’s life, which leads to difficult discussions, conversations and analysis. You end up saying to people that, unfortunately, the state will not pay for a type of medicine even though it might be life-saving. We have put a value on a human life in that and we have made that open to public debate.
We should have a similar reference point when talking about the environmental impact of the life of a bat or some other species, with reference to the value that we put on a human life. I am interested in the Minister’s views on what we can learn from the NICE debate in terms of proportionality, to make sure that we are not valuing the life of a bat, say, much more highly than the life of a human.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. It is supported by those champions of nature, the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Grender. I only wish I could have signed it myself.
I am not particularly interested in making things easier for developers—streamlining their processes is not my primary aim—but I strongly agree with the issues listed in Amendment 130: nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource and air quality. Humans need these things for health. All our concerns about Part 3 have been supported by quite a lot of organisations, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, the Bat Conservation Trust, the Better Planning Coalition, the Wildlife Trusts and the Royal Society, which have all raised concerns just as we in your Lordships’ House have done.
Our concerns and our amendments to Part 3 are a demonstration of how much we do not trust this Government to care about the countryside, nature, wildlife and human well-being. I trusted some in the previous Government to protect the countryside because they owned so much of it—they probably had its interests at heart and in their wallets—but many in this Government clearly prefer bulldozers to bats and beavers. To me, that immediately signals that we have a problem with this Government. Labour has been disappointing on nature, the environment and climate change. It occasionally talks about those things but does not understand them, and that is a source of real anxiety to me.
I have no trust in this Government doing the right thing to protect nature. They are opposing a series of very moderate, sensible suggestions to make our planning system more nature friendly. When I say that, I mean human friendly as well. We are nothing without nature—we need it very badly—but Labour has rejected the most minor of measures, for example over swift bricks in new buildings. It has said no to the most basic protections for our precious and rare chalk streams and fails to do the most obvious things, such as stopping developers attaching new buildings to already overloaded sewage systems.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, decides to put this amendment to a vote, we on the Green Benches will support her very strongly.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 122 in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough, because it is important that guidance is issued to Natural England on a number of issues that are going to be relevant. I am particularly keen on proposed new subsection (6)(d) on
“the need to define the proposed conservation measures relating to an EDP during a pre consultation period and to seek expressions of interest from appropriate persons or bodies to deliver them”.
It is hugely important that the private sector is involved. I hear good words from Natural England about getting on with farmers and trying to work with the private sector. The results are absolutely appalling when you look at them, and the private sector is very fed up with Natural England. This rather echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who said that those of us who are keen on preserving and improving the countryside and biodiversity are very disappointed with how the Labour Government have behaved. It comes in stark contrast to what they said a few months ago when they were in opposition, which is where they will be again in a few years’ time; then they will be back in favour of the countryside.
I like Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, very much. I hope that she will press it.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, given the time, I will be brief. I support Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis; that is because I went to some of the very useful briefings on how EDPs will be prepared.
A couple of things stood out to me. One is that Natural England proposes to base its EDP preparations on modelling much more than on actual monitoring and measuring on the ground; it will not require demonstration of the success of EDPs before the destruction of habitats is allowed. The other is that, given the voluntary nature of EDPs, the proposal is that the scale of the conservation measures will expand or contract in proportion to how much is paid into the relevant restoration fund.
Relying on modelling is hard when it comes to species. Modelling physics, such as on the flow of nutrients or the spread of air pollution, is complex but it is nothing like as complex as modelling ecology. We can measure for the presence or absence of chemicals much more easily and reliably than we can for species. Further, models are only as good as the data you base them on, but we just do not have the biological records to support really precise, accurate modelling. I cite the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management, which says:
“It should be emphasised that biodiversity datasets are, by their nature, incomplete … access to private land to collect such information is frequently difficult or impossible”.
Just imagine how much private land has never been properly surveyed, even for notable species.
I turn to my second concern: the scalability of EDPs depending on the money paid in. When we heard from experts at a briefing for Peers, it became clear that the intention is that, if only a few developers paid to use an EDP, the provisions would be scaled accordingly. This relies on the fact that the ecological requirements—and, therefore, the benefits—would scale by the same proportion, as well as the money, but that is very unlikely to be true. Ecology does not scale linearly. If you halve the size of a habitat, you degrade it by more than half, and you often hit thresholds below which things are not viable. That is one of the reasons why this kind of strategic, joined-up planning can help, but the lack of detail on exactly how this measure will work makes me fear that it has not been fully thought through.
All in all, it seems very risky to try to undertake using EDPs, as I understand them, as part of the planned work for species because the consequences of us being wrong are so high. By the time we know something might not be working, it will be too late to do anything about it because we will have lost the habitat and the animals and plants in it. Restricting EDPs to physical modelling, where we can have a lot more confidence in our accuracy, precision and scalability, seems a much more sensible way to progress.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. I declare my interest as a director of my family farming company. I will not make a long speech.
I looked at my notes on Amendment 122, which is an important amendment. They read: “Guidance simply needed to stop the commissars of Natural England running amok”. That probably covers it. The amendment seeks to ensure clearer definitions, parameters and accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, outlined so eloquently; it also addresses the potential abuse of compulsory purchase. I will say no more on that amendment.
The vital amendments in this group are Amendments 130 and 201, which focus on the clarity, deliverability and efficiency of the EDP process. I also support Amendments 128 and 129 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who is seeking once again to make specificity, rather than generality and vagueness, the hallmark in the construction of EDPs.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who laid out the case for it very eloquently. It is a rather elegant solution to the tensions over Part 3—and there are undoubtedly tensions, not only here in the Chamber but out there in the country. Confining EDPs only to those issues to which the EDP process lends itself and which are best resolved on a strategic landscape scale—such as nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource and air quality—would deliver multiple benefits.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support Amendment 130. It is absolutely crucial that we get this system to a point where developers see EDPs as something they can live with. At the moment, as I evidenced in a meeting that the Minister very kindly allowed me, they clearly do not. They see this as a huge additional complication, which will slow down development enormously. I very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said. No one who has ever tried to manage a garden would think you could model biological processes out in the wild. You can model the watering of a garden, but you cannot model what the plants are going to do; it requires observations on the ground. Natural England are not going down a road that will work.
That brings me to Amendment 122. I was on the Front Bench for MAFF when most of that department’s business was run through the EU. If you do not have control of what is happening in your own department, it produces a dysfunctional political process. You cannot respond to what people are saying from outside. You cannot even influence what is happening internally in the department. The department should not be doing this to itself; it should not be inshoring so much of its business to an unaccountable body, as we have seen with bat tunnels. There is nothing you can do with Natural England when it goes wrong. You cannot just pick up the phone and say, “Come on, be sensible, guys”. It does not work. What we are doing is producing an unstable political situation which will have to be unwound. Let us not create it.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, given that time is short, I will contain our remarks to the standout amendment in this group, Amendment 130, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. It is a means to address a fundamental question we all have on the Bill: how do we help the Government deliver the win-win for nature and the economy by giving developers certainty about this new process, given that we are moving away from an established process which has served for many years, while at the same time ensuring that the environmental protections we want are locked in? The approach taken by the noble Baroness is to curtail the scope of this new process by saying that an EDP can happen only where it has been shown that those approaches will work, benefiting conservation at the strategic landscape scale.
I have to say that we, as Liberal Democrats, thought long and hard about supporting this amendment. It is our contention that we should always follow the science, so if there were scientific evidence that there could be conservation benefits for a species, for example, it would normally be our position to support that. Therefore, this approach to curtail it by area rather than evidence is not one that we would normally support. But as noble Lords will see, after thinking long and hard, we put our Front-Bench name to this amendment. The reason is that we are not convinced at this point in the debate that there are sufficient safeguards about how that scientific evidence will be considered by Natural England to ensure that the environmental safeguards that we all want will be in place. Therefore, we on these Benches will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say in response to this amendment but, if the noble Baroness is minded to move to a vote on it, at this point in time, we would support her.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, the usual channels have agreed that we should pause now to allow for a short break before Oral Questions at 3 pm. Although unusual, I therefore beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned, and we will return to it later this afternoon.
Youth Mobility Scheme
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in the agreement of a youth mobility scheme between the United Kingdom and the EU.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, we are working with the EU towards the establishment of a balanced youth experience scheme. We have agreed that any scheme will be subject to an allotted number of places and to a visa requirement, and time limited. We have also been clear that it should be in line with the UK’s existing schemes. The exact parameters will be subject to discussion and negotiations, which are under way. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot comment in detail on ongoing negotiations.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, this Question is a companion piece to the Question last week from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on Erasmus, to which she got an encouraging reply. The only proviso, of course, is that were we in the single market, which most voters now back, a youth mobility scheme would be entirely unnecessary. I ask the Minister to consider young British people, particularly from less privileged backgrounds, who have been for almost five years effectively blocked from living and working in Europe. What urgency are the Government giving to putting a scheme in place that ensures that no more young people are excluded from these important life experiences?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I very much appreciate the noble Earl’s question and from where it comes. I assure your Lordships’ House that discussions are actively under way, and we hope to bring forward responses with details of the scheme in the coming months.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it is very encouraging to hear that the Government are moving forward with what is so important: bringing young people together, particularly around Europe. An event took place in this Parliament this week to support further development of the teaching of languages. Will the Minister therefore confirm to me that, in the context of bringing young people together, it is also important to encourage our young people to learn more languages, at a time when most schools and colleges are cutting back on such an enormous resource?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: 60% of schools are struggling to recruit modern foreign language teachers. Given that the European Union is our largest trading partner, the reality is that it would probably be sensible if we could talk to them in their language, as well as ours. By joining the Erasmus scheme, by making sure there are educational opportunities for both staff and young people, and through a future youth mobility scheme, we are ensuring that we have shared cultural opportunities and the opportunity for shared language schemes too.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
I am very grateful to the Minister for her Answer. For understandable reasons, His Majesty’s Government are very concerned at the moment to prevent people crossing the channel in one direction. However, it seems to me that we should be positively encouraging our young people to cross the channel in the other direction to take advantage of the very real opportunities a youth mobility scheme would offer, not simply for their own sake—although that is really important, as we have heard—but because, in an increasingly fractious and dangerous world, we sorely need young people with a broad, informed international perspective. Can the Minister confirm that—as well as, I hope, allowing such mobility—the Government will actually encourage such participation?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point. One of the reasons why we have these schemes is the shared cultural and social norms with our nearest allies that develop from them. There are 13 of these schemes already in existence, ranging from New Zealand and Canada to Uruguay, ensuring that people have access. So far this year, 12,000 visas have been issued. This is active participation to make sure that young people view the world in the broadest possible way.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister referred to “a balance”. We are very conscious that when we were in the EU, more students and young people from the EU and elsewhere came to Britain. What are the Government doing to encourage young British people to spend time on the continent taking apprenticeships, a year in universities or whatever? On the question of balance and improving languages, are we considering a teaching assistant exchange whereby people with native languages might be able to teach in British schools, with people here teaching English there?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I would like to reassure the noble Lord that a teaching assistant exchange already exists, and I am more than happy to write to him with the details of that scheme. The Turing scheme has provided over 35,000 opportunities for young people, and in Wales and Scotland there are the Taith and SEEP schemes. As and when we rejoin Erasmus, that will provide easier pathways for educational opportunities across Europe.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I follow my noble friends Lady Coussins and Lord Clancarty to create a hat trick by mentioning the less well-known Creative Europe. The Minister will know that it includes a Culture Moves Europe programme with a budget of €21 million over the current period to provide mobility grants for cultural professionals. Does she agree that alongside a youth exchange programme, this would be a valuable platform to enable the intercultural international exchange that enables personal development and career growth?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I was doing so well in reassuring noble Lords, but I am afraid that I will have to give a level of disappointment to the noble Baroness. We are not currently considering rejoining the creative arm. However, 40% of touring artists are under the age of 35, meaning that they would be able to access work for up to three years, subject to the negotiations, via the youth mobility scheme. So that is one way in which we can encourage creative engagement.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, at a time when youth engagement and creating opportunities at home are so vital, why have the Government chosen to end the National Citizen Service and withdraw funding from the cadet expansion programme? Have Ministers assessed the wider social and economic benefits that these schemes deliver? Will similar initiatives such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award be protected from further cuts? We should be building these opportunities for young people at home as our priority.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I very much appreciate the noble Baroness’s support for the cadet scheme; in fact, I was the honorary president of my local air cadets until I joined the Government. Let me be clear: as no one in this House will be surprised to hear, we had to make some appalling decisions because of the financial inheritance from the previous Government. On that basis, difficult decisions have been made, but noble Lords will also appreciate that announcements have been made about the cadet scheme, and they are available for all noble Lords, so they can see how much we celebrate the role of cadets as ambassadors.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, the Minister noted that it would be a balanced scheme with an allotted number of places. How will the Government ensure that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and rural communities are part of that and not left out of such a scheme?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As someone who lives in Stoke-on-Trent, I completely appreciate where the noble Baroness is coming from. Some 61% of participants in the Turing scheme in England come from underprivileged backgrounds and disadvantaged communities. Erasmus’s current focus is also about ensuring that people who would not otherwise have those opportunities can be afforded them. This is an incredibly important part of making sure that aspiration and attainment is available to everyone—a core part of our mission for growth, and of the value system of the Labour Party.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, given the importance of scientific research and innovation to the future prosperity of this country, have the Government assessed the impact of the current restrictions on youth mobility in Europe on the progress of scientific research in this country?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
That is a genuinely interesting question, and that is one of the reasons why our rejoining Erasmus could be so beneficial to our country. One of the issues—which is part of our conversations about the youth mobility scheme, as well as rejoining Erasmus—is the economic impact it will have, while ensuring that we have opportunities to share scientific endeavours and discoveries. It will also provide us with opportunities to ensure that our social and creative work is shared with our closest allies.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
There has not been a Labour contribution yet, so it is the turn of my noble friend.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is this not yet another example of how badly the previous Government negotiated the Brexit deal, leaving our young people with worse options than they had before?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend raises a very important point. I campaigned for remain, though I lived in a leave area. I appreciate and fully respect the result of the referendum, and we need to make it work. That is not to say, however, that it came without a cost—paid by individuals, including our young people. The Turing scheme has been great, with 35,000 opportunities afforded by it, but 16 million young people had opportunities via the Erasmus scheme. This is a different scale, which is why we want to participate.
Corruption: Low and Middle-income Countries
Lord Oates
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will strengthen existing policy, resources and enforcement powers to ensure the prosecution of those in the United Kingdom who have enriched themselves through the corrupt use of public funds in low-and-middle-income countries.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to reducing the harms of illicit finance on developing countries and to holding those responsible to account. The National Crime Agency’s international corruption unit and international anti-corruption co-ordination centre provide critical assistance to help developing countries trace and recover stolen assets and pursue justice via the UK courts. The Government plan to publish a new anti-corruption strategy, which will set out ambitious actions and reforms in this area.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s focus on this critical issue. The Minister will be aware of the particular role of the illicit gold trade in fuelling the conflict in Sudan and conflicts elsewhere, and in laundering the proceeds of corruption around the globe. Will the Government, therefore, use their forthcoming illicit finance summit to designate additional sanctions packages against corrupt elites, such as those members of the Zimbabwe gold mafia, who have not yet been sanctioned, and their professional enablers, who launder proceeds from the illicit gold trade through the UK and through the United Arab Emirates?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As he knows, we do not comment on future designations, but I thank him for reminding us of the role of illicit gold mining, in particular, in this. This is how many billions of dollars are hidden. It is also associated with horrendous abuses of people and all kinds of illicit activities, including criminal activity across borders. I thank him also for reminding the House of our plans to hold a summit next year, and I look forward to his full engagement in that.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, first, I apologise that my interest overran courtesy. Following the speaker’s question, there is already a plan for measures to deal with corruption on an international scale, which, I am sure my noble friend will agree, totally undermines both democracy and our overseas aid. That is the international anti-corruption court. Can the Minister tell us what progress there is on that project?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I suspect that my noble friend Lord Hain is about to ask something along these lines, so I came prepared. The Government are committed to ensuring that those responsible for the most egregious acts of international corruption are prosecuted for their crimes. We are supportive of the ambition to strengthen international mechanisms to hold kleptocrats to account, but are realistic about the geopolitical challenges associated with the proposal for an international anti-corruption court at this time. However, we look forward to considering the draft treaty of the court, which is due later this year.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I refer the Minister to what is going on in France, where they use their universal jurisdiction rules to investigate and seize the French assets of corrupt African dictators. She will be aware of the case of Teodoro Obiang, who has had his 10 supercars impounded and his €60 million house frozen in a court order. There are other cases in the pipeline, including those of the former President of Gabon and the President of Congo-Brazzaville. Why can we not use similar tactics to the French?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have had a great deal of success in seizing assets and returning them to those Governments. I remind the House that most people in positions of leadership across Africa are not corrupt and are working incredibly hard for the benefit of their populations. I know the noble Lord agrees with that. We returned millions of pounds recently to Nigeria, where that money has been reinvested into public services for the benefit of those people. That is the work that we will continue to do.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, over 20 years, I saw how development was being undermined by corruption in too many low-income countries. What will the Government do through the international anti-corruption unit to ensure that funds that are being laundered through British administrations are prosecuted, with the funds seized and returned to the people who need them, rather than disappearing into the morass of illegal looting?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are working through the unit, but, importantly, we are also working on prevention. We have a great deal of work taking place, alongside the African Development Bank, to strengthen systems in-country so that countries are able to take measures themselves to deal with this and prevent these kinds of practices, which, as the noble Lord said, so badly disadvantage countries that really need to keep that money in-country so they can spend it well for the benefit of their people.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned a treaty, already in draft, drawn up by international jurists from right across the world. Can she confirm that the former Foreign Secretary’s support for the principle of an international anti-corruption court remains the policy of the Foreign Office? In receiving this draft treaty, will she also bear in mind that not only should that court be supported by this Government but we have a particular responsibility, because a lot of these laundered funds come through London and then on to UK overseas territories, such as the British Virgin Islands, where they are concealed in shell companies. That has got to stop, and Britain should be taking a lead on it.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is not my job to speak for the Deputy Prime Minister, but our resolve on this remains unchanged and is shared by the newly appointed Foreign Secretary. My noble friend is right to raise the issue of the overseas territories. My colleague, Minister Doughty, recently met the overseas territories. There is progress. We have transparency measures, and fully transparent interest registers are available with Gibraltar, St Helena and, I think, Montserrat as well. There is more to do. Other OTs are taking steps in the right direction, but we want to see them go much further. We have taken the significant step, which I think my noble friend will appreciate, of sending the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, to meet BVI to try to encourage it to do what we would like it to do because, as my noble friend says, this is so important in our international fight against illicit finance.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, strengthening existing powers is, of course, welcome, but we already have £25 billion in frozen Russian assets, £13 billion in frozen Libyan assets and £5 billion in frozen cryptocurrency. When are the Government going to take action to put these funds to good use to help our allies in Ukraine, and with the crypto to help our own citizens?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Of course, the noble Earl is right, and nobody would like to see that money released and able to be spent in Ukraine more than me. We have to act within the law as it currently stands and as his Government left it last year. We do not have the power, as he knows, to seize those assets in a way that is straightforward, but we will work through the courts and with our neighbours and allies, across Europe specifically, to make sure that the people who caused the damage in Ukraine are held to account and that, whenever possible, they are the people who end up paying for it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, have His Majesty’s Government made any representations to the United States Administration about their decision not to pursue people who are involved in these corrupt practices in both directions, from developing countries into the United States and from the United States into developing countries? Are we making representations and are we sure that the Trump Administration will not do as they did over emissions by ships and torpedo an agreement that is reached by everyone else?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Lord will appreciate, we speak to our friends in the United States about a range of issues all the time, and illicit finance is certainly one of those issues.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, in inviting the Minister to comment on the matter I am about to raise, I draw attention to my practice at the Bar, which involves some corruption cases overseas. One short suggestion that I make to her is that we could increase the failure to prevent regime under criminal law. We already have failure to prevent bribery, tax evasion and fraud offences, but it would be the work of a moment to increase the ambit of that to cover other forms of bribery, corruption, money laundering and so on. Could she discuss that with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I understand that the noble Lord has a great deal of experience in these issues. I am very happy to take that suggestion back to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to discuss it with friends and colleagues at the Home Office, because this is an ever-changing situation and we need to use every tool at our disposal in order to combat this illegal activity.
Water Companies: Private Ownership
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the social cost of leaving England’s water companies in private ownership.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to protecting the most vulnerable households, and we expect water companies to put robust measures in place for households that are struggling to pay their bills. We are bringing forward secondary legislation to introduce new and increased compensation—double the previous amounts, or more—that it will be compulsory for water companies to pay customers for poor service.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
As the Minister is struggling to provide information about the social cost of leaving water in private hands, I shall help him a little bit. Analysis suggests that, between 2025 and 2050, customers of privatised water companies will pay over £1 trillion, expressed in 2025 prices. It will probably be higher as companies raise capital from customers while shareholders take returns. People will not own a blade of grass in return. If the Minister disagrees with this alternative analysis, I ask him to please commit to publishing the Government’s data.
Lord Katz (Lab)
The Government have indeed published our analysis of the cost of renationalising the water sector, which I believe is what my noble friend is getting at. Our analysis is that—on the basis of regulated capital value, which takes into account not just equity but debt—it would cost at least £100 billion to renationalise the water industry. We are not going to unpick the current ownership model, during which time underinvestment and sewage pollution would only get worse. We believe that the answer is better regulation. We have introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act, which has already hit bonuses for 10 water executives and toughened the rules so that bosses face up to two years in prison for covering up sewage spills. Following the Cunliffe review this year, we are taking forward a number of reforms to the sector, chiefly the creation of a powerful new water regulator.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister regret that average household water bills will rise by £123 a year from this April? Given that so many families already spend more than 3% of their income on water, what can be done to reverse years of shareholder and executive bonuses without improved services and genuine reinvestment? Why is it that customers even now, even after the Cunliffe review, are still having to bear the cost of historic underinvestment?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. To build on the answer I gave to my noble friend Lord Sikka, we have already put in place new measures, including the emergency legislation last year, to ensure that we are bearing down on water executives. We have indeed taken action. As I said, we are putting in place robust support measures for customers who are struggling to pay their bills and, as a result, water companies have more than doubled the number of customers who receive help with bills through social tariffs, from 4% to 9% by 2030. We are working with industry to keep current support schemes under review to ensure that customers are sufficiently supported.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the real issue is not public or private ownership but that the regulator clearly lacked the financial engineering skills to understand, spot and curtail the excessive debt loading and value extraction by private equity in previous years?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I agree completely with the noble Lord. Efficient, precise and forensic regulation is needed in this sector. That came across very clearly in the report of the Independent Water Commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe. In response to his report, we have already committed to establishing a single regulator for water and to introduce a regional element within it so that, working with local communities, local businesses and water companies, the needs of an area, whether agriculture or the built environment, are taken account of in determining water company action.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Cunliffe review does indeed refer to the need for a single regulator. It concludes in recommendation 16 that this regulator
“should combine the functions of Ofwat, DWI, and water functions from the EA and NE”.
Natural England is being given a very big role in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and I just wonder how this fits with what the Government are proposing if they fulfil the recommendations of the Cunliffe review. Will we have to rewrite the planning Bill when the next water Bill comes along?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and indeed her interest in this area and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I do not think anybody in your Lordships’ House would really like us to go through the pain of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill again. That is not what we are going to do. It will be helpful for the House to set out that we have already announced five commitments in response to the Cunliffe review and Sir Jon’s report. We will be publishing a White Paper and hope to have a water reform Bill in the next Parliament.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I speak as a Thames Water customer. On 6 August 2024, Ofwat announced fines of £104 million on Thames Water, £47 million on Yorkshire Water and £17 million on Northumbrian Water. Almost a year later, the Minister said that Thames Water should pay the fine by 20 August 2025; has it paid up? Can my noble friend the Minister say why organisations with criminal convictions seem to be allowed to negotiate fines when other criminals would not get away with that?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I will have to write to her about whether that fine has been paid. We have been very clear through the Water (Special Measures) Act and our response to the Cunliffe review that we are absolutely going to bear down on water company executives who take unjustified profits. We have already done that. We have already fined a number of organisations and cumulatively more than £240 million in wastewater enforcement fines and redress has been confirmed by Ofwat in 2025. We are serious about tackling the state of the water sector and very clear that water companies here are meant to secure investment and keep bills down, not take profits.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, there are ongoing concerns about the financial position of Thames Water. Can the Minister please confirm that no matter what, including the special administration regime, consumers will not be forced to pay higher bills to cover failures at Thames Water or indeed any other water company?
Lord Katz (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware there is a high bar for the use of a special administration regime but we have made our preparations and are ready for all eventualities, including applying for such a regime, if necessary. While the company is stable, we have stepped up the preparations. It is clear that if it is in serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order is appropriate for the company to retain its licence, we will act. We will make sure that it is not at bill payers’ expense.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, going back to the criminal convictions, the water companies currently have 12,000 criminal convictions against them. Can the Minister tell me at what number he will consider these people criminals and not fit to have an operating licence to deliver our water?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I can only repeat what I have already said. It is very simply the case that we are absolutely continuing the regime and approach of the previous Government, but we have done more. We introduced new legislation last year to ensure that we can block executive bonuses, which we have done. We will continue to bear down on water companies and ensure that their executives cannot take unjustified bonuses. We will continue to make sure, through the work and progress of the White Paper, which will be coming shortly for your Lordships’ consideration. We hope there will be legislation next year, although I cannot say what will be in a future King’s Speech. We will make sure that the water companies live up to their obligations to customers and, indeed, the taxpayer.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I will try to help the Minister. Is he aware that the American President is now investing in private companies in a way that the USA has not seen or done before, seeing that there is strategic advantage in that? When we are presented with the water Bill, could we please explore alternatives to the methods we presently have for investment and ownership, and try to spread it over a broader front? If he cannot give me an answer today, perhaps when I ask my Question on public/private partnerships on Monday his Treasury Minister may be able to do so.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend and of course we look forward to his Question on Monday. Ahead of that, I can say that this is exactly what the response to the Cunliffe review will be doing—both in the White Paper and then in future legislation. We will consider a range of options for the way we harness the potential of private ownership to provide our water supply and ensure that we have a water infrastructure that is fit for the future.
Antisemitism: Universities
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the reported threats to Professor Michael Ben-Gad, what further steps they are taking to ensure universities tackle antisemitism, and to protect Jewish academics and students from abuse.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the targeted antisemitic campaign against Professor Ben-Gad is deeply troubling and has no place in our lecture halls, on campus or anywhere else. It is not free speech; it is harassment and it is abhorrent. Where a student is found to have been responsible for racially motivated harassment, intimidation or incitement to violence, I expect universities to react swiftly and to use the full force of their disciplinary powers to stop this happening again.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I thank the Minister for that. Since the year following 7 October 2023, Jewish students have seen a 413% increase in antisemitic incidents on campus. In the last three weeks alone, there have been death threats in university WhatsApp groups and university students chanting, “Put the Zios in the ground”. The Union of Jewish Students is calling on the DfE and the OFS to provide specific and actionable further guidance to universities on steps they need to take to protect Jewish students, and to give the vice-chancellors specifically simple and clear communication on what they can do. Will the Minister commit to do that, and more, to stop the glorification of terrorism?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State met the Union of Jewish Students just last week and wrote directly to vice-chancellors to outline the seriousness of this issue and the responsibility and action that she expected them to take. This was further pursued in a call with vice-chancellors that the Secretary of State attended last Friday, organised by Universities UK. In addition, we are using the additional funding for antisemitism training across schools and universities to address this issue. The OFS, through the new condition E6, which started this August, has made completely clear to universities their responsibility to prevent the sort of harassment and intimidation that we have seen too much of.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister say whether universities are required to have designated places of worship for Jewish students, and, if so, what security arrangements they are expected to put in place to ensure that Jewish students can worship in safety?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will come back to the noble Baroness on the point about designated places, but it is absolutely imperative that all students are able to pursue their religious faith while they are students and be protected in their ability to do that. That is one of the reasons why the Government have made £500,000 available to the University Jewish Chaplaincy to support Jewish students. It is also why, as part of the other work that we are funding, we will train university security staff in how to counter antisemitism and support students in the legitimate following of their faith.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, following the shocking and violent intimidation of Professor Michael Ben-Gad and the alarming data from the Community Security Trust, which documented a 117% surge in university-related antisemitic incidents across two academic years, culminating in a record high of 272 incidents in 2023-24, does my noble friend the Minister agree that this demonstrates a clear necessity for universities to fully comply with their legal duties in preventing the harassment and discrimination of staff and students on university campuses?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right and, like the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, she has identified the shocking increase in the scale of antisemitic abuse and intimidation that not only students but staff are facing. We are clear—and, to be fair, I believe the vast majority of vice-chancellors are clear—that this is something which has no place on our campuses and on which strong action needs to be taken, backed up by the Office for Students and the new condition around intimidation and harassment, and supported by the investment in tackling antisemitism education that the Government are now making.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, the treatment of Professor Ben-Gad was totally disgraceful, as is the rise in antisemitism. Following up the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, surely the further question is: what disciplinary steps will be taken against universities if they fail to halt this rise of antisemitism on their campuses?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Office for Students’ new condition E6, which requires universities to take action and have in place the framework to tackle intimidation and harassment, is a route through which the OfS could take action against universities if they do not take this seriously—though I believe many vice-chancellors are taking this seriously—and ensure that our universities are safe places for both Jewish students and staff.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I register an interest in that my niece, Sophie Dunoff, is the chief executive of the University Jewish Chaplaincy—and grateful, of course, for the £500,000. We can all recall that, when we were students—it was not that long ago for some of us—we would study a bit, protest maybe a lot and party even more. We are living in Britain, yet Jewish students are facing harassment, intimidation and cancellation. I find the fact that we are having these discussions in Britain, in 2025, worrying. Enough of this standing side by side. As I have said before, action has to be taken, otherwise we are in for a real shock.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: what is happening to Jewish students and Jewish members of staff is wholly unacceptable. He is also right that in this country we believe in a right to protest but we do not believe in a right to disrupt, intimidate or harass. That is why the OFS now has the powers that I have already outlined. It is why the Government have been clear in their communication with vice-chancellors that this issue must be taken enormously seriously and that action must follow, as the noble Lord says. It is also why the Government themselves are taking action to support the tackling of antisemitism through the education system.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, anyone who has watched the videos of what has happened to Professor Ben-Gad—the harassment and intimidation—will be rightly appalled. Unfortunately, as we have heard, this is not confined to one member of staff. There are too many students and staff on campuses across the UK who are being impacted in this way. The Government’s adviser on antisemitism, my noble friend Lord Mann, recently published a report with recommendations on countering antisemitism. It specifically includes how to safeguard Jewish lived experience on campus. What steps are the Government taking to implement the recommendations of that review? Will they undertake to write to all universities and colleges with the good-practice guide that accompanies that very important report?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure that the work of my noble friend Lord Mann is something that university vice-chancellors should look at very carefully to inform their work. As I have said, we have already written to vice-chancellors, but we will follow this up with further meetings with them. I will certainly undertake to ensure that the guidance that my noble friend references is brought to their attention through that process, if not more directly, as she is suggesting.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Minister has referred a couple of times to the Office for Students’ new E6 powers. To reassure Jewish students, I hope, could the Minister set out how long it will take, if a university is identified as having weaknesses under E6, to address those?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
If a university gets to the point of having to be referred to the OFS as part of E6, it has clearly already failed and not done what this Government—I know this is supported across the House—have been very clear that it should be doing, including directly with vice-chancellors. The OFS would have the opportunity to investigate and take action, including through fines.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Does the Minister agree that all students are suffering from the conduct of extremists on campus? Does she agree that the right to protest does not include the right to disrupt lectures, examinations and degree ceremonies, to the detriment of all students?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I strongly agree with the noble Lord. That is why I was clear earlier that the right to protest is most certainly not a right to disrupt, intimidate or harass. It is the responsibility of all of us, including those in the leadership of universities, to make sure that students and staff can go about their business, worship and learn free from harassment and intimidation. That is what we are determined to deliver.
Jamaica: Hurricane Melissa
Lord Empey
To ask His Majesty’s Government (1) what steps they are taking to assist the Government and people of Jamaica to recover from Hurricane Melissa, (2) what UK assets and personnel are stationed in the region, and (3) whether they plan to offer financial support.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
The UK stands in solidarity with Jamaica following the devastation caused by Hurricane Melissa. The Foreign Secretary has spoken with her Jamaican counterpart to reaffirm our commitment to support recovery efforts. We have activated our crisis centre in London to assist British nationals in Jamaica, have deployed response teams to the region and are mobilising up to £2.5 million in emergency humanitarian aid to help Jamaica rebuild in the wake of this disaster.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I thank the Minister for her response. The people of Jamaica have been subjected to the fiercest storm to have taken place anywhere in the world this year. The statistics are shocking. I know that we are at the rescue and recovery stage and that it will be some time for all fatalities or injuries to be established, but I am sure that the whole House will want the people of Jamaica and other islands in the region to know that they are in our thoughts and prayers.
As for the personnel in the region—we do not yet know whether there will be further damage to other territories and people in the region—is the Minister satisfied that we have adequate facilities in the area to give real support at the early stages, particularly with the restoration of power and water supplies to avoid disease and further distress? Furthermore, will there be further tranches of financial assistance available from, I presume, our overseas development budget?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will provide support in the way that is needed. We have people pre-positioned alongside practical assistance such as shelter kits and other necessary immediate response equipment. I have visited the response centre in Antigua that supports the region. The noble Lord is right that this is not over; the hurricane, although diminishing in ferocity—it was a level 5 when it hit Jamaica, the fiercest hurricane in history—is still at level 3, which is severe. We are keeping in very close contact with our overseas territories in particular, but it also looks as though the hurricane may pass over the Bahamas, so we need to be alive to further developments. We have a Royal Navy presence in the region in the form of HMS “Trent” and experts in initial humanitarian response. We also have our consular team in Miami ready to respond and support the very many British nationals in Jamaica.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her update on the actions that His Majesty’s Government are taking in relation to Hurricane Melissa. I understand that the FCDO website went live yesterday for UK visitors to Jamaica to notify the department of their presence. It was known at the weekend that Melissa was active and was going to hit Jamaica very shortly. Notwithstanding these facts, how are visitors to Jamaica able to notify the department if there is very little wifi and only intermittent signal?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Earl is right that this is a problem. We encourage British nationals to register their presence; we have 24/7 telephone access available, and we have our team in Kingston. The situation is incredibly difficult; there is local advice issued by authorities in Jamaica, which we encourage British nationals to adhere to. We updated our travel advice on Thursday about the likely strength of Hurricane Melissa. This is hurricane season in the Caribbean; these events are not unprecedented, sadly, but the severity and impact of this hurricane are greater than we have seen before.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I add to the condolences for the devastating impact on the communities there, and share with the noble Lord regards from all Benches in this House.
The Minister stated, correctly, that this event is even worse than the 2017 hurricanes that affected the Caribbean. I supported the previous Government’s work to change the OECD rules on overseas development assistance for Caribbean and middle-income nations to receive short-term ODA assistance when hit by a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. The question now is about not our intent or our support for communities in Jamaica but the scale on which the UK does it.
In 2018 the previous Government, before the development assistance cuts of that Administration, allocated £57 million plus £3 million match funding— so £60 million. With the current Government’s ODA cuts, can the Minister assure me that the £2.5 million is only the start? What is the current size of the UK’s humanitarian crisis reserve pool?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not want this to sound at all patronising, but the assistance that we can give now is very different from that which we could give 10 or so years ago. Yes, there is the immediate response, which will take the form of ODA, and we have a crisis reserve, which is where it needs to be for this stage in the year, but we have also been able to work on insurance and construction. I was very recently at a hospital in Jamaica whose construction we had been able to support, making it much more able to withstand the impact of a hurricane. It has generators and its own energy supplies, and some of that is renewable, and it is able to carry on functioning even in the most difficult circumstances. So the infra- structure is becoming more robust. We have invested alongside others in parametric insurance so that the payouts are very fast to enable the Government of Jamaica and those of other islands to be able to respond much more quickly than they could previously.
On the noble Lord’s points about OECD and ODA graduation, for small island developing states that is really important. There is a problem with graduation, as we see with Montserrat at the moment; it is something that we are very keenly looking at to make sure that countries are treated fairly, because at the moment the way these things work often disadvantages countries with very small populations.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister knows how very well the Jamaican Government prepared for the coming hurricane season, knowing the once in a lifetime scale of the hurricane that has hit. What additional work are His Majesty’s Government doing to help Jamaica and other Caribbean islands prepare for the future? It is preparation, not repair, that helps nations such as Jamaica survive these events. What work are the Government doing with the diaspora, of which I am a member, to help our mother island, as it were, recover from such a devastating hit?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a really important point. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to Kamina Johnson Smith, the Foreign Minister in Jamaica, on Monday before Melissa hit, to have exactly that conversation. I know, because I have spoken with Ms Johnson Smith myself in Jamaica, the extent to which the Government there are understanding of what they need to do, and the preparation made within the region is dramatically different now because so much more is known. Our capability in predicting these events is enhanced, and the capability within the region is really quite impressive. That does not mean that they can handle this on their own—of course not. We have a responsibility, which we take incredibly seriously, not least because, as the noble Lord says, there are such strong community links and people-to-people links, particularly with Jamaica. We will continue to work alongside the Government there to make sure that they get what they need to get through this initial period. It is fast moving—we are assessing the damage and will do what we need to do now. This is something on which we are likely to have to stay close to the Government of Jamaica working on for some time.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)
My Lords, what are the Government prepared to do to assist children in particular? The Minister will know that, tragically, whenever these hurricanes hit, it is women and children who are affected most severely. Can she tell us what work the Government are doing in the longer term to build resilience to support the amazing work that is being done in the Caribbean? The whole Caribbean works together to prepare for these hurricanes, which, regrettably, are coming faster and heavier, with every hurricane getting bigger and worse.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The point about the increased frequency and severity of these extreme weather events is really important, particularly as we approach COP. I know that leaders in the Caribbean and elsewhere want to see UK leadership continue to address that. We work alongside Governments across the Caribbean—and I have to say that Jamaica takes a lead in much of this—with CARIF and with the work that we are doing on finance, particularly on insurance, as I said earlier, making sure that countries are able to take out insurance. We have supported the payment of premiums and the negotiation of policies that will pay out very quickly, within weeks of an extreme weather event, so that there is no need to do all the usual assessment and all the rest, and so that when a weather event is triggered, that money gets to where it is needed as quickly as possible. I saw that in Grenada, where farmers were able to rebuild very quickly, within the season, to enable them to support themselves and continue with their livelihoods. These things are the consequence of long-term partnerships, and I thank my noble and learned friend for the work that she has done to make this possible over the years.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I was the Minister when Hurricanes Irma and Maria hit, and I am pleased with and support the Government’s response, particularly the military response, but I want to go to the medium and long term. I pay tribute to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, for the work she did in co-ordination with the Commonwealth. What co-ordination is there currently with the emergency response, CDEMA, across the region? Secondly, the previous Government set up the Caribbean infrastructure fund for the long-term development that is needed. That winds down in 2026, but it was set up exactly to help build the infrastructure that is needed across the Caribbean.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I compliment the work of CDEMA because it is crucial when these things happen to have a locally co-ordinated response. CDEMA understands the routes between islands, it understands the community, it has very strong connections and it knows how to get things done far more quickly than any multilateral international agency just showing up would, so I echo what the noble Lord says about that. We will continue to work with our partners internationally as this unfolds and we are able to assess exactly what is needed, but it is vital that the Government of Jamaica are in charge of this: they know what is needed and are able to hold the ring on this. They are more than capable of doing that, and we will work closely with them.
On the issue the noble Lord raised about the Caribbean fund, I am looking closely at the moment at our allocations for the next few years, very conscious of the impact that that resilience funding, as I think of it, has been able to achieve so far. That is one of the reasons why hopefully the infrastructure in the region will be able to withstand these events far better—maybe not completely, but better than it has been able to in the past. I will keep that in mind.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, overnight in Jamaica, hospitals have been destroyed and need medical supplies and temporary clinics now to treat existing patients and those injured by the hurricane. Thousands of homes have been flattened and residents are now sleeping in their cars. I had a call just this morning telling me this. Britain has close links with the people of Jamaica, who in the past came to help rebuild Britain during the Windrush era. Britain called and they came, so will the Government react with urgency and send not only financial aid, food and medical supplies but vital building materials, resources and construction personnel who can help rebuild the homes and hospitals that are so desperately needed now?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness puts it incredibly powerfully, as I would expect her to. It really matters that people in Jamaica are not expected to live in the hardship that she describes for any longer than is necessary. Of course, we will stand with the Government of Jamaica as they respond initially, but also as they then look at what they need to do to rebuild and reconstruct. As I say, it is really important that the Government of Jamaica lead this. I know they will do a good job, and we will work alongside them to make sure that they are able to get what they need when they need it, and that the island can be rebuilt into the amazing place we all love.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:17 - Division on Amendment 130 - Ayes: 260 / Noes: 141 - Amendment 130 agreed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we return to the substantive consideration of Part 3 of the Bill and the nature restoration fund, with this first grouping considering amendments that relate to the underlying requirements of an environmental delivery plan.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the purpose of Part 3, we know that the status quo is not working. Environmental assessments and case-by-case negotiations of mitigation and compensation measures often slow down the delivery of much-needed housing and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the condition of our most important habitats and species has declined over a sustained period. By taking a more strategic approach to the restoration of protected sites and species, we can deliver improved environmental outcomes while reducing planning delays for the housing and infrastructure that our communities need.
The noble Lord asked me a question about the number of houses subject to nutrient neutrality that will be unlocked at Royal Assent. We are very clear that such environmental obligations can be discharged only where a robust and scrutinised EDP is in place. This is the right approach to ensure there is a credible plan that will deliver the better environmental outcomes that we need.
Amendment 130, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has captured the sympathy of some in this House who support the strategic approach of the NRF but are concerned about this approach being used where it is not appropriate. However, we have always been clear—and the legislation is explicit—that the Secretary of State can approve an EDP only where it is shown to materially outweigh the negative effect of development. This is not a throwaway judgment of a Secretary of State but must be a judgment based on an ecologically sound and robustly scrutinised EDP, with Natural England providing a statement as to whether they believe the EDP can meet this high bar. As the noble Baroness will know, the scientific basis of the evidence provided to the Secretary of State was clarified in a government amendment. A Secretary of State simply could not sign off an EDP that did not stack up—and if they ever did, then the Bill provides that such a decision could be challenged via a judicial review.
In capturing a range of environmental features that could be addressed through an EDP, the Government are not seeking to suggest that EDPs will come forward covering each of these features but simply that we should be able to bring forward EDPs where science supports the case and the evidence would allow the Secretary of State to approve the EDP in line with the overall improvement test. Where the science does not support it, an EDP could not be made, but to limit EDPs in the way the amendment suggests would be to close off the potential that EDPs offer to deliver more than the current system and help support the recovery of protected sites and species, rather than merely offsetting the impact of development.
I want also to respond to some of the noble Baroness’ questions. First, on the mitigation hierarchy, Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops EDPs. It is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. However, it is not always the case. The flexibility provided by the Bill will allow for those cases where, in Natural England’s expert judgment, the strict appliance of the mitigation hierarchy would lead to suboptimal outcomes, and only then, and where money could be spent far more effectively to achieve better outcomes for nature.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked me about process. EDPs will not require additional assessment. Natural England will carry out assessments and surveys, and developers will no longer have to do that for the features in the EDP.
My noble friend Lady Young asked about the European conventions. The Bill does not repeal any existing legislation and will not weaken the UK’s continued support for and implementation of any of our international commitments. We are committed to the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and its provisions which ensure that mutual high standards are protected. EDPs will ensure better environmental outcomes that go further than current legislation, which simply offsets harm. Money from the NRF is ring-fenced for nature under clauses in the Bill.
I am conscious that the NRF has not had the easiest genesis, but the Government have shown that they are listening, and the legislation demonstrates a real commitment to breaking from a status quo that has, at best, overseen the managed decline of our most valued protected sites and species. With this explanation, I hope the noble Baroness feels able not to move her amendment.
Amendment 201, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would provide the Secretary of State with broad powers to manage the effects of nutrients in water. This draws on the amendments tabled by the previous Government during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which were rightly defeated by this House.
While we share the noble Lord’s desire to address nutrient neutrality, we cannot simply rely on broad powers and the promise of action. The nature restoration fund creates a clear path to addressing this issue based on credible evidence, a robust and tested EDP and the legal guarantee that funding will be secured to ensure that conservation measures deliver environmental improvement. Granting the Secretary of State such a broad Henry VIII power would raise not only questions but serious risks as to how such a power could be used.
Amendment 122, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP and require Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part to comply with such guidance. I recognise the importance of the matters the noble Lord raises, including in respect of agricultural businesses, food security and land that communities really value. The Secretary of State is already able to make guidance on any matter relevant to the making of an EDP, which would naturally include the important matters raised in the amendment.
On the issue of compulsory purchase raised by the amendment, as it is ultimately for the Secretary of State to make an EDP and to authorise Natural England’s use of compulsory purchase powers, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way the EDP has been drafted, they may simply choose not to make the EDP. Similarly, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way Natural England is proposing to exercise its compulsory purchase powers, they may simply choose not to authorise the exercise of the powers.
Amendment 129, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require EDPs to identify all environmental impacts from the development to which the EDP relates, on the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. As we have said throughout these sessions, EDPs are targeted plans to address specific impacts from development on identified environmental features. These are not a replacement for wider assessment or intervention but a way to allow specific impacts to be addressed through a more strategic approach. While Natural England will of course be alive to other impacts, the focus of the EDP must be on the specific impact, as it is only that impact and the associated environmental obligation that are being discharged through the EDP. We have been clear throughout that anything not covered by an EDP will be considered and addressed through the existing system. For that reason, it would simply add burden to an EDP to require Natural England to identify all impacts where the EDP itself is tasked with addressing only specific impacts.
Amendment 128, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require an EDP to identify all environmental impacts that may be expected as a result of the development to which an EDP relates. As I mentioned in Committee and have just repeated, EDPs are targeted plans, and the Government are clear that an EDP will modify existing obligations only for identified impacts and where the EDP itself can demonstrate how the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the specific environmental feature. Any impacts not addressed—
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am afraid that the Minister has failed to understand that the amendments I have proposed, following the debate in Committee, are directed towards only the environmental feature, and the negative effects associated with that environmental feature, which is the subject of the EDP. She is suggesting that I am widening it out to other features. I am not; the amendments address only that feature.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry if I misunderstood, but that may be due to confusion around the wording. It seemed that the amendment was trying to widen that out. As I said, any impact not addressed through the EDP is subject to a separate assessment. Therefore, it would not need to form part of the EDP itself.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I have left Clause 55(1)(a) where the Government left it, which means that we are concerned only with the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. Her entire argument against my amendments is around the proposition that I am trying to widen it out to other things; I am not. I am simply saying that, if there is a negative effect associated with the environmental feature derived from that development, it should be identified in the EDP.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The very nature of the EDP would do that anyway, because the action taken by the EDP must materially outweigh the impact of the development. If that is what the noble Lord is trying to say, I can confirm that that is the purpose of the EDP in the first place. I will continue now.
As set out in the Member’s explanatory statement, Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Markham,
“seeks to encourage debate on the proportionality of conservation measures included in an EDP”.
In doing so, the amendment proposes that EDPs should consider the monetary value of the plants or animals the conservation measures would support, to ensure that conservation measures are proportionate. As the noble Lord will be aware from the debates to date, EDPs will be required to materially outweigh the negative effects that development would have on a relevant environmental feature, be it a feature of a protected site or a protected species. That may include multiple plant species of varying abundance. Similarly for protected species, an EDP would address these impacts at an appropriate population scale.
The scale of conservation measures required will be determined by the scale of impact from the development, with the levy rate being set to ensure that sufficient measures are delivered to meet the overall improvement test. In setting the regulations that will govern the nature restoration levy, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the levy does not render development economically unviable, but the levy must be sufficient to deliver the necessary conservation measures in line with the overall improvement test. That will ensure that the levy is set at a rate that delivers for both nature and development, with developers in all but exceptional circumstances being able to choose whether to use an EDP or whether to address these impacts and secure the necessary measures themselves under the existing system. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Finally, Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require the preparation of a report by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the consolidation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as they relate to planning. I appreciate that the dual systems of the habitats regulations, which cover habitat sites and include the HRA process, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which covers SSSIs, can appear complex. However, in practice, there are integrated processes which address and manage this complexity. These processes are well understood by practitioners, and while the Government will always look for opportunities to improve processes, the amendment risks creating uncertainty that may delay development and presupposes that consolidation is necessary and desirable. At this time, we do not consider that such a report is necessary, but even if it were, it would be a legal rather than ecological exercise, which would fall outside the JNCC’s area of expertise. Given this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for the introduction of her Amendment 130 and to those who spoke so convincingly in her support. I also thank the Minister for her response to these amendments, particularly the clarifications around the issues addressed by Amendment 122.
As I feared, the Government remain intransigent on the big issues and so our mind remains resolved. Should the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, choose to move Amendment 130 to a vote, our Benches will be in support. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 122.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I cannot call Amendment 127 because it has already been replaced by Amendment 121H.
“(2A) An environmental impact identified in an EDP may only affect nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to limit the application of an EDP to issues where approaches at a strategic landscape scale will be effective.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, and I thank the Minister for her response. However, I did not find her arguments reassuring, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Roborough
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra would require Natural England and the Secretary of State to base their judgements in respect of an Environmental Delivery Plan on the best available scientific evidence.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 131 and my other amendments in this group. Amendments 131, 137, 151 and 152 seek reassurance that Natural England will use the best available evidence when developing and approving EDPs, and that that will be confirmed by the Secretary of State. The reason for these amendments is that this has not always been clearly the case. That in turn is evidenced by the revised heather burning regulations that we will be debating tomorrow.
Amendment 156 would require that Natural England report each year on the performance of each EDP in that year. The Minister did not reassure the House in Committee that the reporting requirements for the nature restoration fund or individual EDPs were satisfactory. I am sure that each EDP will be reporting its performance internally annually. Can the Minister confirm that and, if so, why is there a reluctance to share that with the public?
Amendment 157 seeks to require the impact on the local community and economy to be assessed and reported on. In some of the more remote parts of our country we have seen rewilding schemes and similar undertaken which have undermined local economies and created distrust within local communities. It is critically important that there is this level of engagement with local communities. Requiring that ensures that their views are taken fully into account.
I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance here. Amendment 174 makes a simple substitution of “must” for “may”. Why would Natural England not be required to publish these conservation measures? Do we really think it will publish if doing so is merely voluntary? I hope the Government have made progress in addressing these concerns since Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is absolutely pointless voting for this, because Natural England cannot do the job it has at the moment. Unless it is better resourced and has better structure, it is completely pointless giving it any more jobs. However, I stand here in the throes of two very strong emotions. I signed 38 Conservative amendments—I have never done anything like that before. I committed to something that I thought that the Conservatives were going to do, and they did not do it. They let us all down: they decided not to try to take out Part 3. That is shameful. If you are in opposition, why do you not oppose? What they have just done is playing politics. This is why politicians have such a bad reputation.
My second emotion is fury, which I normally mostly reserve for the Government. Part 3 absolutely stinks, and there should be no effort to get it through this House. It is a terrible piece of legislation. It completely ignores the fact that we need nature. We depend on nature, and the Labour Government are so eco-ignorant that they completely avoid the plot.
Going back to the Conservatives, they are not to be trusted. If they cannot oppose the Government when they know the Government are wrong, why on earth are they sitting here? Why are they bothering? There are some noble Lords on this side—I use the word “noble” advisedly—who, if I had moved Amendment 123, having cosigned it, would have supported me. I am very touched by that, and I thank them. However, we are allowing these amendments to go through. We are trying to improve them, but it is like putting lipstick on a lamppost. I am not going to say “pig”—I like pigs. It is like trying to tart up something that does not need it because it should be thrown out. I ask noble Lords not to vote for this and not to trust the Tories on any amendment they put forward from now on. They are playing politics. They are not trying to do their best for Britain: they are just thinking about themselves.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, that was great fun. I hope the noble Baroness feels better for her confession of how many Conservative amendments she signed. It is a surprise to us all, I am sure.
I take a slightly different view. I do not know why we did not vote on Amendment 123; I wish we had, because I certainly would have supported it. I support all these attempts to improve the Bill. Why? Because the Government say that we should follow the science. They make great play of the evidence that should be underpinning all these EDPs. The amendments in this group, essentially, are about providing proper evidence, and surely that is not controversial. The best evidence is frequently referred to and proper reporting is required. I cannot understand why anybody would be against any of that.
I agree that Part 3 is a disaster, but we are trying to improve it. I do not know about lipstick on a lamp-post: I think we are just trying to improve it a bit, given what we have been given. I support these amendments, for what they are worth, and I think that castigating the Opposition does not really help greatly. They are trying as hard as they can to improve this.
Lord Lansley (Con)
May I just say—not least to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that, as it happens, I support the view that it would be wrong to take out Part 3 at this stage? I say that for procedural reasons. If we took out Part 3, in effect, we would send it back to the other place without Part 3 in it and it would reinstate it. I fail to see at what point we would be able to do all the things that we have just been talking about and will go on to talk about, which is to revise Part 3 so that we can do our job, which is to take all the most harmful aspects of Part 3 out and put improvements in.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am so sorry—I do not know whether I am allowed to shout at the noble Lord again. What are they revising? Tell me what they are revising. They are not revising anything: they are intransigent. They refuse to listen, so why are we even trying?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying and I think Part 3 is so devastating, but I am not going to do a Second Reading speech, because I was pretty critical then. In respect of the amendments here, I particularly like Amendment 174. I also support the amendments on annual reporting.
On the best available scientific evidence, I think it is just worth considering this. I agree entirely that we have to have the scientific evidence, but one of the issues that Natural England has regularly been criticised for in terms of development is, for example, offshore wind farms. The Government are very clear they believe they are absolutely vital in terms of achieving net zero or, indeed, decarbonising electricity by 2030. It is the situation, however, that developers are then asked to do at least two seasons of what impact there will be on birds, and elements like that. One of the key reasons why so many projects get delayed is the extent of the evidence required in order to satisfy the decisions.
Having been a Secretary of State for Defra, and in charge of the R&D budget, I can assure noble Lords the House that every scientist will keep saying, “There’s a gap in the evidence” when they want more money. I am not complaining about that, but we need to make sure that we have appropriate evidence. We should not ignore the science, but to continue to try to say “the best available” means we could be here for a very long time. That may be the benefit that some people wish to achieve, but, while we definitely need proper scientific evidence, we have to balance what is ever going to be the best available.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, given what we said on Amendment 30, these Benches definitely support the principle that we should be basing decisions on the best available scientific evidence. In principle, we certainly support Amendment 131. It picks up on the point that was made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, and, indeed, at earlier stages by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that the best scientific evidence is not always just modelling: it is around actual evidence on the ground. We will move on later to amendments that talk about the necessity for the evidence base around the baseline that we have at the moment, and therefore, as I said, we support the idea in principle but we think, actually, that the framework for the consideration of that scientific evidence is actually as important.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 131, but before I do, I would like to address comments to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, because I am persuaded by the comments made by my noble friend Lord Lansley. We are not the elected House, the Government are entitled to bring their legislation through and I am persuaded that to have removed Part 3 entirely from the Bill would have emasculated it to the extent that it would have become mute.
I do think, however—and I only wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, had acknowledged this—that the thumping majority given to Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has meant that we have got the best of a bad job. Therefore, to suggest that the Conservatives and other Members of this House have somehow sat on their hands or perjured themselves or somehow maligned themselves is just not the way.
Turning to the substance of Amendment 130, of course we believe in the essential of having the best advice. I will not repeat the speech I gave in Committee, but noble Lords will remember that I was very exercised by the misleading way in which Natural England had wilfully misrepresented the science that it said supported its position but did not. Noble Lords will recall that it sent me a pamphlet with all sorts of scientific references at the bottom, which I read, and those scientific references totally refuted Natural England’s position.
All I will say on Amendment 131 is that getting the scientific evidence is one thing, but we have got to get the advice right as well. I feel there is a problem with this Bill, because it does not address the conflict of interest that Natural England is simultaneously the adviser, the regulator, the operator and the price setter. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said on the earlier group. If the Secretary of State is not persuaded, he is going to rely on advice given by Natural England, which in my view has not demonstrated that it meets the standard that you would expect.
I think the key thing is that we are about to place into statute an obvious conflict of interest between a regulator and an adviser. We should eliminate that by insisting on a separation of powers. We have a duty to avoid obvious conflicts of interest, but we are about to embed one in statute. I invite the Minister to reflect for a moment on whether it is right that Natural England is to be the judge, jury and executioner in its own court, and whether there might be some sort of device whereby the Secretary of State can take other advice into account rather than that of Natural England, because it is so conflicted and its track record is not good.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 131, 137, 151, 152, 156, 157 and 174, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, would add additional requirements to the preparation and reporting of EDPs. While the Government share the noble Lords’ desire to ensure that the EDP process is robust, I assure noble Lords that these matters are already captured through the drafting and are amplified by the Government’s amendments to Part 3. We have included an explicit provision requiring Natural England and the Secretary of State to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about evidence over time and some of the issues that occur—perhaps even conflicting evidence —but I hope that the best available scientific evidence, which is the phrase that is used here, will give the Secretary of State and Natural England the support they need to ensure that this is proportionate. It needs to be considered as the best available scientific evidence.
Regarding reporting, as well as the mid-point and end-point reports on each EDP, Natural England will publish annual reports across the NRF with a summary of its accounts, including setting out the total amount received in levy payments and the amount spent on conservation measures. This is on top of the individual monitoring that Natural England will put in place to monitor the delivery and impact of conservation measures. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on his points about Natural England.
In addition, these amendments would require Natural England to report on the impact of conservation measures on the local economy and the community. The Bill already requires public consultation that will provide the opportunity for people to raise such matters, which will be considered by the Secretary of State when making an EDP. While we share the noble Lord’s desire to support local communities, it would not be appropriate and would add a significant burden to require Natural England to report on how each conservation measure is affecting the local economy. The final limb of these amendments would make it mandatory for the levy regulations to cover various matters currently specified as those that the Secretary of State may cover. I assure noble Lords that this is unnecessary because, while we would not propose to mandate for them, we fully expect the Secretary of State to make provision in these areas. I hope that, with these explanations and assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to my amendments in this group. I must say I am not entirely happy, and I look forward to returning to this subject in later groups, particularly on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I understand entirely her sentiments and frustration, and I am most grateful that she signed my amendments. We on these Benches are committed to being a constructive Opposition and to working with the House in the most effective way possible to improve Part 3. Many of us object to this part of the Bill fervently in its current form, and we are looking for the best outcome for the country as a whole to release houses for building but at the same time to protect and enhance nature. The noble Baroness remains my friend, and I hope she will eventually forgive me. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent Natural England from including in an EDP network conservation measures where the affected site was not in England (or in English territorial waters or the English offshore region: see my amendment at page 92, line 31); in such a case, any conservation measures would have to benefit the affected site itself (but the conservation measures would have to be taken in England).
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
My Lords, we turn to a series of government amendments that ensure that the NRF properly manages any potential cross-border effects and operates as intended in relation to Ramsar sites, as well as in the marine context.
On our cross-border related amendments, I assure noble Lords that, while numerous, these are technical amendments that reflect our discussions with the devolved Administrations to address circumstances where an environmental feature of an EDP may relate to a protected site that is in Scotland or Wales.
I shall draw out the key amendments. Government Amendment 133 ensures that, where an EDP relates to a protected site that is not wholly in England, an EDP may not use network measures to address these impacts.
Government Amendment 136 simply defines “England” for the purpose of this clause as including its marine context. This is in line with the devolution settlements, as it would not be appropriate for a plan developed to address the impact of development in England to allow for potential impact on a site in Scotland or Wales, even where that would lead to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature.
In line with that close working and co-ordination, government Amendment 145 will require Natural England to seek the advice of the Natural Resource Body for Wales, whose operating name is Natural Resources Wales, and Scottish Natural Heritage, whose operating name is NatureScot, as well as the relevant devolved Ministers where the environmental feature in a draft EDP relates to a protected site in Wales or Scotland respectively. Government Amendment 149 specifies that for these purposes “Wales and Scotland” encompasses the territorial waters adjacent to Wales and Scotland, as is the case in respect of England in Part 3.
Ramsar sites are internationally significant wetlands that play a vital role in promoting biodiversity and climate resilience. Through the Bill, we are putting Ramsar protections on a legislative footing to ensure that the nature restoration fund can be used to address the negative effects of development on Ramsar sites. This will allow development to come forward more quickly, while securing better outcomes for nature, making building quicker and simpler. To date, these sites have been subject to the HRA process in the same way as habitat sites as a matter of policy, so in the vast majority of cases there will be very little change to how the HRA process is applied to these sites. However, these changes will place the existing policy protections for Ramsar sites on a statutory footing, providing clarity for developers where Ramsar and habitat sites overlap and where assessment requirements may otherwise diverge, as well as ensuring that we continue to meet our international obligations under the Ramsar Convention. These government amendments ensure that the nature restoration fund can operate as intended for Ramsar sites.
Previously, the Bill referred to Ramsar sites in England, which would have meant that, when assessing a plan or project in England, a competent authority would not have been subject to a statutory requirement to consider possible impacts on Ramsar sites in Wales and Scotland. That would have placed new obligations on competent authorities in Wales, which was not our policy intention. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is a helpful step forward in firming up the protections for our most precious wetlands.
Government Amendment 231 is technical in nature and has been drafted to ensure that the Bill is fully operable within the marine context. With marine conservation zones now treated as protected sites for the purposes of Part 3, it is necessary to make limited exceptions to certain provisions in the Marine and Coastal Access Act that are intended to restrict activities impacting these areas. This will, for example, ensure that Natural England can carry out conservation measures benefiting these important marine sites without risk of breaching existing legislative requirements. This will apply only to Natural England and other public authorities carrying out functions relating to the nature restoration fund in the marine context.
Finally, government Amendment 255 is a minor drafting correction to ensure the extent provisions reflect amendments made to Clause 46 in Committee. This amendment removes a stray reference to provisions of that clause which were left out in Committee. I therefore hope the House agrees to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
First, I would like to associate these Benches with the best wishes sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I hope she is better soon. One or two of us spotted her attempting to struggle in this morning. The Minister here has had to take up a whole raft of amendments on which she was not expecting to lead at the start of today. We thank her for picking this up.
This is a comprehensive suite of technical amendments, and we are wrapping our heads around it. As firm federalists, we obviously welcome the consultation across borders, particularly in Amendments 145 and 133, mandating specific consultation requirements on Natural England. Proper cross-border consultations are the baseline requirement for sensible environmental policy. We will watch with some care with regard to marine and coastal access. The required removal of existing environmental checks suggests to us that the EDP framework risks some kind of weakening of protection.
We welcome the suite of amendments to Schedule 6 to explicitly amend the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to treat Ramsar sites more like European sites, requiring an appropriate assessment for plans or projects situated wholly in England that are likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site. Extending statutory protections to these internationally important wetlands is a move towards a more robust nature safeguard. On the whole, we welcome this suite of amendments, but there are one or two that we will watch.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I too wish the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, a speedy recovery. We both endure long journeys on the west coast main line with Avanti, and that is enough to make any of us ill on any occasion.
As we have said throughout the passage of this Bill, Governments should not, as a rule, introduce amendments to their own legislation that are not in response to scrutiny of the Bill. We have been disappointed by the Government’s approach to this Bill and, as many noble Lords have said, there is a reason for our procedures in this House. Amendments should be debated in Committee, wherever possible, before the House is asked to make a decision on them on Report.
The amendments in this group mostly relate to circumstances touching on the devolved regions of the UK. We understand that these changes have been discussed with the devolved authorities and are content with them. The only area where we have particular concern is the government amendments in respect of protections for Ramsar sites. My noble friend set out the Official Opposition’s view in an earlier group, so I will briefly say that we do not think the Government are right to introduce Clause 90 and Schedule 6 through this Bill, as they will effectively block new homes rather than unlocking development.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, one of the amendments—which I now cannot find the number of—substitutes all Ramsar sites with “certain Ramsar sites”. Can the Minister clarify why certain Ramsar sites are being excluded whereas before all Ramsar sites were within the scope of the Bill?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I hope I can respond to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
The Government’s approach to placing Ramsar sites on a statutory footing has been welcomed by environmental groups as a pragmatic step to align protections across sites of international importance. Noble Lords will be aware of a recent Supreme Court judgment and some may wish to oppose this and continue with the existing approach of protecting Ramsar sites through policy. I know there has been an attempt by some to cast the Government as blocking development, but the reality is that no new planning applications will be affected by placing Ramsar sites on a statutory footing. Any outline or full planning permissions that have come forward since the imposition of nutrient neutrality in 2020 will have had to consider the impact of Ramsar sites from the outset, so for most developers this will actually be an advantage.
It also means that they can use an EDP to discharge obligations relating to Ramsar sites, which they could not without putting them on a statutory footing. We continue to support development that faces challenges in meeting the obligations. I highlight that the Government have invested £110 million to support local authorities to deliver local nutrient mitigation schemes, to allow housing to come forward in areas affected by nutrient neutrality. The NRF is an evolution of this support and will deliver on the Government’s manifesto pledge to address nutrient neutrality in a way that supports development, while driving the recovery of these internationally important wetland sites.
I am sorry, I have realised I have not answered the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I will reply to her in writing on that, if that is okay.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful. Just for clarification, I now have the amendment in front of me. It is actually Amendment 210, which says
“leave out ‘Ramsar sites in England’ and insert ‘certain Ramsar sites’”.
What is worrying is that it goes on to say that to better understand the amendment we should look at the explanatory statement of the Government’s amendment to page 180—of the Bill? There is no page 180 of the amendments, so it is difficult to know which page 180 it refers to.
Lord Fuller
“(8A) Any conservation measures provided by a landholding within the scope of an EDP must be legally secured by an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”Member’s explanatory statement
These changes are proposed as a means to ensure the deliverability of conservation measures provided by an EDP and to provide a stronger enforceability route than alternatives like a HM Land Registry Charge, which does not have the same level of legal enforceability.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 134 seeks to ensure that the conservation measures envisaged by the Bill are actually delivered for the liability period. The premise of the Bill is that, for the EDPs, a sum of money is paid for a government-endorsed plan, which will last for 10 years on the understanding that compensatory conservation measures will be provided elsewhere. The problem is that on one hand the EDP lasts for 10 years, but on the other hand the obligations are for conservation measures to last for 30 years in the case of biodiversity net gain and 80 years in the case of nutrient neutrality. There is a clear disconnect here, and that undermines the value and enforceability unless it is cleared up, and the Bill should do that.
Let us say you are a developer. Let us say you are prepared to palm off your obligations to address nutrient neutrality to a provider. Let us say you pay Natural England or its affiliates a fee to assume those liabilities in your place for 80 years—the perpetuity period. That money you pay has to last for the practical delivery of the conservation measures for that entire period. It is quite an onerous commitment. Each year, the grass may need to be cut, ditches dredged, fences mended, and sampling and monitoring undertaken. What happens for the 70 years that follow the initial 10-year period, from years 11 to 80, after the EDP expires? I would have expected the Bill to have some hints, but it does not.
Moving on, how might those liabilities be valued? Without value nothing can be delivered. This is an actuarial problem. Obviously, the value will depend on the annual cost of providing the measures over 80 years, in the case of nutrient neutrality, discounted back to present value—and that price will partly depend on the opportunity cost of the money for the period linked to the long-term gilt rate. Any one-off set-up charges might include inspection fees and renewal fees, and the more frequent they are, the more expensive they will be. The valuation is important, because unless there is sufficiency, there can be no guarantees that the conservation measures a developer has purchased will actually be delivered. On all this, the Bill is silent.
Pricing aside, I spoke in Committee about the enforceability of the conservation measures contemplated by the EDP that the housebuilder has purchased. So I now want to focus on those who will deliver the conservation measures which have been paid for, and the enforceability of those measures. This is not something that can be left to Natural England to make up as it goes along, as it has done so far—working at a snail’s pace, chopping and changing as it goes. That is no way to address a generational requirement. It needs to be on the face of the Bill: any measures need to be secured for as long as it takes, in a structure that transcends the normal lifespan of a company or partnership.
Of course, there are ways of recognising these legal obligations, either in contract or by a charge or covenant at the Land Registry. All these are enforceable, but Land Registry claims in particular require the lottery of a court or tribunal case. I ask: who is going to be bothered in 75 years, in 2100, to litigate in court a fag-end of five years of a nutrient neutrality deal that may get off the ground next spring or, for that matter, in 25 years—that is, if the operator has not run out of money and gone bust in the meantime? It is important that the obligations to deliver these measures are recorded in a form that can go the distance and be enforced without the uncertainty of litigation.
Lord Lansley (Con)
If I may, I anticipate my noble friend Lord Roborough speaking to his Amendments 166 and 167. Before he does so, however, without reiterating the exchange that the Minister and I had about the way in which Clause 55(1)(a) and (b) should be used, by putting into Schedule 4 that the environmental impacts must be those identified in an environmental delivery plan, my noble friend deals with what would otherwise be a potentially serious problem. The Bill continues in Clause 55 to allow for the possibility of environmental impacts resulting from a development having a “negative effect” on a protected feature, but which are not to be included and identified in the EDP. My noble friend, in his Amendments 166 and 167, would rectify exactly that problem.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for moving his amendment in this group.
These amendments would make technical changes to how EDPs work practically. My Amendments 166 and 167 would ensure that only impacts addressed by the EDP may be disregarded for the purposes of the habitats regulations. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Lansley and am very grateful for his comments. We think that this is in line with the Government’s plans and seek to be constructive with these amendments. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not willing to accept these constructive and specific amendments?
Amendment 134 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller also seeks to strengthen the Government’s measures. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply.
Finally, my Amendment 135 is another that seeks clarity in the Bill. We are disappointed that the Government have not seen the merit of our case and would have preferred to see this clearly set out in law. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Fuller on his questions and comments about the timing of EDPs and how they can be effective within the specified 10-year period. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 134 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which would require conservation measures delivered by a landholding to be secured solely through Section 106 agreements.
The noble Lord’s stated intention is to ensure that conservation measures are secured through a sufficiently enforceable mechanism. While we fully agree with the noble Lord that we need sufficient certainty to ensure that conservation measures are delivered, I hope to reassure him that his amendment is not necessary.
The NRF represents a shift towards a more strategic approach to dealing with the environmental impacts of development. Once an EDP is made, it will be for Natural England to secure the necessary conservation measures and ensure that they are in place, monitored and effective.
Some conservation measures may require Natural England to acquire land, but, where it does so, requiring it unilaterally to enter a Section 106 planning obligation would be inappropriate. Foremost, this would be an odd use of Section 106. Many conservation measures, such as in relation to wetlands, will not require planning permission. It is therefore unlikely that a Section 106 agreement between Natural England and the local planning authority would be needed.
What this amendment suggests is required is more likely to be a species of unilateral undertaking by Natural England—one that would unnecessarily restrict its latitude to deliver conservation measures flexibly. It would reduce the scope for Natural England to modify its approach where doing so would be within what the EDP approved and deliver more effectively for the environmental feature. Similarly, it could stop land being used for overlapping purposes.
Ultimately, it will be important that Natural England can implement whichever conservation measures it considers most effective while still being bound by the need for the measures to be sufficient to meet the overall improvement test—which this approach puts the focus on. In recognising the shift in approach under this model, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 135, which was previously tabled in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, relates to the use of planning conditions as conservation measures. In previous debates, I have been clear on the importance of planning conditions to ensure that developers take appropriate action to avoid impact in advance of other conservation measures being delivered. These conditions will form part of the draft EDP and be consulted on, which will ensure that developers are fully aware of any conditions that may be imposed if they choose to utilise an EDP.
I also re-emphasise that the Bill will allow Natural England to request that a condition be imposed only on a development coming under an EDP. The Bill simply will not allow Natural England to request planning conditions to be imposed on any development other than where that development wishes to rely on an EDP.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 166 and 167, also tabled by the Lord, Lord Roborough. These amendments were also considered in Committee, but I am very happy to further clarify our position. The amendments would amend Schedule 4, which sets out the effects that an EDP has on underlying environmental obligations, establishing that, where a developer has committed to pay the levy, the relevant obligation is suitably discharged.
“Environmental impact” is defined within the Bill as
“one or more ways in which
the negative effect
“is likely to be caused by the development”.
Therefore, the effect of Schedule 4 is already limited to those impacts. If a development has multiple environmental impacts but only one is covered by the EDP, those other impacts are not affected by Schedule 4 and must still be assessed through the existing system. That is to ensure that all impacts are considered and features sufficiently protected, while allowing a more strategic approach where it is appropriate. I trust that this provides noble Lords with sufficient reassurance, and that they will not press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
If “environmental impact” in Clause 55 embraces all the ways in which a development might impact negatively on an environmental feature, why does the clause go on to say:
“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”?
By definition, that means that there may be environmental impacts that are not identified in the EDP but which, under Schedule 4, may come to be disregarded for habitats purposes.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry, I thought that I had clarified that matter. If only one impact is covered by an EDP, the others are not affected by Schedule 4 and have to be assessed through the existing system. That is to ensure that all impacts are considered and that features are sufficiently protected while allowing the EDP to cover a more strategic approach.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I apologise; I shall not intervene again. Schedule 4 says that the environmental impacts can be disregarded, but the Minister is telling us that the environmental impacts identified in the EDP can be disregarded. We agree, and that is what my noble friend is seeking to introduce into the Bill.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall not press this amendment to a vote—we have a lot of business to do—but I am not convinced that the noble Baroness and, inter alia, Natural England as the advisers, have really understood the importance of getting this contractualised, of the enforceability and of considering what might happen not just this year or next but in 80 years and in the intervening period, given the changes of ownership, succession, bankruptcy, sale—who knows? Section 106 may not be perfect, and I accept the noble Baroness’s point about the unilateral undertaking —we are on Report and not at Third Reading. However, I think we should come back to this at Third Reading rather than just leaving it to Natural England.
I have been involved in this space for three and a half years as a person with significant interest in Norfolk Environmental Credits Ltd, the company established by all the planning authorities in Norfolk. We have had to dig deep, take the best advice and try to game all the scenarios to ensure that, ultimately, the promises made by those delivering these conservation measures can and will be delivered for the entirety of the period. The Bill is deficient because it does not seek and frame that enforceability.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
The noble Lord said at the beginning that he would not be pressing the amendment to a vote, so that should be sufficient, without needing to rehearse the debate yet again.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and shall wind up. The noble Baroness and I have a meeting next week, when I hope that we can develop this point further to see whether the Government may somehow address these concerns at Third Reading. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“England” includes—(a) the waters adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea, and(b) the English offshore region;“English offshore region” has the same meaning as in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 322(1) of that Act);”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 92, line 9.
Lord Roborough
“(12) Where an environmental delivery plan identifies environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected by any invasive non-native species that is present at the site of the development, Natural England, or a body acting on behalf of Natural England, must take all reasonable steps to eradicate the invasive non-native species that has been identified at the site.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to protect all environmental features identified as at risk by invasive non-native species.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I raised amendments around the control of non-native invasive species in Committee. While the Government were encouragingly resolute in their policy of controlling invasive non-native species, I did not receive any reassurance that this might form any part of an environmental delivery plan. I reluctantly accept that requiring Natural England to remove these from any EDP within five years is a herculean task and likely impractical. Therefore, I have brought back a more targeted and realistic amendment on Report which I believe to be a perfectly reasonable request of an EDP—simply that where environmental features are likely to be negatively impacted by a non-native invasive species present at the site of a development, Natural England should be responsible for taking all reasonable steps to eradicate it.
I am sure that my amendment could be better drafted, and I am happy to hear from the Government whether they have a better suggestion. However, we on these Benches believe that not enough is being done to combat the spread of these invaders at the expense of our own flora and fauna.
In Committee, we discussed the rampaging grey squirrels and muntjac and the scourges of Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed. There are so many more that I could mention. These flora and fauna displace our own native species and can also pass on diseases such as squirrel pox, which has had such a devastating impact on our own red squirrels. Would the Minister be prepared to go further, perhaps in guidance around the formation of EDPs, to ensure that those threats are dealt with?
I very much look forward to the introduction of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith’s amendment on swift bricks for a noble native species that deserves our help. I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his guidance on this amendment in recent weeks. I shall speak in support of Amendment 245 and be brief, because I do not have to dwell on arguments that have been made repeatedly in both Houses and which are fundamentally very simple, as is the mechanism itself that is being pushed via this amendment.
I shall briefly recap on why this matters so much. As everyone knows, we are in the midst of a rapid and terrifying decline in the populations of all cavity-nesting birds, in particular the iconic swift. We know, because it is obvious, that a big part of why that is happening is that we are actively removing their homes. The way we build today means that things do not work in the same way: we do not have cavities, and there is no room for species that depend on the nooks and crannies that older buildings have. Even worse for those species, we are seeing the massive rollout of measures making life even more difficult—hopeless, in fact—for those cavity-nesting birds. I do not argue with the measures; I am a supporter of the Great British Insulation Scheme, which is a great thing. But with millions of older homes —around 50 million so far, I believe—being retrofitted and insulated, and cavities being sealed off, it is no wonder that four of our eight cavity-nesting bird species are now on the dreaded red list of critically endangered species.
Luckily, unlike with most of the problems we end up debating in this place, there is a very simple solution. The average two-bedroom brick house, according to Chat GPT—I have just asked it—uses around 20,000 red bricks. This amendment would simply require that one of those bricks has a hole in it. That single brick would cost around £20, would require zero expertise to install and no maintenance at all—and it works. Wherever these bricks have been installed, they attract swifts or similar birds. It is Gibraltar mandated, where legislation was passed 15 or 20 years ago that is very similar to the amendment we are proposing, and the swift population there, having been in steep decline, is now stable.
In previous debates that we have had on this issue, it was suggested that it should be a voluntary measure, but the numbers are obvious. Voluntary measures are great, and normally I would support them, but they have not worked in this case—and I do not think the numbers can be disputed. This needs to be included in building regulations. The good news is that swift bricks already qualify for inclusion, thanks to the swift brick British Standard, which includes all the possible and obvious exemptions.
Finally, I do not believe that any developer could or would make, or has ever made, the case that a measure like this would in any way hamper their work or deform the pricing of the houses they have on offer, as the numbers are just so small. The truth is that this does not even qualify as a nuisance for builders or developers. That is what all of us interested in this issue have been hearing from the developers themselves. For the swifts and their cousins this is critical and non-negotiable; without these bricks, they have no future in the United Kingdom.
I hope the Government will simply accept this measure. I remind them again that, in opposition, they were 100% supportive. They were wildly enthusiastic about my previous amendment—very vocally so—and in the opening months, at least, of this Government that enthusiasm absolutely remained in place. I felt that we were over the line; sadly not. But if even this tiny, nature-friendly measure is deemed nevertheless to be a step too far, then I really hope that noble Lords will join me in pushing it over the line via a Division when the time comes.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, this is Report, so I will indeed be brief. Yes, the case is well made for cavity-nesting bird bricks, and I shall just speak briefly to Amendment 138. Those who heard me in Committee will remember that I gave a bit of a treatise on ragwort. I have had endless Members come up to me and thank me for the learning they acquired; I have had only one offer to come and help me pull it out, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for that, in his absence.
It is not the non-native aspect that gives me a hard time. As I pointed out, roses and apples are non-natives; both come from central Asia. It is the invasive nature that is the problem, and I would love to see these EDPs and all the other acronyms have an element of responsibility for dealing with invasive and injurious weeds—injurious is the word in law—because under a lot of the current environmental schemes, you have a margin along a field which is entirely yellow with ragwort and is of very little environmental value, unless you happen to be a cinnabar moth.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to speak against Amendment 245. In so doing, I emphasise that I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his superb work as Environment Minister in your Lordships’ House, as well as respect for the other signatories to this amendment. My opposition may be surprising if your Lordships recognise that I am an emeritus professor at the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology at Oxford University —which is arguably the world’s leading ornithological research institute—as well as being a life member of the RSPB. So why am I against swift boxes? I am absolutely in favour of measures to halt the decline in swifts and in other species I will come to in a moment; my objection to this amendment is that it simply will not work.
The amendment refers to fitting swift bricks on houses or buildings over five metres tall. Let me describe the basis on which I suggest that this will not work. The Edward Grey Institute is home to the longest-running study of swift populations anywhere in the world: it has been running for 78 years. The first thing to say about this long-running study is that the swifts nest in the tower of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, which is not five metres tall but 58 metres tall. I will explain why that is important in a moment. I do not want noble Lords to think that this is my opinion alone. I consulted my colleague, Professor Christopher Perrins, who ran the swift study for many years and is a former director of the Edward Grey Institute. What he points out, and I agree, is that swifts are very specialised aerial feeders and flyers. They are superb flyers, and one consequence of their specialisation for flight is that in order to get into their nest, they need a very long, exposed flight path: like a jumbo jet landing at an airport, they need a long entry point. Equally important, when they leave the nest, they need a very large drop space in order to come out of the nest, drop and start flapping their wings to take off. That is why, when nesting in the tower of the university museum at Oxford, which is 58 metres tall, the swifts prefer to nest at the very top. Even boxes that are 15 or 20 metres from the top are not used by the swifts; only the ones at the very top.
This is a very well-intentioned idea, and I am all in favour of measures that will help reverse the decline in swift populations, but I do not think this is the right one. So what is the cause of the decline in swift populations in this country? We have to look at the fact that it is not just swifts, but other bird species that are aerial insect feeders: house martins, sand martins and swallows are all in steep decline. They all have very different nesting requirements. The swift is the only one that nests in a hole, as the swift brick amendment would suggest, or under eaves.
The real cause of the decline of these bird species is the decline in aerial insect populations. We all know, and it is an oft-repeated fact, that in the good old days when even I was young, if you drove down a country lane at night, your windscreen would be spattered with insect corpses. Now you drive down a country lane at night and your windscreen is completely clear. Yes, we should tackle the problem of declining aerial insectivores —swifts, house martins, sand martins and swallows—and declining insects, but swift boxes are really a bit player in this whole question. Although I support the intention of the amendment, I do not think it would deliver what is claimed and therefore, reluctantly, I do not support it.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I am a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I listened to what he said. I remember reading a book probably by one of his predecessors at Oxford, Swifts in a Tower by David Lack, which was a very interesting and useful piece of work. I understand exactly what the noble Lord is saying. There is not a simple answer; there is the matter of insects—it is not just the hirundines and swifts that we are talking about.
Swift bricks are well-intentioned things and, of course, would not be just for swifts. There are some other cavity nesting birds including house sparrows, which may not seem as exciting to people as swifts. They are in decline; I do not see many at all around in Uxbridge now.
As my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said, the Government seem to have done a reverse ferret or had a damascene conversion in reverse, but I am still hoping there may be another one. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has raised the point that we should be looking at all sorts of measures, and there may be an opportunity for the Government to look at higher buildings—perhaps not residential ones, but when new schools or hospitals are being built they could put in swift bricks; they can even be put under the tiles, I believe. I hope that by the time this amendment comes to a Division, if it does, or at Third Reading, there may be some thoughts about how we make this better. I think the Government would genuinely like to do it, but there are various things getting in the way. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has given them a perfect excuse, so I will take him aside and sort him out.
My noble friend Lord Goldsmith and many other noble friends and noble Lords have expressed their desire for something to be done, and this seems like a good way forward. It is something for us to digest.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I do not think anybody in this House does not want to achieve the objectives of this amendment and, indeed, others. We have to be realistic that our populations of native birds, and other flora and fauna, have been dropping for a long time. We, collectively, are partly responsible for this, because our involvement in land use and urbanisation naturally clashes with the requirements of birds such as swifts.
Without attempting to challenge in any way whatever the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, with his experience and background, nevertheless I feel that even if the swift population is not necessarily going to be dramatically affected or have its chances improved by this measure, other birds might find that they would be beneficiaries. I cannot see a downside to the proposal and, on balance, it is worth pursuing the amendment because if it does not affect swifts in some particular areas—their behaviour may obviously vary from one place to another —other birds would benefit.
It is surprising how many people are interested in this. In my own region, the Antrim area, a significant number of people are part of a swift group trying to help the native species recover. We should encourage that. I see no downside to the measure and I support it, albeit we have to accept the fact that no silver bullet will effect any one of these things; there is a combination of things. Their food source, insects, being fewer and farther between is always the biggest challenge for any native animal. But there is enough in this proposal to make it worth while, and I support it. I hope the House will do so.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park. It is a difficult thing to do in the wake of the very learned speech by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, but there are sometimes occasions when things do not work in theory but work in practice. In Gibraltar, where a similar measure has been introduced, the population of swifts has stabilised, as I understand it. In the Duchy of Cornwall estate, where this requirement is made of builders, the occupancy rate of the cavities created by the swift bricks is 97%, not in every case by swifts but by other cavity nesting birds.
While I perfectly accept that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, may be right—possibly there is something in the atmosphere in Oxford, I do not know—at the cost of the measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, it is worth an experiment and going ahead and making this requirement. I do not think it will happen, despite the good will of the builders, unless it is passed into law.
I am always against new and excessive regulation, but there are good and bad regulations. Good regulations impose a very small burden on economic actors and have a direct outcome that is intimately and obviously related to the regulatory measure. Of course, bad regulations tend to impose very high burdens and produce all sorts of unintended consequences. Granted, this measure may not produce the intended consequence to the full degree hoped for, but it is very hard to see what poor unintended consequences it could have, and the cost of introducing it would be very small.
Think, for those houses where it works, of the sheer joy of the children of those households in being able to look out of the window and see swifts not only nesting but flying to and fro, maybe even catching those insects in full sight of their bedrooms. It is a very pleasing thought. We should all support this, rally round and make the leap of faith that may be required but is fully justified in this case.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I did say not to trust any more amendments from this side, but this is one I will vote for if the noble Lord puts it to the House. It is worth repeating that there is no downside. Secondly, there are eight species that use these swift bricks, four of which are red-listed. So this is a much bigger issue than swifts—sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. It is for our native birds, and we should keep that in mind when we vote.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 138 tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough. Non-native invasive species are one of the top five pressures on biodiversity. It is extraordinary that despite there being a variety of government strategies under way, there is still, frankly, a lack of stuff really getting done. It is vital that as and when—or if—these EDPs get created, this must be tackled.
I recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, speak to the Senior Deputy Speaker. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, when he was a Defra Minister, was obsessed by biosecurity and tackling these invasive species. He used to pull up not the Japanese one but the balsam stuff—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
So apparently he is a dab hand at that.
I co-signed one of the amendments, tabled by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith. I will certainly push for us to test the opinion of the House on that amendment on Monday night. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, but there is a risk of letting perfect be the enemy of good. There is no doubt that the lack of insects is a key factor in what is happening with habitats, but so is the lack of a place where the swifts can land and thrive. As has been pointed out, other species are also affected.
When I was at Defra, there was always a row with MHCLG about this. MHCLG regularly complained—obfuscated, frankly—about how an extra £20 to £30 would absolutely wipe out the housebuilding industry. Honestly, that is complete nonsense. Steve Reed supported swift bricks when he was the Environment Secretary; now that he is the Housing Secretary, I hope he can persuade the Treasury that it is okay to have swift bricks as standard, and I am sure that there are many other measures that people would like. This is simple and straightforward; let us save our swifts.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for tabling Amendment 138. I will be extremely brief and I will explain why in a second. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. We all need to be extremely mindful of invasive non-native species and the pressures they put on our beautiful, natural countryside.
Moving on swiftly—no joke intended—we support Amendment 245, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Amendments on swift bricks are a bit like buses: you wait ages and then two come along. We have another amendment in the next group. I am almost excited now in anticipation of the critique of Amendment 140 from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
We will develop our arguments on swift bricks, plus other measures, in the next set of amendments. As a slight precursor to that, I will say that we believe that the right way of doing things is to have a level playing field with developers and ensuring that everyone is asked to put in swift bricks. They cost 30 quid per brick, as I understand it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has already said, this is not going to break the bank of any developers, especially with their net profits. We will support this amendment if it moves to a vote, but we are also very keen to get to the next group. I apologise to the House that we did not manage to get these two sets of amendments in the same group, which would have been much more sensible.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for Amendment 138, which seeks to protect the environmental features of environmental delivery plans that are identified as being at risk from invasive non-native species. As he said, we have had some very interesting discussions in meetings outside the Chamber about the various non-native species that plague our lives.
As we outlined in Committee, the Government recognise the negative impacts of invasive non-native species on our native species and ecosystems, and we are committed to taking action. We are already delivering the GB invasive non-native species strategy and have established the GB Non-native Species Inspectorate, as well as recently consulting on five pathway action plans that would target action at key pathways through which invasive non-native species can be introduced and spread.
While I appreciate the noble Lord’s intentions in tabling this amendment, we do not believe that it is necessary or feasible. The NRF already allows invasive non-native species control as a conservation measure, where it would be relevant to the environmental feature concerned and would support the delivery of the overall improvement necessary under the EDP. However, control may not always be the best option: other conservation measures may represent better value for money, have greater environmental impact and be more appropriate, in line with the need to secure the overall improvement by the EDP end date.
The amendment would introduce a free-standing requirement to take action to eradicate invasive non-native species from a development site, even where this is not linked to the impact from development covered by the EDP. This would require developers to pay to address an issue unrelated to their development. Mandating action in this way could delay an EDP’s preparation and delivery, increase costs and inadvertently limit the ability to secure the best environmental outcomes. On that basis, it is more appropriate that control remains a potential conservation measure under EDPs, to be used at Natural England’s discretion where it represents the best option. With this explanation, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
On Amendment 245, the Government are committed to driving nature’s recovery while delivering the homes and infrastructure we desperately need. We recognise the dramatic decline of the much-loved swift and of other nesting birds, and I have had many discussions on this subject with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. We are committed to supporting the rollout of swift bricks alongside new development. The only distinction between our position and the amendment before us is in the mechanism by which we seek to increase the use of this wildlife-friendly feature.
Incidentally, I had a meeting this week with Adam Jogee MP, who has a huge brick manufacturing plant in his constituency. I asked him whether he would speak to the people in that company to persuade them to produce swift bricks as well—so I am still on the case.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his contribution on this topic and for setting out why he considers that swift bricks are an exceptional measure. We know that mandating swift bricks through building regulations is an issue of long-standing interest. I have debated it many times in this House. As we have laid out before, building regulations in the UK are designed to safeguard the health, safety and well-being of individuals in and around buildings. They were not designed to apply to the protection of wildlife, and expanding their scope to include interventions such as swift bricks would mark a significant shift in regulatory intent. This risks a number of unintended consequences, including diluting the purpose of the current regime, establishing overlapping policies and adding administrative pressure to a system that is already undergoing significant reform.
Furthermore, the process of updating building regulations is highly technical and complex. Introducing requirements that fall outside the current remit could slow down essential updates, divert resources, place additional burdens on registered building control approvers, complicate existing inspection, sanction and enforcement procedures, and fundamentally undermine the credibility of the system. We strongly believe that planning policy is the best way forward. The Government remain committed to consulting on a new requirement for swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings as part of our consultation on national planning policy, which we intend to launch this year.
I am very grateful for the fascinating intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, because he helped emphasise that there are wider issues to be considered here. I hope that, by consulting on this national planning policy, we will be able to get the best outcome for nature as part of the planning policy that we set out.
In June, we published updated planning practice guidance, which set out expectations for the use of these features and signposted to further resources, including the relevant British industry standard. These measures are further to the new policy we introduced last December, which explicitly stated that development proposals should enhance the natural environment
“by incorporating features which support priority or threatened species such as swifts”.
We expect these policies to be adhered to and enforced, with the rest of planning policy that we have addressed previously, as a material consideration in planning decisions. Local planning authorities possess a range of powers to ensure that the terms of planning permissions are complied with, and they are able to take enforcement action where the requirements of a planning permission are being breached.
To bolster planning departments, last autumn, we announced a £46 million package, which included funding for the recruitment and training of 300 planners. Through the Bill, we are enabling authorities to increase planning fees and strengthen service delivery. We have put some resources in to help with the enforcement as well.
As we have set out previously, progress is already under way. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has noted that we have not stood still since our earlier discussions on this topic.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I have a very brief question for the Minister. Am I not right in thinking that the building regulations have been used as a vehicle in relation to the Climate Change Act as well as in relation to the Environment Act, and therefore they go beyond the remit of simply safeguarding the well-being and health of individual occupants?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Those are complex, technical regulations around the construction of buildings which do not relate to the protection of species. As the noble Lord is aware, there are many species lobbying groups which might want to use building regulations for that purpose. The other thing is that building regulations cover a huge variety of different buildings—probably including the 58-foot tower that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to. If you imagine the number of species compared with the number of different sizes and shapes of buildings, we would end up with a very complex picture with building regulations if we were to go down this route.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response to this small group of amendments. Starting just briefly with the invasive non-native species, I think it was very encouraging to hear the Government’s commitment to controlling them and to hear the role that EDPs will take in managing them.
I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith for introducing his amendment, and I pay tribute to all the work he has done for the environment and nature restoration, not least as my previous neighbour in Devon with the remarkable planting schemes he did there. As regards his amendment, given that we are returning to this subject in the next group, we can address that then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Grender
“Environmental infrastructure in new developments(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 (power to make building regulations) for the purpose of protecting and enhancing biodiversity.(2) Regulations made under this section must—(a) take account of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out in sections 1(2), 1(3)(c), 11 and 14 of the Environment Act 2021;(b) include measures to enable the provision in new developments of—(i) bird boxes;(ii) bat boxes;(iii) swift bricks;(iv) hedgehog highways;(v) biodiverse roofs and walls.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity in new developments.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, here we are again. The urgency of the nature crisis demands that we stop relying on—in our view—voluntary commitments and shift to mandatory ones or regulation. I am sorry that we are going back to a subject that we have already rehearsed quite a bit, but it is still important. My amendment also expands which kind of species we try to include within building regulations.
I thank the Minister for a meeting we had only yesterday where we tried to work through some of these issues. I have definitely heard, both yesterday and today, the concern she has about embedding some of these issues within building regulations, but I would still argue that making sure there is a level playing field and that developers have clarity of ask is still worth trying for, so I would like to explore it again.
Amendment 140—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for signing it—would require the Secretary of State to introduce building regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity within six months of the Act passing. These regulations should include specific measures such as swift bricks, bat boxes and hedgehog highways. The question asked is why building regulations are the appropriate mechanisms for features such as this, and the answer is clarity, consistency and enforceability. Relying on the fluidity of planning policy or non-statutory commitments leads to systemic failure in delivery. Surveys show that ecological features promised in planning approval, such as bat and bird boxes and hedgehog highways, are often—surprise, surprise—missing post-construction. Mandating their inclusion via building regulations would ensure that every new home contributes to halting the decline in species abundance, aligning with our legal duties under the Environment Act 2021.
Building regulations already incorporate mechanisms for exemptions, including where installation is impractical —this may be something that we could explore—such as near airports, where flexibility is retained. We must ensure that these proven, low-cost features are delivered universally, moving past discretion and local planning controls. It is notable that, for instance, some local authorities mandate this already, including some Labour ones. I am very happy to supply to the Minister the list of the Labour authorities that already do it. It would be great to make this a level playing field across all local authorities. That is what we are trying to achieve here.
I welcome with interest the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Any measure that encourages the creation of water bodies obviously needs to be subject to rigorous standards to ensure environmental gain. I look forward to hearing her words and the response to the amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for putting her name to my amendment. I have in turn put my name to her Amendment 246. It aims to compel the Secretary of State to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to incorporate measures that reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings, alongside issuing relevant guidance. We support this necessary move to strengthen design quality. This amendment addresses an avoidable cause of fatalities and would make a very useful contribution to combating the ongoing decline in bird species, which, as we have already heard on the last group, is so significant at the moment. It is very much aligned with the approach that we on these Benches would like to take of pursuing meaningful, preventive ecological outcomes, rather than allowing damage and scrambling for compensation afterwards, which we fear is a bit of a feature of some of the measures in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 203A, which is about permitted development for ponds. I listened in Committee to concerns that the original proposal I put in, for ponds the size of a hectare, could introduce other uses for something with such a permitted development right. That is why I have returned with a surface area of less than 0.25 hectares.
Your Lordships will know that the only way that Peers can adjust regulations is by putting primary legislation in place. But I encourage the Government to go through the statute book, think about the plan to achieve the Environment Act and how we are going to tackle the national biodiversity strategy plan, and make it as easy as possible for there to be thousands of new ponds around the country. That will help newts, amphibians, mammals, insects and plants—it is not always just about the fauna; the flora matter too. As a consequence, I am keen to hear positive noises from the Government before considering whether to test the opinion of the House next week.
On Amendment 140, there is a lot to be commended in what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said. This is about trying to make it as easy as possible for people, organisations and councils or whoever to do the right thing, because it is critical for the future of our planet.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, we should make our homes and houses and gardens as supportive to the lives of other species as is feasible, especially where the solutions are so low-cost. I was very happy to add my name to Amendment 140, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.
I refrained from wading into the swift box debate previously, but I consider this amendment to be swift box-plus, and I support it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Krebs about the behaviour of swifts—I have had the joy of filming them in the tower in Oxford. I also know that these boxes are heavily used by other species. Therefore, I support the use of swift bricks, nest boxes and anything that costs virtually nothing.
I recognise that the Government are not keen to change building regulations. I note that adding spaces is free and does not have to be under the name of nature. Perhaps we could change building regulations to add some spaces without specifically saying that it is for nature —for instance, leaving gaps under fences for hedgehog highways. We do not have to commercialise this; we can just say that leaving a gap is a good thing to do.
My Amendment 246, on bird-safe design, is supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and by the Animal Sentience Committee, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB. I have spoken about this in Committee, but I remind noble Lords that an estimated 30 million birds a year are killed by glass windows in the UK, and free or cheap solutions exist which can reduce these collisions by over 90%. Bird-safe design is already legislated for in many other jurisdictions, all based on good research done at major centres in the US and Europe.
I have spoken about bird-safe glass and how its patterned or UV coating can make it visible to birds. I want to make the additional point that these coatings, blinds or louvres, which we see often in glass office blocks, also help with thermal protection, so bird safety can easily be combined with net-zero building requirements, at no extra cost. That is just a little thought: the regulations that deal with one could also deal with the other.
I emphasise that most bird-safe design is free and does not get in the way of house or office building. For example, if a bird hits the office glass and falls into those little ventilation shafts or drainage grilles that you get at the bottom of big glass offices, they fall through the grille if it is too large and then come round in a space that they cannot get out of and can starve to death. Simply mandating that the grille size is smaller than 2 centimetres can stop birds getting stuck in them in the first place. These are the tiny things that can help. They are already specified in guidance in Canada, the US, Singapore and Switzerland. We have no such guidance here.
In Committee and in a helpful meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, the Government said that they were sympathetic to the principles but did not want to change building standards to encompass nature as well as humans. I have changed my amendment to specify an addition to the NPPF instead, as part of its updating. The NPPF already includes things such as swift bricks but does not address bird safety at all. This is a big surprise to people from other countries, where bird-safe building design is much higher profile. We have a duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 not to recklessly kill birds. Given that a simple and cheap change to building design could so dramatically reduce the number of birds being killed by our buildings, adding it to the NPPF and issuing a guidance booklet, as is done in so many other countries, is really necessary.
I very much hope to hear something positive from the Minister tonight. If the Government agree with the principles but have a different way that they would want to implement them then I am all ears, but this is the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I think that whatever their plans are should be in it. I reserve the right to ask the opinion of House next week if I am not satisfied with her answer.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I fully support Amendments 140 and 246.
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about having a level playing field. I remember organising a round table in No. 10 a few years ago with developers and builders who all said that they would love to do various environmental things but, “We’re not going to do it if somebody else doesn’t”. In that case, it was because it was a bit more expensive. It was very often to do with boilers and so on. The measures that we are talking about here are very low-cost. I can understand Governments being loath to implement this, but when everybody has to do it, everybody will be happy. There are extra things that could be put on, I am sure, and that is going to be a danger, but we must look at this very seriously.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and indeed everyone who has spoken in this group.
I will be very brief, starting with Amendment 246, to which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said, I have attached my name. I heard some expressions of shock around me when the noble Baroness said that there were 30 million bird strikes a year. That is 30 million deaths. This is from the British Trust for Ornithology. The estimate is 100 million bird strikes—the 30 million is the immediate deaths. Some of the strikes are where the birds suffer the fate the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, set out, where they get trapped and who knows what happens to them in the longer term. Flying at full speed into a window is not good for you, even if it does not kill you.
Around the world the figures on this are in the billions. We are as a species “care-less”—and yes, Hansard, I am putting a hyphen in there. We are not taking care. Yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said, lots of countries are at least doing much better than us. We often hear Britain talked about as a nation of animal lovers and bird lovers. We have the twitchers out there chasing some rare species that has turned up. Surely we can take this modest measure of Amendment 246. The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, has listened to what the Government have said and adapted it accordingly. This is what we are supposed to do.
My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecomb has attached her name to Amendment 140. I had a much stronger amendment in Committee which I did not bring back because I was leaving all the small, modest ones that the Government could agree to for Report. I suggested that we should be building the entire fabric of buildings to care for nature. I spoke about a museum exhibit that is working in that direction. I have no doubt that we will have to get to that, but how bad will the state of nature be before we get to that point, and how hard will the recovery be?
I very much support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but pick up on what she said about new ponds. We are seeing in some parts of the country, in a limited way, the restoration of “ghost ponds”, which can be up to 1,000 years old. If you carefully excavate them, knowing what you are doing and having done the lidar survey, you can get seeds that are 1,000 years old germinating in the original pond conditions when it has been restored. In East Anglia, there are 22 ponds where this has been done, and 136 species, all thought to be from historic seeds, have come up in those ponds. Making this a way in which we can let these ponds free is a win-win.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. On this side, we share the passion that has been expressed across the House for a biodiverse and environmentally rich country. The proposals brought forward here are all rightly focused on boosting habitats for species and promoting nature. We agree wholeheartedly with that objective, which is shared among noble Lords on all Benches. The Government will resist these amendments at this stage, but we hope that these constructive proposals will be considered carefully by Ministers and their officials ahead of the planned nature Bill, which we are told to expect later in the Parliament.
I will make a few short personal comments which are relevant to the Bill. In our little, deliberately overgrown garden up north, we have five hedgehogs—because we have five hedgehog houses. I spend a fortune on five-litre drums of mealworms. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, if he was in his place, “Provide the habitat and the food and you will get nature back”.
As far as bird strikes are concerned, on Amendment 246, some of the proposals there might seem expensive. However, I found that spending £5 on some stickers to put on the window glass stopped overnight 100% of bird strikes where birds were flying into the glass because of the reflection from the trees in the garden.
My final observation is that I despair every week, going back up north and finding yet another little garden being dug up and paved over. That removes the chance for the hedgehogs to get their slugs from the flowerbed and there is no grass for the blackbirds to dig up the worms from. These are personal observations, but they are relevant to the important amendments before us today.
I mentioned the nature Bill. Can the Minister give a timetable for the Government’s plans to introduce a nature Bill? When can we expect it to be introduced? Will there be an opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny on the planned Bill? I hope that the Minister can give us a little clarity on that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise that many of our most precious species are in decline, and we are clear that we need to restore the health of our ecosystems.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her amendment, which seeks to enhance biodiversity in new development. However, as I set out previously, this is not about what we are doing but about the mechanism for doing it. That is where we have an issue. We do not believe that the use of building regulations is the best way of achieving our shared ambition, given that they are used primarily for human health and safety. As I have explained, expanding their scope to deliver unrelated environmental objectives risks weakening their clarity and efficacy and introducing delay and further complexity.
The planning system already sets out to support biodiversity and achieve nature recovery alongside the delivery of homes and infrastructure. Since 2024, subject to certain exceptions, biodiversity net gain has been mandatory for new planning permissions to achieve at least 10% net gain in biodiversity value. This is a significant step towards achieving our biodiversity targets set through the Environment Act. As we have set out previously, planning policy is clear that opportunities to improve biodiversity in development should be integrated as part of the design, including wildlife-friendly features. We will be consulting on a new requirement for integral nest boxes which can support a range of cavity-nesting birds, including swifts, starlings and house sparrows. Additionally, planning guidance such as the National Model Design Code and Natural England’s green infrastructure framework supports decision-makers to select design elements which suit individual proposals, including green roofs and walls, hedgehog highways—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman—bird bricks and bird and bat boxes. These can be used by local councils as a toolkit to set local design expectations. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, can withdraw her amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendment 203A. However, as mentioned in the previous debate on a similar amendment, the Government cannot support the introduction of a new permitted development right for ponds as an amendment to this Bill. We continue to recognise that ponds can deliver important biodiversity benefits, and we do want to encourage them in the right location. We also note the benefits of ponds for farmers in providing valuable sources of irrigation during dry periods. However, it remains the case that changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation as amendments to the general permitted development order. Such changes generally follow public consultation to ensure that the views of the public, including those who would benefit from the rights created, are taken into account. Consultation also allows for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal and consideration of how these might be mitigated.
There are also existing permitted development rights which do enable the creation of ponds where appropriate. For example, under an agricultural permitted development right, farmers can create ponds and on-farm reservoirs, subject to certain limitations and conditions to manage and control their impacts. Home owners can also create new ponds in their gardens under householder permitted development rights, again subject to certain limitations and conditions. This amendment seeks to provide a national grant of planning permission for ponds across the whole of England, regardless of whether one would be appropriate in a particular location, such as on land used for public recreation or in an area where it could increase flood risks. To ensure that ponds are appropriately located, there are circumstances where a planning application is appropriate. We therefore cannot support the amendment. However, as always, we continue to keep permitted development rights under review. For these reasons, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Turning to Amendment 246, I recognise the desire to reduce bird fatalities that result from collisions with buildings, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for meeting with me ahead of this debate to discuss her interest in ensuring that new buildings are designed to reduce bird fatalities. Amendment 246 seeks to ensure that buildings incorporate features to reduce bird fatalities, particularly through design and the use of bird-safe glass, by embedding bird safety within the National Planning Policy Framework. The NPPF is already clear that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, and that opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around development should be integrated as part of the design.
When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the principle that, if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from the development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused. Supporting guidance such as the National Model Design Code and Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework demonstrate how well-designed places can foster rich and varied biodiversity by facilitating habitats and movement corridors for wildlife. Local design codes allow local authorities to set their own rules for high-quality places. I am very happy to consider what more can be done to promote the kinds of features that can help species safety that the noble Baroness has outlined. However, amending the NPPF to state that all new and refurbished developments should incorporate measures to prevent bird fatalities, such as bird-safe glass, would extend the reach of planning considerably beyond the extent of current controls and would likely increase construction costs and design complexity, ultimately constraining the delivery of the housing and infrastructure we so desperately need.
In addition, while some types of development, such as large-scale commercial schemes, may warrant targeted intervention, a blanket requirement would not adequately reflect the risks to species across diverse building types and locations. Bird fatalities due to collisions with buildings are a genuine concern, but a measure such as this has the potential to drive up costs and building delays without delivering proportionate benefits for nature. In light of these considerations, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, will agree not to press her amendment.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who asked me a specific question about the nature Bill, he will know that that is the province of Defra, so I do not have an answer for him immediately. If it is future legislation that is not already planned for this Session, I doubt whether we will be able to answer his question as specifically as he wants, but I will endeavour to seek advice from Defra about when and if they intend to bring a Bill forward.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to this amendment. She says the policy is clear, and that may be the case, but the compulsion is not. Those developers who can get away with not doing this, as we all know, will attempt to do that. The swift brick will be back—I believe as early as Monday—but in the meantime, we will keep on working on this. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Roborough
“(4) When considering the rates or other criteria to be set out in a charging schedule in the course of preparing an EDP, Natural England must not include any potential capital costs for the purposes of acquiring land.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents Natural England from including Compulsory Purchase Order costs within their budgeting for an EDP.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 141, but will speak only to my Amendment 170A, which is the important amendment of mine in this group. It seeks to ensure that developers are able to use the existing mitigation hierarchy in dealing with the impacts of their developments to the level that is practical, and only deal with the residual liability under the mitigation hierarchy through contributions to the nature restoration fund. This is important for developers and for protecting the nascent biodiversity net-gain market. It gives flexibility and continues to ensure that the private sector plays a role. We will return to that issue in future groups.
The Minister was reassuring at Second Reading, in Committee and in private meetings that this was the intention of the Bill. I wonder whether she can provide that reassurance today and indicate how this might work in practice. I look forward to my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Lansley introducing their own amendments—both of which are excellent—and I hope the Minister will listen carefully to both. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 69 in my name. We discussed the viability assessment processes in Committee, and Amendment 69 is essentially about encouraging early consultation with the development community. I should at this point, since it is relevant, say that I have a registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire development forums, but I emphasise again that the comments I make on the Bill are entirely my own views, rather than any developer’s.
Amendment 69 is really about the sequencing. In making an environmental delivery plan, there is a process of establishing not only the impacts to be mitigated, but the charging schedule. It is really important that, at that stage in making an EDP, the development community is included. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to ensure that it takes up the levy, which we will want it to do wherever possible, or indeed that the charging schedules are correctly structured in order to encourage that to happen, and to deliver effectively the objectives of the EDP.
As far as I can see, there are regulations in Clause 67; there is guidance in Clause 75, and the regulations in Clause 67 must be adhered to in the setting of a charging schedule under Clause 53. However, Clause 58 sets out a long list of those who should be consulted on a draft environmental development plan. It consists of a minimum of eight different kinds of public authorities, and then refers to many other public authorities. However, the only consultation that is required on a draft EDP is with public authorities. This is not good enough. The development community is going to undertake the development. The development community is going to pay the levy. The development community should be included in the consultation on a draft EDP.
Since our objective is that it is mostly a voluntary choice whether to go down the route of levy payments and an EDP, I am afraid that we run the risk of invalidating many of the objectives we are trying to achieve through the establishment of an EDP. I certainly do not plan to press Amendment 69, but I hope the Minister can reassure me on the use of the consultation on a draft EDP, and on the charging schedules in particular, by way of consultation with the development community.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 171A to Clause 69 seeks to create an additional methodology open to Natural England when deciding how best to determine charging schedules for contributions to the nature restoration fund—the NRF. Clause 69(5) sets out the methodologies that Natural England can use to determine what a developer would have to pay under a charging schedule towards the nature restoration fund. It has clearly been written by a planner, not by anyone interested in the environment. It provides that charges should be made with reference to the number of units constructed or the floor-space of the development, with reference to the expected values of the development, the planned uses of the building and even the rate of inflation, yet nowhere does it provide for a methodology to be based on the amount of damage being caused to the protected species covered by the EDP to which the charging schedule should actually relate. This makes no sense.
The purpose of Part 3 is essentially to create a mechanism whereby developers can pay financial compensation to the NRF in lieu of the damage their development might be causing to a protected feature or species, yet those features are not even afforded a mention in the long list of possible methods to calculate payments due. A charging schedule that has no correlation to the actual harm caused to a protected species is unlikely to be able to deliver an improved conservation status for that species. Nor is it fair on developers, since those who avoid protected species and cause no harm would still be obliged to make a payment under a charging schedule. My amendment creates the option—and it is no more than that; it adds to the numerous options already available—for the Government to address this weakness and align the payments due under a charging schedule with the protected species and features they are intended to restore. I look forward to the Government’s response.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. He is right that there is no way that Part 3 could have been crafted by anyone in Defra. It has absolutely been done by the local government department. That shows in almost every square inch of what we read.
I was asked to table Amendment 173A by the CLA. It is about ring-fencing the nature restoration levy. The risk at the moment is that the nature ring-fence applies only to the expenditure of levy income by Natural England. If funds are transferred away from Natural England or if the levy is collected and spent by another department or public body—both scenarios are actively permitted under this Bill—the ring-fence disappears. The overall design of Part 3 therefore allows levy cash to be collected by the Treasury and subsumed into wider government business as well as to be used to fund Natural England’s general functions. As compensation measures envisaged under EDPs are not legally required to be delivered, Part 3 creates a potentially substantial tax revenue stream for central government without any consultation or manifesto mandate if this ring-fence is not fixed.
I expect the Chancellor will not be reading my speech, but I can imagine that Treasury officials will be scrambling anywhere and everywhere to get money for a variety of purposes. It is as important for developers as it is for nature that this ring-fence is watertight and that nature compensation measures are funded and credible. If levy cash is instead appropriated for different purposes, the lack of funding for nature compensation would be a material consideration in planning that would allow the refusal of planning permissions. It is well known that hundreds of millions—billions—of pounds were collected under the apprenticeship levy and never applied to apprenticeships. We have to be mindful of the risks that could happen with this levy and whether nature will truly benefit.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have spoken about the lifetime of the EDP and the enforceability of measures, but now we get to the price to be charged. I will amplify some of the points in Amendment 141. There are very large sums of money and long periods to be considered here. I do not really care whether MHCLG or Defra has drafted all this stuff as none of them really understands how to discount a cash flow. That is clear. If you are someone who has bought a house from the developer on the basis that the nutrient neutrality obligation has been washed away, hidden in the price of your new home is the market rate for mitigating a new dwelling-house, which in Norfolk is somewhere between £5,000 and £15,000. That is quite a sum.
In Committee, noble Lords, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, multiplied present prices paid by the number of mitigations in a scheme, got to multi-million pound sums and wondered what would happen to the profit. Well, if only. The profit really depends on the annualised cost of providing the measures, not in one year but over 80 years discounted back to the present value, and none of this understanding is in the Bill.
I know as part of Norfolk Environmental Credits, which I founded on behalf of the local councils, that notwithstanding that we have sold more than £10 million- worth of mitigations, the balance sheet value is zero because of the way that international accounting rules require us to discount the revenues against the costs over the whole period for 80 years. There is no corporation tax to be paid or profit to be booked, only risks and liabilities to be hedged, keeping our fingers crossed that inflation and interest are kept on top of until the last few years, possibly as far away as 75 years’ time, when we will all be dead and the money nearly exhausted unless, of course, the provider has not got his sums right, in which case he would have gone bust years previously. None of this is contemplated by the Bill.
We discussed this in Committee, but there is no more detail here on Report. I think it would be sensible for the Bill to contemplate some benchmark accounting standards to value the upfront cash contributions against the tail liabilities on a consistent basis. The reason is that if we do that and get a level playing field, we will get private operators innovating and competing on the same basis to drive costs down, while still maintaining the obligations. The Bill is silent on all this and, as a result, we will never get the leading private markets in nature mitigation going, which will be a missed economic opportunity for our nation.
What consideration have the Government given to providing a consistency of accounting approach, coupled with the enforceability I spoke of on the previous group? The Bill is long on aspiration but conspicuously silent on the legal, contractual, commercial ways of achieving these objectives. Without commercial contractability, we are never going to get delivery. It is bound to fail unless these things are belatedly considered at Third Reading, but it is very late in the day.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I will first address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which relate to the regulation-making powers governing the nature restoration levy. It is worth highlighting that the Bill provides the framework, but the detail of how the levy will operate will be brought forward through regulations laid under the affirmative procedure, giving both Houses of Parliament an opportunity to debate them.
Amendments 141 and 175 would preclude Natural England including the cost of purchasing land in the nature restoration levy and prevent Natural England spending levy income on land acquired by compulsory purchase. The nature restoration fund has been designed to work on a cost recovery basis. Given the potential for EDPs to address a wide range of different matters, there may be circumstances where the acquisition of land under CPO or by negotiation is required to deliver the most appropriate and cost-effective conservation measures. Ensuring that these costs are able to be covered by the levy will support Natural England to deliver against the overall improvement test for an EDP. While I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns around the use of compulsory purchase, allowing for these powers is crucial to ensure that there is certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, land can be acquired to deliver conservation measures and these costs are recoverable. Consultation on each EDP will provide the opportunity to scrutinise the measures to be covered by the levy and, as an additional safeguard, compulsory purchase powers can be used only with the approval of the Secretary of State. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Limiting the ability of Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure as proposed by Amendment 176 would constrain Natural England’s ability to plan for the most efficient conservation measures and prepare for unforeseen circumstances, including deploying any necessary back-up measures. This amendment would also undermine the ability of EDPs to cover the costs of ongoing maintenance and upkeep of conservation measures.
Amendment 177 seeks to ensure that regulations will include provisions about the return of any money that is no longer needed for delivering an EDP to the parties that appeared in that EDP. As mentioned in Committee, the scope of the regulation-making powers in Clause 71 is already sufficient to allow for the appropriate management of any unspent funds, as well as allowing for any necessary refund procedures.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, can I ask him in plain English to clarify a couple of questions? First, am I right to understand that unspent levy money paid by a developer will not be returned to them but will just be kept by Natural England to spend as it sees fit? Secondly, could there be a situation where a developer paid the levy and then was compulsorily purchased and his or her own money was then used to buy the land off them under compulsory purchase? That seems somewhat inequitable to me.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I will write to the noble Lord on those two issues, if that is possible.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I cannot say that I heard satisfactory answers to many of the amendments in this group. I certainly do not feel satisfied that there will be a way for a developer to make a partial contribution to the NRF and to do what he can on his own site. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her Amendment 130, which would basically resolve this problem, as it would many others in this part of the Bill.
The point from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, about the charging schedules was extremely well made. I think the House is well aware that this is a planning Bill and this section of it relates to Defra. It is encouraging that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, informed the House the other day that this part of the Bill would be governed by the Secretary of State for Defra, which gives some optimism that the charging schedule might relate to nature when it is laid. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roborough
“(ja) any farmer who farms land which is wholly or partly within the development area,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to consult with farmers who will be impacted by an EDP after the EDP is prepared.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. In Committee, the Minister suggested that farmers, fishermen and landowners likely to be impacted by an EDP would have a chance to be consulted but only through the public consultation exercise. I still do not believe that is enough. Many public and private bodies are listed as statutory consultees, but not those people who are going to be most directly impacted by the EDP. I do not intend to push these amendments to a vote, but I hope the Minister can give some reassurance that guidance will require that those interested parties are proactively consulted by mail or similar to ensure that they are aware of the proposals, and that their views are sought.
Amendment 178A in my name, supported by my noble friend Lord Caithness, would ensure that farmers were given adequate opportunity to participate in EDPs as suppliers. It would also require a guidance document to be published so that farmers knew how to provide these services to Natural England. The Minister made encouraging comments in Committee and at Second Reading about the role of farmers and the wider private sector in providing these services, and meetings have been reassuring about how public sector procurement rules will help. However, I do not believe that is enough. The Bill makes no mention of the private sector being engaged in this, and I believe it needs to be reflected in the Bill. In fact, the amendment that I prefer in this group is Amendment 182A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and I look forward to listening to his introduction of it. I beg to move.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 182A, but, first, I want to support the other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 178A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.
As the Minister is aware, the majority of farmers are keen to engage in delivering environmental benefits and are increasingly collaborating geographically on landscape schemes. It would be entirely appropriate to use this expertise to deliver environmental services, building on existing commitments. Who is better qualified to provide value for money than those with local knowledge and an existing track record of delivering environmental goods?
Let me enlarge on the reasoning for tabling Amendment 182A—and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Cromwell, for their support for it. The amendment seeks to amend Clause 76 on the administration, implementation and monitoring of EDPs. I thank Ministers for their helpful letter of 13 October. I read it a number of times before deciding whether to table the amendment. Was I satisfied that the assurances given in the letter, that they would expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, were adequate?
I concluded that this requirement should be in the Bill and not just advisory. Let me try to explain why I am concerned. The purpose of the Bill, as we have heard a number of times, is to speed up the planning and development process to enable the Government to deliver their housing ambitions and critical infrastructure plans. There is, however, a deep cynicism and suspicion that to throw Natural England into the mix, into the planning and development process, will absolutely not speed it up.
I am afraid I do not share the confidence of the Minister. It is not a criticism of Natural England, but the involvement of an arm’s-length public body, any public body, will, due to its culture and accountability, lead to layers of bureaucracy that did not exist before, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, stated earlier. The spades might start digging a few days earlier, but there will certainly be a delay in the delivery of the EDPs. It is inevitable.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, most responsible developers have now established relationships with consultants, ecologists and contractors who understand the current obligations and requirements in regard to local nature strategies, biodiversity net gain, et cetera. That may not have been the case a few years ago, but it definitely is today. Why disrupt a model that has been established and is now working well? This amendment will almost certainly guarantee that the process will speed up, because those involved in market solutions will be determined to prove that they have a solution before Natural England gets its sticky hands on the development, imposes a levy and increases the costs involved.
I have another, broader concern that has been referenced before. The Government and Natural England have tried to reassure us that Natural England will be adequately resourced to carry out this additional function. It will be able to siphon off the levy, which of course will add to development costs. I will be very surprised indeed, in view of the very serious pressure on the public purse, if the Chancellor does not bear down on expenditure in her Autumn Budget, including arm’s-length public bodies.
This amendment is an attempt to improve the Bill by insisting that Natural England allows and indeed encourages private market solutions to prove that they have a solution to deliver the conservation and ecological measures necessary before NE takes it in-house, with all the bureaucracy that will then entail. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but may wish to take this amendment further.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 182A, which has just been so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and have very little to add, other than to say that I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 178A, as he does.
Implementation and monitoring of this very ambitious project need a proper, open tender process, for two basic reasons: value for money and the fact that the private sector locally, including farmers, is going to know the land, the systems and the available resources far better than the rather uncharitably described “sticky fingers” of Natural England—but then I suggested earlier that it might “run amok”, so perhaps I should not be too bold. Natural England’s engagement in direct delivery, if it can actually deliver it, which is a question mark, should surely be the last resort, and it will almost certainly be considerably more expensive. I thoroughly support my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in his amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will talk briefly in support of Amendment 182A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. This Bill should be shaping how private operators will address the market for mitigation; instead, we have Natural England becoming a monopoly supplier of mitigations in a drive to nationalise nature and, in so doing, potentially drive out private initiative.
In an earlier group, I touched very briefly on the distinction between permitting and licensing. In my view, licensing is the way to go, because it prevents the derivative secondary markets that enrich the speculators at the expense of delivering the outcome. We cannot afford to create by way of permitting a new milk quota disaster—for those with long memories—where the mitigation industry just became a collateralised asset class that had everything to do with speculation and nothing to do with nature recovery.
That is not an argument against private involvement, but it is an argument for channelling and regulating a fast-developing industry where we have global leadership, the encouragement of which will enrich our economy. We just need to avoid the Wild West I have seen emerging among some chancers who are taking the money and spending it on Ferraris rather than laying it down to provide mitigations for the entire liability period.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I will first address the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which seek to amplify the role of farmers in providing nature services in respect of Part 3 of the Bill, as well as probe the consultation requirements for EDPs for specific groups, including farmers, landowners and fishing businesses.
I begin by reiterating that Natural England will, of course, work with local landowners, private providers and farmers in the delivery of conservation measures under EDPs. The Bill has therefore been drafted to enable delegation and partnership working with third parties. This may apply both to the development of EDPs, including ecological surveys and impact assessment, and to the undertaking and monitoring of conservation measures. EDPs represent an opportunity for growth in nature services markets and revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses.
As committed to in Committee, the Government will publish guidance for Natural England regarding the role of the private sector in EDPs. This will be clear that open and competitive procurement of goods and services is typically the best way to secure value for money and innovation. We will expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competition procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, recognising that in some instances direct delivery will be necessary. While I applaud the noble Lord for acting as a champion for the interests of farmers, I hope this explanation provides sufficient assurance that there is a clear role for farmers and landowners in making the NRF a success.
Regarding the noble Lord’s amendments relating to consultation requirements with specific groups, as he will be aware, every EDP will be subject to statutory public consultation to ensure that everyone with an interest in an EDP has the opportunity to comment. These responses will be shared with the Secretary of State when they are considering whether to make an EDP. This consultation can run for no fewer than 28 days and can be extended through regulation. We understand that different sectors will have specific interests in EDPs, depending on their content, as each EDP will vary based on location and the issues it addresses.
Of course, we recognise that farmers and the fishing industry are particularly important sectors, and their views should be heard. However, given the large number of farming and fishing businesses that we have, it would not be practical, or helpful, to legally require Natural England to contact each one directly and personally during the formal public consultation. Nor can Natural England require any private business to respond to a consultation. We believe the Bill strikes the right balance—ensuring public consultation and engagement with the responses from landowners and businesses forming part of the Secretary of State’s consideration of each EDP. With this explanation, I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.
I turn finally to Amendment 182A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, which seeks to introduce a requirement for Natural England to pay another person to deliver conservation measures and the related monitoring measures that are required within an EDP. As I have set out previously, we are clear that Natural England will work with third parties and private providers when delivering conservation measures and associated activities under the NRF such as monitoring. As I have set out, we agree with the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that private markets and other expert organisations can support the roll out of the nature restoration fund through delivering conservation measures. However, while we expect Natural England to adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, there may be some instances where direct delivery will be necessary and appropriate. We would not wish for the legislation to remove this option where it would deliver better value for money, better environmental outcomes or both. With this explanation, I hope the noble lord will not move his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for sticking to his brief, but I think there was not enough there to satisfy certainly these Benches—enabling private sector engagement, instead of requiring it, and not being willing to have it written on the face of the Bill are not reassuring. Direct delivery in certain unspecified circumstances does not seem to us to be a guarantee of private sector engagement in these EDPs. The noble Lord helpfully mentioned the guidance that would be delivered. We discussed this in Committee and the noble Baroness the Minister, who is in her place, indicated that she would provide that draft guidance when it was available. I very much look forward to that.
While I am very happy to withdraw my amendment for now, I should make it very clear that, if the noble Lord, Lord Curry, does decide to divide on this, he will have the support of our Benches.
“(ja) if an environmental feature identified in the draft EDP is a protected feature of a protected site that is wholly or partly in Wales, the Natural Resources Body for Wales and the Welsh Ministers,(jb) if an environmental feature identified in the draft EDP is a protected feature of a protected site that is wholly or partly in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Ministers,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to consult its counterpart in Wales or Scotland and either the Welsh or Scottish Ministers where a draft EDP covers development (in England) which is likely to have an impact on a protected site in Wales or Scotland or in the waters adjacent to those countries (see also my amendment at page 95, line 11).
Baroness Parminter
“(5A) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish draft regulations to make provision for—(a) how the mitigation hierarchy will be applied in preparing and applying an EDP,(b) a procedure by which the scientific evidence for including an environmental feature in an EDP will be assessed, taking account of the precautionary principle,(c) an assessment of the baseline condition of any environmental features that are habitats or species for each development application under an environmental delivery plan,(d) a list of irreplaceable habitats which cannot be an environmental feature in an EDP, and(e) the circumstances in which conservation actions must be taken before development takes place under an EDP.”
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 148 is an attempt to try and make the much-vaunted win-win for nature and the economy a reality. Kicking off, I thank my co-sponsors for supporting this amendment and indeed the Minister and her team for the various meetings where I have tried to persuade her of the merits of this case.
I would contend that this amendment provides a very pragmatic approach. We are taking the Government at their word; they have said that:
“Natural England will always consider the environmental principles when preparing an EDP”.—[Official Report, 17/9/25; col. 2249.]
That in itself is welcome, but it is just words and there is no clarity in the Bill about how the scientific evidence will be assessed, nor how the environmental impacts will be considered. That is why this amendment calls for these important environmental principles to be put in regulations. We are not saying they have to go on the face of the Bill, but we have asked for regulations to give people the confidence about the environmental safeguards that we want to see, and which our dwindling wildlife needs, if we are to meet our own legally binding environmental targets.
The first of those environmental principles, and the most important by some degree, is that of the mitigation hierarchy: in the first instance, one seeks to avoid damage; if that cannot be satisfied, then one reduces; and then, only if all other avenues have been explored, one moves to compensation. The Government have, despite repeated requests, not given any further clarity on the guidance note which said there is a
“continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDPs”.
As I say, we have not seen anything clearer than that, and we know that a guidance note, in itself, is not sufficient.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said:
“the mitigation hierarchy is expressed through this model, with government amendments underlining the continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDPs”.—[Official Report, 17/9/25; cols. 2239-2240.]
Again, that is all well and good, but it is not on the face of the Bill. We are quite clear that the mitigation hierarchy is so important that how it will be applied needs to be spelled out in regulations. This would not stop the Government going ahead with their new approach for these EDPs; it would just require them to be able to prove that all the steps have been gone through, during the process of drawing up an EDP, to make it absolutely clear that in terms of conservations outcomes this is the best route to go down.
Equally, these regulations would spell out how the precautionary principle would be used in assessing the scientific evidence, because we cannot face the prospect of an EDP that allows damage which could not be repaired by mitigation elsewhere.
As mentioned in our earlier debate on Amendment 130, the regulations would also set out the assessment for the baseline conditions, giving people the confidence that the quality of the information is the best available and not just from impact modelling.
Again, we are taking the Government at their word. In Committee, the Minister said unequivocally that irreplaceable habitats would not be included in an EDP; through these regulations, then, let us put that in the make-up of the EDP. Let us be clear: there are other regulations—including on biodiversity net gain, which were introduced by the previous Government—which spell out that irreplaceable habitats will not be included within the scope of those provisions.
Finally, again taking the Government at their word in Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about how there will be circumstances in which conservation actions must be taken before development can take place—great, but we need that spelled out. The regulations would be the means to do that.
As I say, we are trying to be helpful to the Government, not only because we need those environmental safeguards for the Government to meet their environmental targets but because these EDPs are a completely new process. We have got to give businesses the confidence that, if they say, “Yes, we will go with these EDPs”, there is certainty that they will not be challenged. As it stands at the moment, there is no clarity about the scientific evidence or assessment of the environmental impacts. I am deeply worried that, unless this amendment is accepted, there will be far more challenges to the Government in their approach, which will not deliver the certainty for developers and will not deliver the houses and infrastructure that the country needs. I offer this amendment to the Government as a helpful approach to deliver for the environment and to get us building houses with the certainty we need as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 236A. I need to apologise to the House; the amendment is deficient in its drafting. I did not realise that in time to withdraw it but, as a consequence, I am happy for the Front Benches to completely ignore Amendment 236A. That said, I support Amendment 148 and if the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, puts it to a vote, I will support her.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
I rise briefly, because I spoke already on these matters on Amendment 130. All the concerns that I had about the scientific evidence and its basis are covered very nicely in this amendment. I would support the noble Baroness if she decided to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 148 and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for introducing it so clearly. It is quite a modest little amendment because all it asks is that, within six months, the Government publish draft regulations that would address a number of issues that have been of concern to several folks around the House, as well as external audiences. It is about a set of important issues that can give assurance that the Bill will definitely deliver, both for the environment and for development.
The Government have already given a bit of clarification on the requirements laid out in this amendment, with some very useful but limited government amendments being tabled after the Commons stages of the Bill. We have had assurances that irreplaceable habitats would be unlikely to meet the overall improvement test. We have had assurances that the environmental principles are already captured through drafting and various government amendments. We have had reference to the Secretary of State meeting the environmental principles policy statement as an alternative to the mitigation hierarchy. However, there were also other downsides in the comments made by the Minister in Committee.
For example, on whether measures need to be put in place in particular circumstances before a site is developed, I was rather concerned that it was said that that might be the case in instances where habitats or species are rare or fragile. You would think that if habitats or species are that rare or that fragile, we probably ought to be using the mitigation hierarchy to avoid doing damage to those really important areas. The Minister was clear that the Government would not require developers to use the mitigation hierarchy to do that very important thing: to try to avoid damage to the most important sites and to direct development to sites of rather less importance. That is fundamental if the Bill is to deliver both for the environment and for development.
The Minister very kindly had a drop-in session on EDPs, during which I asked whether we might see guidance and draft secondary legislation before Third Reading. Actually, I asked whether we would see it before Report, but I got a stout rebuttal at that point. It is really important that if there is a need for clarity, as I believe there is on the sorts of issues that are in Amendment 148, we see as much as possible of what will be in the guidance before we have to finally press the button on the Bill, because at the moment we are buying a bit of a pig in a poke.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 148. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has said, it is a modest but sensible little amendment with broad support, as we have seen tonight from all sides of the House. It deals with many of the concerns raised by Members from all Benches, including covering a number of amendments that we on these Benches have tabled.
I see no need to speak at length. I know there is some suggestion that this could be an adequate solution to the ills of Part 3. I am afraid it does not go far enough in that regard, but it could be part of the solution. That is why I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that if she intends to move it to a vote, the Official Opposition will support her. If she does not wish to vote on it tonight, we will need to return to this at Third Reading and discuss it further.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 148, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations dealing with various matters within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I am incredibly grateful to the noble Baroness for her continued engagement with Part 3 and welcome the opportunity to revisit the important matters raised by her amendment.
As set out in the recent all-Peers letter on the NRF, the Government are confident that each of the matters raised in this amendment is appropriately addressed in the legislation and that the safeguards in the Bill are sufficiently robust to guard against the misuse of this new approach. However, we recognise the particular desire for the Government to set out in greater detail how the mitigation hierarchy will inform the preparation of EDPs. I am happy to commit to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, to determine the best way for the mitigation hierarchy to be considered in the preparation of an EDP. To be clear: this includes my undertaking, if necessary, to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading.
I have already spoken about the mitigation hierarchy at some length in previous debates, so I will not repeat all those points, but I again draw Peers’ attention to the recent all-Peers letter, which sets out how the elements of the mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the legislation. The hierarchy starts by saying that development should avoid or reduce impacts wherever possible. Natural England is already able to achieve this by requiring that conditions are imposed on any development that relies on an EDP. These standard conditions will be a form of conservation measure under Clause 55.
At the other end of the hierarchy, harm should be compensated for only as a last resort. This too is incorporated into Part 3. Network conservation measures are a form of compensation measure, in old money. The Bill makes it clear that these can be used only where Natural England considers that they would make greater environmental improvement than measures delivered at the site being impacted. It is inherent in this that Natural England must prefer conservation measures, which would previously have been called mitigation measures, to compensation measures. Both these structures are reinforced by the existing legal obligation, under the Environment Act 2021, for the Secretary of State to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy, which will also apply when making an EDP. This will itself encourage compliance with the mitigation hierarchy through the prevention and “rectification at source” principles.
As I have said, I welcome the opportunity to work with the noble Baroness to ensure that there is clarity as to how this framework will be deployed in practice. In respect of the other limbs of her amendment, the Government’s amendments clarify that Natural England and the Secretary of State will need to have regard to the best available scientific evidence. This approach to evidence feeds into the consideration of any baselining that Natural England will have to do to appropriately model the impact of development on a relevant environmental feature.
The noble Baroness’s amendment also speaks to the position in respect of irreplaceable habitats. This returns us to the overall improvement test, which simply would not allow an EDP to be made if it would lead to irreversible or irreparable harm, as this would fail to secure the overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature required under the test. Where an environmental feature is irreplaceable, an EDP could not allow for this feature to be lost, as that would fail to materially outweigh the impact of the development.
I am therefore confident that putting a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations on these matters is unnecessary, but I recognise that the Government will want to carefully consider areas where it would be useful to provide further guidance to Natural England as part of the implementation of the NRF. I therefore hope the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, feels able to withdraw her amendment. I will not speak to Amendment 236A, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, suggested.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate to show that there is consensus on the importance of this issue and the need for the Bill, as it stands, to be amended to address what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, regarded as a teeny-tiny issue but which could have really significant impacts, both for the environment and in certainty for the business community. We on these Benches always seek to be constructive, and I thank the Minister most heartily for her offer to have further discussions between now and Third Reading to progress matters. I hope very much that we can make progress on this before Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
“(8) In this section, the references to Wales and Scotland include the waters adjacent to them up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 94, line 25.
Lord Roborough
“(8) If the Secretary of State decides not to make an EDP, the Secretary of State must seek to return any land obtained under a Compulsory Purchase Order for the purposes of the EDP to the original owner.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to seek to return any land obtained under a Compulsory Purchase Order where the Secretary of State has decided not to make the connected Environmental Delivery Plan.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to my other amendments in this group. The purpose of the amendments is to impose further discipline on Natural England in the exercise of its CPO powers relating to EDPs and potentially to remove them.
Amendments 153 and 160 seek to impose enhanced Crichel Down rules on Natural England in regard to any land that is acquired by Natural England for an EDP under a CPO or the threat of a CPO. The intention of the amendments is that, if the land is not required for an EDP, or if the EDP is revoked or expires, the land is returned to the previous owner. In practice, I would expect that the previous owner should pay the lower of market value or the net value after expenses and tax that was realised on the initial sale. This is slightly different to the Crichel Down rules, which require the offer of the land back at market value, should the land be about to be offered for sale, and is therefore a greater protection to the original owner. I hope that the Minister can offer encouragement on these points.
Amendment 189A would modify the requirement that Natural England’s compulsory purchase powers be subject to Secretary of State approval. The amendment would have the force of requiring Natural England to share with the Secretary of State all documentation and communication relevant to the decision, as well as allowing the landowner impacted to make a written submission of their own case. The amendment would place on Natural England a greater requirement for diligence in the exercise of these powers and allow private landowners, who may feel the injustice of the compulsory purchase, to state their case.
Amendment 190 seeks to protect gardens and allotments from the compulsory purchase powers available to Natural England. In the Bill, it appears that Natural England explicitly does have the power to CPO such property. In meetings and in Committee, the Minister stated that that would be very unlikely ever to happen. In that case, why does this power need to be included in the Bill?
Should the Minister be minded to adopt these suggestions, our Amendment 191, which removes Natural England’s CPO power for EDPs entirely, may not be necessary. But, if we were not to get satisfaction, we would be very inclined to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I just want to refer to Amendment 190. Often when we are tabling legislation, people say, “Well, that’ll never happen”, but it does in a different way.
I remember a coastal path in parts of Yorkshire where Natural England had a writ for it to go through gardens. Understandably, the homeowners were very upset. Finally, at my insistence, Natural England did change the path, because I said the regulations would never be laid. There is an element here of why I understand why my noble friend Lord Roborough has tabled this amendment, and I hope that the Government will give him sufficient assurance.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 190 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to which I have added my name.
Amendment 190 raises an important issue about the use of compulsory purchase orders in relation to environmental delivery plans. It seeks to prevent land that is part of a home or garden from being subject to such an order. This is a reasonable and proportionate safeguard, recognising the sensitivities that come with any proposal to acquire private property and the importance of ensuring that powers of this kind are used only where it is truly necessary for the public good.
This question sits within a much wider context of how we support land management and environmental delivery. Post Brexit and post the CAP, Governments of both colours have tried and often struggled to deliver mechanisms that provide public and private funding for farmers to deliver public goods. The number one priority of the National Farmers’ Union has always been that such schemes should be open to all farmers, allowing them to continue vital environmental projects as part of profitable, resilient businesses.
Moving on to the intentions behind Clause 83 and the desire to ensure that environmental delivery plans can be delivered effectively, there remains a need for greater clarity from the Government on how these compulsory purchase orders would operate in practice. I would particularly welcome assurances on the safeguards that will apply, the circumstances in which such powers might be used and whether the Government believe that there are sufficient limits to prevent their overreach.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will begin with Amendment 191. This seeks to remove Clause 83, which provides Natural England with powers to compulsorily purchase land to carry out functions under Part 3.
To secure a win-win for nature and the economy, Natural England needs to have the necessary powers to bring forward the conservation measures needed to secure environmental protection while enabling Britain to get building. I know that the availability of compulsory purchase powers is a concern for some in this House, which is why the Government have taken a suitably cautious approach to the provision of such powers under Part 3. But we are clear that CPOs should be available to Natural England, subject to approval from the Secretary of State, where they are needed to secure land that is necessary to deliver conservation measures required under an EDP.
This is not, as some would portray it, a power grab for Natural England, but part of a package of measures in the Bill that will ensure that the necessary conservation measures will be delivered. While the Secretary of State would approve the use of such powers only where they were truly necessary, we believe that they need to be available to ensure that important conservation measures are not prevented from coming forward. On this environmental basis, I hope the noble Lord can see why such powers are necessary and will agree not to press his amendment.
Amendments 153 and 160 from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order under two situations. The first situation would require land to be returned where Natural England has used CPO to purchase land that is then not required as the Secretary of State has subsequently chosen not to make an EDP. I assure the noble Lord that this situation will never arise, as Natural England is unable to use these powers before an EDP has been made by the Secretary of State.
The second situation seeks for land to be returned in the event that an EDP is revoked. It is important to recognise that, in the unlikely event that an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State is required to take proportionate action to ensure that the impact of development that has come forward under the EDP is materially outweighed, in line with the overall improvement test.
It is not the case that, where an EDP is revoked, conservation measures can then be discontinued. Where an EDP is revoked, it will be because the Secretary of State no longer considers that it would meet the overall improvement test. It would therefore be environmentally reckless to require the land to be returned in this scenario, given the ongoing need to outweigh the impact of development. To do so would risk removing vital conservation measures and increasing the need for remedial action that would need to be funded by the taxpayer.
Amendment 190 would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers for land that is part of a private dwelling. I assure noble Lords that the powers being granted to Natural England are not a licence to turn private gardens into nature reserves. As I have set out previously, these powers are there to provide certainty that, where necessary, Natural England can purchase land in this way.
However, we recognise that CPO is a significant tool. That is why it is ultimately a decision for the Secretary of State whether the public benefits of the CPO outweigh the interference with individual property rights and whether there is a compelling public interest in making the CPO. This important safeguard ensures that the use of these powers comes with appropriate oversight. Noble Lords will be aware of existing protections around private dwellings granted by the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 252, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase orders where the value of the work carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. To secure the successful delivery of the new strategic approach, we must ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers and resources to deliver the necessary conservation measures.
We expect Natural England to consider using compulsory purchase powers only once other options to acquire the land have been exhausted. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, this will be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight—including authorisation by the Secretary of State—and the landowner will receive compensation, in line with the existing approach.
The price paid to the landowner if the land is compulsorily acquired is not linked to the value of any contract proposed by Natural England prior to a CPO being taken forward, but will reflect the fair market value of the land. This approach to valuation is common across different CPO powers and is not specific to EDPs. When land is acquired by this route, Natural England will use the land to deliver conservation measures required under the EDP. The cost of these measures may vary for a number of reasons, and it is conceivable that Natural England may be able to use the land to deliver a range of conservation measures linked to different EDPs. As well as undermining the ability of EDPs to meet the overall improvement test, requiring land to be returned in this situation would expose taxpayers and developers to increased costs and would require Natural England to monitor the value of contracts associated with the land for potentially up to 100 years, with land being returned, potentially at increased value, at any point over that period.
I recognise that the use of compulsory purchase powers is an issue close to the heart of many noble Lords. However, I trust that noble Lords can recognise the need for these targeted powers and can appreciate the safeguards established through the Bill.
Finally, Amendment 189A would require the Secretary of State to permit a landowner to make written representations before any decision on whether to approve a compulsory purchase is made. As part of this amendment, Natural England would be required to inform landowners that this option is available and provide all parties with the necessary information.
I can reassure the noble Lord that the important protections in his amendment already apply in the Bill. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 specifies that the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 apply to compulsory purchases made by Natural England under Clause 83. Sections 12 and 13A of that Act include provision for the notification of affected landowners as well as the ability of objectors to submit representations to the confirming authority, in this case the Secretary of State, either in writing or via a hearing.
With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply to my amendments. I did not detect much movement, although I thought it was very helpful to have the answer on Amendment 189A, which is a significant protection to a landowner who has been CPO-ed. I did not detect much of an answer on the Crichel Down rules as such, and whether it was possible to improve on those as they relate to a CPO for an EDP. Perhaps the Minister can reflect on that over the next few groups and offer something before we get to Amendment 191. I am still minded to test the opinion of the House on that, but any clarification could be helpful. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Prisoner Release Checks
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Metropolitan Police, Essex Police and the British Transport Police for their prompt work in returning Mr Kebatu to custody. I am also grateful to the Home Office for eventually finalising Mr Kebatu’s departure and deportation last night. Most importantly, my thoughts and deepest sympathies remain with the 14 year-old victim and her family. I cannot imagine the anxiety and distress that engulfed their home last weekend.
Three points arise out of this sorry tale. First, it is a scathing indictment of this Government’s competence—or, I should say, incompetence—that it took a national outcry before they finally managed to deport Mr Kebatu, perhaps the only small-boat migrant who actually wanted to be deported. He returned to Chelmsford prison five times, asking to be taken home, and was turned away on every occasion. Only after his mistaken release and the public scrutiny that followed did the Government at last do what should have been done months ago. It has now emerged that the Home Office authorised a discretionary payment of £500 to Mr Kebatu as part of his removal, reportedly to discourage him from claiming asylum. The briefing has been put out that this was nothing to do with Ministers; officials used their own cashcards, we are told, to take the money out.
This is remarkable. I remember that under Prime Minister Blair the proposal was that criminals were to be made to pay their debt to society before they might be deported. The public officials would be marching the criminals to the ATMs. Under Prime Minister Starmer, we have the farce that offenders liable for deportation are forcing public officials to come with them to the cashpoint to take out cash in an attempt to prevent their causing more problems prior to deportation. This is a reversal of justice. It is hard to find words adequate to reflect this breakdown in basic operational competence.
There is a serious point here. I do not know whether the Attorney-General, who, I am afraid, is not in his place, has sanctioned this payment of public funds to Mr Kebatu in the hope that it would encourage him not to mount a legal challenge. If he has not, I would be interested to know whether the Attorney-General supports the use of public funds to encourage people not to make legal points in court. That seems to be a matter not only of a misuse of public finances but a real problem for the rule of law.
It is rather odd: we have the farce of a Government paying foreign offenders to leave our territory, and the same Government paying foreign states to take our territory. At the same time, in a few weeks that Government will be taxing everybody to pay for all these costs.
This failure appears in the context of the Government’s general failings to deport asylum seekers. The flaws of the one in, one out scheme have been exposed; the migrants sent to France returned to our shores within weeks on another small boat; and the flagship plan to smash the gangs was undone as soon as it started. It is little wonder that over 50,000 people have arrived on small boats this year, the highest number ever recorded. Only time will tell whether Mr Kebatu will soon be among them. If Mr Kebatu comes back, will the Government commit to sending him back again to Ethiopia, or will he be another litigant who relies on the ever-expanding jurisprudence of the ECHR? The public, and Parliament, deserve an honest answer.
The second point is the ineffectual release scheme. The Kebatu incident is not merely one man wrongly released but is symptomatic of profound problems in the prison system. The Government released at least 262 prisoners early, more than double the number the year before, and are yet to clarify how many remain unaccounted for. Will we get that figure this evening? We have not had it yet.
Only this summer, HMP Pentonville released 10 prisoners early in error, while 130 inmates, around 20% of those eligible for release, were held beyond their sentence because staff failed to calculate release dates correctly. It is simply not good enough to put it down again and again to human error. It is only now, when we have a public outcry, that the CEO of HM Prison and Probation Service is going to conduct a review on release checks. Why was that not done after the Pentonville fiasco earlier this year? The Chief Inspector of Prisons served an urgent notification on Pentonville for its inability to calculate release dates, but no action was taken. There has been no inquiry into the 262 mistaken releases, and, as a result, another sex offender was allowed to roam our streets. This belated review comes far too late. No amount of promises of future action should disguise the scale of the failure of this Government or absolve them of responsibility for the chaos that they have created.
The third point is in the context of the Sentencing Bill, which the Government are now going to present to this House, assuming that it gets through the other House. It is telling that the Government, and the Lord Chancellor in particular, have repeatedly expressed remorse at Mr Kebatu’s release, saying that every effort was taken to locate him. We are told that Mr Lammy was livid—that was the word used—when he was told of Mr Kebatu’s release from custody, and the Home Secretary referred to him as a “vile child sex offender”. She is right about that. But this Mr Lammy, who was livid about Mr Kebatu being released, is the same Mr Lammy under whose upcoming Sentencing Bill Mr Kebatu would probably never have gone to prison in the first instance because he was given a sentence of only 12 months. Under the new Sentencing Bill, if you get a sentence of only up to 12 months, you are presumed to serve a suspended sentence, which would have exposed him to the public rather than to a prison cell.
What is the Secretary of State’s position with regard to people like Mr Kebatu? Is the Secretary of State “livid” when they are not held in custody, or does he support his own Sentencing Bill, under which people such as Mr Kebatu would never have gone into custody in the first place? He cannot have it both ways. The truth is that the Sentencing Bill is not the silver bullet that will fix this Government’s mismanagement of prisons.
The Minister will no doubt say, as he often does, that they inherited a crisis. But when will the Government take responsibility for their own record? Since they came to power, the number of prisoners incorrectly released has doubled. How can those failures be anything but the responsibility of this Government? Just over a year into office, they have slashed prison education budgets by an average of 20% and sometimes by as much as 60%, which undermines rehabilitation, fuels reoffending and places further strain on a broken system. I know that the Minister, who I respect personally immensely, knows this, and I am sure that he is fighting the good fight within government. However, on the facts as we see them, I am afraid that he is losing that fight, and losing it badly.
The early release of Mr Kebatu should never have happened. The Government were given warnings and they were ignored. We deserve a Government who can keep order in our prisons and who will maintain integrity in our justice system. Until the Government accept responsibility and take decisive action, we cannot have confidence that those who commit crimes will be properly punished or that the rule of law will be upheld.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I echo the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, to the authorities that finally apprehended and deported Mr Kebatu, and, indeed, the sympathy that he expressed to the young victim of Mr Kebatu’s offending.
The Secretary of State’s Statement was made on Monday 27 October, following Mr Kebatu’s mistaken release into the community on Friday 24 October. I fully understand the Secretary of State’s inability on Monday to give full details of what happened, but, with two further days, I ask how much more the Minister can say about how this mistaken release actually happened.
As we have heard, the Secretary of State apparently said that he was livid and he described the release as a blunder—and we accept entirely that he was right in both those things—but saying so solves nothing. At least there is now to be an inquiry into how Mr Kebatu came to be released and what the failures were, to be chaired by Dame Lynne Owens, former Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and Director-General of the National Crime Agency. But setting up an inquiry does not solve the problem, nor does it answer the central questions that Parliament and the public are entitled to have fully answered now. First, what is the system and what are the safeguards currently in place for ensuring that only prisoners intended for release are in fact released? Secondly, what is the system and what are the safeguards for ensuring that prisoners destined for deportation are in fact deported and not released into the community?
As the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said, the issue of mistaken releases is serious—and it is as serious as it is absurd. The number of mistaken releases has risen sharply: between April 2024—I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that that was before the general election—and March 2025, it rose to 262 in a year, up from 115 the previous year, an increase of well over double. But this is a problem that simply should not exist at all. We are now told that a new checklist has been introduced for prison staff to follow before a prisoner is released. How can there not have been a satisfactory checklist system in place before this occurred?
Certainly, morale and the ability of the Prison Service to cope have fallen to an abysmal level, but that is not entirely the fault of this Government—it has happened over years under the previous Conservative Government. But this case and these figures demonstrate the scale of the challenges that the service and the Government face if we are even to approach getting these things right, and the resources and willpower required to repair our collapsed penal system, which are far greater than ever we envisaged.
There is the further issue of the £500. We now hear from the BBC that Mr Kebatu was paid £500 apparently for not making trouble and not disrupting his deportation to Ethiopia after he had threatened to do so. We are told that the payment was made by the removal team as an alternative to a slower and more expensive process that would have meant the cancellation of his flight and the arrangement of a new one. That is according to a spokesperson for the Prime Minister.
Apparently, a parallel was drawn by No. 10 with the so-called facilitated return scheme, whereby a foreign national who agrees to leave the UK voluntarily can be paid £1,500 so to do. That is an entirely false parallel that was drawn. Apparently, Mr Kebatu had attempted to apply for the facilitated return scheme but was not permitted to do so. No doubt that was because he was liable to be immediately deported anyway, quite apart from the embarrassment that all this caused. I ask the Minister to confirm that and to answer questions about that payment.
How did that payment to Mr Kebatu come to be made, since it was not under the facilitated return scheme? Is there some kind of what can only be described as a slush fund that can be used to buy people’s compliance with their deportation? If so, on whose authority is it expended? One can understand that it might cost a great deal more than £500 if a flight has to be cancelled and a potential deportee cannot therefore be deported, but surely Downing Street can see that paying off one deportee for not making trouble will lead to a whole number of others taking the same course.
Who makes the decisions in any particular case? What controls are there over such payments? How is this not rewarding troublemaking? Who decides in any given case the amount that is to be paid out, if not £1,500? Is it discretionary? Can it be more? Must it be less? These are serious questions about what I am afraid has the smell of being an arbitrary, uncontrolled, unprofessional and unacceptable system. Will the Minister please explain?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Marks, for their contributions on these incredibly important issues. I will of course respond to as many of the points raised as possible.
I begin by thanking the Metropolitan, Essex and British Transport Police for their swift response in apprehending Mr Kebatu. My particular thanks go to Essex Police for the support they have offered to the victims, all of whom were contacted following the release in error. I can tell noble Lords that Mr Kebatu has now been deported and arrived back in Ethiopia this morning; nevertheless, his victims are, rightly, outraged and the Government regret the hurt and anguish this incident will have caused them. They deserve better, the public deserve better, and, as the Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary said in the other place on Monday, Ministers expect better from a public service which plays a huge role in the first duty of any Government, to keep the public safe.
We are clear that any release in error is one too many. Immediate changes have been made to the release process so that there is more senior accountability, including a new checklist for duty governors to complete the night before releases happen. Noble Lords who have concerns about the arrangements currently in place should be in no doubt that these are the strongest release checks the Prison Service has ever had. This incident will throw releases in error into stark relief, but the reality is that they have been rising year on year since 2021. In 2023, there were around nine per month, but by the period January to June 2024, that had increased to 17 per month. This is clearly too high and we have work to do.
While I appreciate that noble Lords will be concerned that more focus is needed to address the issues, we have now commenced an independent investigation. It will be led by Dame Lynne Owens, with her years of experience as a former deputy commissioner of the Met and director-general of the National Crime Agency. Dame Lynne will establish the facts in this case, and the Government have been clear that there must be accountability for what happened. What I will say is that prison staff work incredibly hard, often in difficult circumstances, so we will of course take account of the training and technology available to support the release process when the incident took place. What is important now is that due process is allowed to happen. In addition, Dame Lynne will make recommendations to support the Prison Service to avoid such errors in the future. I look forward to receiving her report so that the Government can agree changes as soon as possible with HMPPS’s senior leadership.
When it comes to foreign national offenders, this Government stand on our record. In the year to July, we sent 5,179 FNOs back to their countries of origin, which represents a 14% increase on the previous 12-month period. This is no small feat. In July, I visited HMP Huntercombe to see for myself the operational challenges around foreign national offenders, the deportation delays and the ongoing issue of space inside prisons. As I have set out to noble Lords many times, our prisons continue to operate close to their maximum capacity. This puts us at risk of a total collapse of the criminal justice system, in which victims and the public would pay the price. With the prison system in its current state, it is, sadly, no surprise that releases in error such as that of Mr Kebatu can happen.
This Government have been clear about the changes needed to create a better, more sustainable prison system. The Sentencing Bill that is currently making its way through the other place and will soon come to your Lordships’ House will ensure that we never run out of prison places again. It will incentivise offenders to behave in prison to avoid longer spells in custody and put a greater emphasis on robust community sentencing which addresses the causes of crime. The Bill will deliver punishment that works to cut crime and keep the public safe. To those noble Lords who are concerned that Mr Kebatu would never have gone to prison under the Bill and would therefore have remained in the community, I gently point out that they may wish to examine Clause 42 of the legislation, which will extend the automatic deportation rules to include any FNO who gets a suspended sentence of at least 12 months.
On a few points that were raised by both noble Lords, the £500 that was paid was an operational decision to get Kebatu on a plane without any delays. It was far cheaper than booking more flights, and far cheaper than him being in a cell for another year, which would cost £54,000. I also think that it was a sensible decision by civil servants: to use a golfing analogy, if someone wants to give you a putt, you take it. He needed to get on a plane and get back to Ethiopia. As for Mr Kebatu returning to the prison five times, this will be part of Dame Lynne Owens’ investigation into what exactly happened.
The reference by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, to Pentonville is quite right. Immediately after the notification, I visited the prison and there were 10 releases that were incorrect: all of them had remained in prison for too long. There are problems at that prison, which we are addressing, and I am working on an action plan with colleagues, but it is clear that this is symptomatic of a prison system that is under a huge amount of pressure. I reiterate that prison education budgets are actually up by 3%, but the amount of education we can deliver has gone down because of the increased cost of delivering that service. As the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, will know, I cannot pre-empt the annual publication of these statistics. We are a lot more transparent than the previous Government, especially on the early release scheme, where 10,000 offenders were released in a cloak and dagger way. With the SDS40 scheme that we took on, we very much told everybody what was going on.
I reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the extra checks that I insisted on will make sure that release processes are far more robust. Far from being soft on crime, this Government are taking the robust decisions needed to protect the justice system. Prisons are and have been in crisis for far too long, but we are putting in the work to build stability. Victims are and always will be our paramount concern when it comes to an issue such as this, and this Government stand on our record of deporting increasing numbers of foreign national offenders, as the public expect.
Again, I thank the two noble Lords for their contributions today and I will continue to engage with them and colleagues more broadly on this important issue as the Government address releases in error so that we can continue to uphold our first duty, to keep the public safe from harm.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I note that the Statement directly addresses strengthening prison release checks, but I put to the Minister that it is important to look at this in the broader context of the Home Office. I note that on Radio 4 this morning there was a list of schemes and programmes within the Home Office that are going wrong. The police national computer system replacement is six years late; the biometrics project is seven years late; and the emergency services communication system is a decade late and £3 billion over budget. Now, since the Conservative Front Bench did not, I will fully acknowledge that this is a situation that the current Government inherited; they cannot be held responsible for what arrived on their desk, but I read in this Statement about the extra checks, the new systems and governors that have been put into prisons to try to stop these releases going wrong.
We know that the reasons there have been problems with so many computer systems within the Home Office is that the rules have kept being changed and the problems with the quality of the data going into these systems have not been properly acknowledged. Can the Minister assure me that the Government are taking full account of the weakness of the Home Office and its systems overall, and the level of chaos that they inherited? Is it not time to think about a big restructure—a potential splitting up of a Home Office that is very clearly not working?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Decisions such as on the noble Baroness’s last point are far above my pay grade, but I shall just mention two points. First, on release in error, any release in error is far too many and there is clearly a problem here that needs to be addressed. My style is very much, “Let’s deal with it and let’s work out what the problems are”, and I think that the investigation that Dame Lynne Owens will do will be very helpful as part of that process.
On the question of data, and making sure that we are effective and accurate in the work that we do, I spend a lot of time focusing on how we can embrace technology to ensure that, specifically, the Prison and Probation Service—which I know is within Justice, not the Home Office—has the ability to get things done more accurately and enables front-line staff to focus on what they do best, which is to rehabilitate people, not to fill out forms. Justice Transcribe—which uses AI to dictate what happened in a meeting with an offender, rather than the probation officer having to spend an hour writing it down afterwards—may sound like a very straightforward addition but is making a big difference already, saving hours of probation officers’ time. As someone who has come here from the commercial world, I am convinced that the more we embrace technology to enable our front-line staff to deliver excellent public services, the better.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his explanation about the £500, which has been all over the media and was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. It makes eminent sense that this was an operational decision; it has saved vast amounts of money and enabled this vile person to be put on a plane and got out of our country as soon as possible. I very much hope that my noble friend’s answer will be picked up in the media to counter some of the contrary stories that have been out there today.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her comment. We need to make sure that we support our operational civil servants on the front line—whom we trust with a huge amount of responsibility—when they make a sensible and commercial decision such as this one.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response to this Statement. He has already said more than once from the Dispatch Box that any release in error is one too many. Can he say whether we have a timeframe for Dame Lynne Owens’s report so that we can think about when we might return to this? I hope that we will be able to see a significant decrease. The notion of the checklist, used extensively in medicine and increasingly in other places, is a thoroughly good idea, and I am sure that it will make a huge difference.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Dame Lynne Owens is going to start immediately. We hope to get the report back within eight weeks. She will be covering the facts of the case and will establish what went on. She will consider all our operational policies and whether they are fit for purpose, and make recommendations on how we can reduce the number of releases in error. Peers will have the opportunity to scrutinise the recommendations that she puts forward.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s assurance that changes will be made to the release process to ensure accountability at the highest level in the prison—which is, of course, the governor. As we observe the rising error rate, which seems to be accelerating, and the rather ad hoc decision to give the deportee £500 to take his plane, does it give the Minister pause to wonder about the quality of training, and possibly management, of front-line staff in the prison system today?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
It is a very good question about the training of our front-line staff—and our leadership, not just in prisons but in probation. I was fortunate that, before I was offered this job, I did a review for the previous Government into prison officer training. It was clear that there was lots of good training going on, but we really needed to up our game. Now I am in this job—and I will be at the allocations meeting coming up soon—this is something I want to get done. It is about not just improving the length of prison officers’ training when they join the service—that needs to be longer—but what and how they are taught. Let me give the noble Lord one example. We teach prison officers how to restrain prisoners who are being aggressive and potentially dangerous. We do that well, but we also need to teach them how to de-escalate problems by using the skills of talking and understanding the situation so that they can avoid using physical means. There is an awful lot more that needs to be done, and I will be interested to know whether Dame Lynne Owens talks about training in her report; I suspect she will, and I will happily take it on board.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:26 - Division on Amendment 182A - Ayes: 52 / Noes: 113 - Amendment 182A disagreed.
20:44 - Division on Amendment 183A - Ayes: 50 / Noes: 115 - Amendment 183A disagreed.
Lord Lansley
(2A) An EDP can be amended if the following conditions are met—(a) the EDP applies to a development with multiple developers,(b) a commitment to pay the levy by one or more of those developers would render it no longer reasonably practicable for other developers to opt not to pay the levy and otherwise to meet their environmental obligations, and(c) the EDP is to be amended to make the payment of the levy mandatory for the other developers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows EDPs to be amended after a developer has committed to pay the levy, if it is to make the levy mandatory where (1) there are multiple developers and (2) some but not all have committed to pay the levy. This would avoid conflict in the delivery of the EDP between (a) developers relying on the levy, and (b) developers abiding by existing environmental obligations.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, this group consists of amendments relating to the circumstances under which the levy for the nature restoration fund should be made mandatory. The Minister may recall that, in Committee, this was not the subject of an amendment or substantive debate but of an exchange to try to better define the circumstances. At that time, the view was that this would be under exceptional circumstances. The question is: under what exceptional circumstances?
I am very grateful to officials who gave me the benefit of time and advice yesterday. I have tabled Amendment 158A because it was not apparent to me that an amendment to an environmental delivery plan could be made simply to make the levy mandatory after the EDP has been made. I am assured that the powers are available in Clause 62 for the purpose of amending it, and that that can be done to make the levy mandatory in circumstances where the EDP has already been made. I hope the Minister is in the happy position of being able to assure me that Clause 62 can do that.
Amendment 164A, in my name, is the substantive amendment in this group, in my view. I tried to establish in discussions with the department the circumstances in which the levy should be mandatory. To paraphrase, these came down to two things. The first was that there would be occasions when Natural England, in order to fulfil the objectives of its environmental delivery plan, would need full coverage of the levy to deliver the plan. If there was not full coverage—namely, if some developers chose to go down the route of not offering to pay the levy—then the EDP would not be able to be delivered, and those who had made such a commitment to pay the levy would not be able to fulfil their environmental obligations through that route. Secondly, in a large project, such as a nationally significant infrastructure project with, essentially, one developer, if Natural England were to make an environmental delivery plan and that developer or project controller chose not to go down the route of paying the levy, then all the work done on the EDP would be pointless and it would make no progress. I have tabled Amendment 164A to try to arrive at a point where we can specify much more clearly in the Bill the circumstances in which the levy can be made mandatory. This is not unimportant; it is a very important issue.
I remind noble Lords of my registered interest, but I rely not on that but on the submissions and representations made publicly to the Government about this from the Home Builders Federation, among others. It is very concerned. From the point of view of the development community, the whole purpose is to give developers the choice between meeting their environmental obligations through the habitats and other regulations or going down the route of an EDP, with the opportunity to meet their obligations through the payment of the levy. If it is made mandatory, the choice simply does not exist anymore. For that reason, I want to define the circumstances in a clear way in the Bill.
The latter circumstance, with a single developer, is not a substantive problem. If Natural England goes down the route of consulting on a potential EDP, it would be a matter of necessity that the developer concerned was part of that consultation. Natural England would arrive at a considered view as to whether the developer in that instance was going to pay the levy and go down that route. That would determine whether the levy can be made, and the Secretary of State could rest upon the results of that consultation.
However, I believe that there is a case where, if there are multiple developers associated with a particular area—the EDP might cover a number of development sites and range across a wider area—one or more of those developers may commit to pay the levy. It may be that it is literally not possible to meet the objectives of the EDP without the others paying the levy. If they choose to go down an alternative route, they may not be able to meet their habitats regulations requirements, because they would be mitigated through the mechanism of the EDP. Alternatively, they may be trying to freeload off those who are paying the levy by saying that they will meet their habitats regulations requirements, but in practice they would be met through the EDP managed by Natural England and paid for by other developers. There is therefore a case for a mandatory levy, but I do not believe that the Bill says what those circumstances are.
I am afraid that it is not at all satisfactory to leave the power unspecified, because it will increasingly be a temptation for Natural England to initiate an environmental delivery plan, do the work, set up the potential draft, consult on it and then reach the conclusion that only by making it mandatory will it secure the necessary coverage to fund an EDP. Far from it being an exception, we will find that Natural England is increasingly defaulting towards mandatory levy payments as the basis on which it can proceed with its ambitious environmental delivery plans. That is not where we were told this would be going.
I will not press Amendments 164A or 158A, as I do not believe that what we require in the Bill is as yet specified in those amendments. I can well see that my noble friend, with his Amendment 164, could do us a great service, because if we were to take out these provisions it would press the Government to reinsert them with the necessary detail on how and when the mandatory levy should be imposed by way of substituting for what is currently in Clause 66(4) and (5).
However, if my noble friend were to take the view that it would be better for the Minister to give an assurance that she will consider whether there is scope for specifying the conditions under which the levy is mandatory—and narrowing that down to the kind of examples that I have referred to in my introductory remarks—I would be happy with that. I do not want us to take out the mandatory levy entirely; I want us to be able to specify it in more detail. I beg to move Amendment 158A.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have been sitting for the last eight minutes next to my noble friend Lord Lansley, and I am slightly concerned by what he said. He accurately painted a picture that shows that there will be a drift, an expectation and a move by Natural England towards mandation for an EDP. I have been concerned for a while that the process by which an EDP might be consulted on and have consensus built could take a long time; I believe that it is very unlikely that we will get any EDPs operational in this Parliament, such is the process that is outlined, with multiple grounds of consultation and so forth.
I will paint an alternative picture to that of my noble friend Lord Lansley that involves a developer who just has to get on. The site that he is trying to develop is eating its head off in interest and there might even be demand for the homes—who knows? The developer has to get on and cannot afford to wait for that third year, so they cut and run. They go with a private operator under the habitats regulations; it is a proper scheme—I am not talking about shortcuts—but it means that they can get on with it.
The problem with mandation is they could end up paying twice, and that is no good. The Bill is meant to be speeding up development. So if they could have a route to develop more quickly while delivering the environmental benefits, without going down the EDP route, it should be open to them. I am concerned that mandation—and the slippery slope towards mandation being the default position, which my noble friend laid out—would see development being slowed down when it could be speeded up. Who wants to pay twice? Rather than get on with it, they hold back on the supposition that, in due course, the EDP will somehow come to the rescue. This is working against the role of the private sector in innovating and bringing in new techniques, and it is reinforcing the notion that only Natural England—that dead hand of the state—has a monopoly on how these things should be delivered. That is dangerous.
I am not going to speak against my noble friend, but I do not feel that he entirely covered the double jeopardy point, which is the logical conclusion of the amendments he has laid. In accepting that my noble friend Lord Roborough may press his amendment, I note that it will come back at Third Reading. If it does, we will need to consider the double jeopardy point about paying twice.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 158A and 164A, which seek to understand why the nature restoration levy may be mandatory. That would appear to go against the sense of the whole of Part 3, which is supposed to offer an alternative to the existing system of dealing with environmental planning matters.
If Natural England has the power to make the NRL mandatory, what is to stop it from exercising that power unfettered and in all cases? The solution to not getting reassurance on these amendments is to take out this power entirely, which is the effect of my own Amendment 164. My noble friend made a point that is worth the Minister considering, so can she reassure the House that those conditions could be tightened up and made more explicit, in order to inspire more confidence? I hope that she can reassure the House, and I will follow on from her response in my approach to my Amendment 164.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, just in case there is a move to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. While we understand the intent behind the proposal, we on these Benches are not persuaded that removing the provision for mandatory payments to the nature restoration fund would be a step in the right direction. If developers choose to proceed through an EDP route, it is only right that they contribute to the environmental mitigation and restoration measures that make those plans effective. Allowing them to opt out of such payments risks undermining the consistency and fairness of the system and could weaken the overall purpose of the fund to ensure that development contributes positively to nature recovery. Therefore, we approach the amendment, and a possible vote on it, with considerable caution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to examine the circumstances in which an environmental delivery plan, and the associated levy payment, could be mandatory. Amendment 164, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would wholly remove the option for an EDP to be mandatory. Amendment 164A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Langsley, would significantly restrict the circumstances in which an EDP could be made mandatory. I assure noble Lords, as I previously stressed in Committee debates, that the scenario of mandatory EDPs and levy payments will arise only in limited, exceptional circumstances. I will explain that in a bit more detail—the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggested that I would say that again—to try to reassure noble Lords.
A key purpose of the NRF is to offer developers an alternative way to meet their environmental obligations, so it is not our intention to make EDPs the only route available. As I have set out, Natural England is able to recommend that an EDP be mandatory only where it believes this is necessary, and it would be required to set out its reasoning within that EDP. That would form part of the consultation on that EDP—allowing developers and others to support or oppose this approach —and the responses to that consultation would of course form part of the Secretary of State’s consideration before making that EDP.
We consider that these steps represent a significant consultative and democratic safeguard. However, we also recognise that there is interest in what circumstances the Government consider may be necessary for an EDP to be mandatory rather than optional. We consider that there are two broad possibilities, the first of which is in instances where the ability to make an EDP mandatory provides a crucial assurance to Natural England and the taxpayer. For example, were Natural England to work with the developer and invest significant resource into preparing a bespoke EDP to address the impacts of a single large development such as a piece of energy infrastructure, that EDP is not likely to be usable by anyone else. If the developer or promoter subsequently chose to discharge their environmental obligations via a different route, that cost of developing the EDP would be wasted. It is important, therefore, to have a mechanism to provide certainty that an EDP will be used in such a scenario.
Secondly, if an EDP could only secure the right conservation measures to pass the overall improvement test and if all developers in scope paid in, but consultation showed that a small minority of developers did not wish to do so, it may be reasonable for Natural England to recommend and for the Secretary of State to agree that the EDP should be mandatory. A consideration of the overall benefits to growth and development would be properly in the gift of the Secretary of State in this scenario.
It is also important to note that the Bill contains a duty on the Secretary of State in drafting the levy regulations to ensure that even where payment of the levy is mandatory, it does not make development economically unviable, as this would not deliver the win-win the NRF is seeking to achieve.
Noble Lords will have the opportunity to scrutinise these regulations. They are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, which will enable stakeholders to have the opportunity to comment on regulations before they are made. In developing the regulations, we will, of course, work closely with stakeholders to ensure the effective operation of the levy system. Given this reassurance as to the limited circumstances where the levy could be mandatory, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Amendment 158A, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to limit circumstances where an EDP could be amended so as to make payment of the levy mandatory. I assure the noble Lord that while we do not envisage Natural England amending an EDP to make payment of the levy mandatory, the Bill already provides that an EDP could be amended in this way. Such a scenario would be very unlikely to materialise, because the Secretary of State would need to consider whether making an EDP mandatory meets the high legal bar of this being necessary. However, if it did, the Bill as drafted already allows for this to happen, crucially, following further public consultation and, of course, the consent of the Secretary of State. With this reassurance, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lords for their contributions to this debate; it is a really important one. What the Minister said certainly added something new in terms of the operation of the viability test as a way of mitigating the risk that the mandatory levy would put developers in a disadvantageous position. Otherwise, what she said was what I had previously understood.
Personally, I do not think that Amendment 164A significantly narrowed the scope; it simply expressed what I hoped was the intention. However, I would be very grateful if the Minister continued to consider—if not in the Bill itself, then certainly in the regulations and guidance—whether Natural England is deterred from constantly pressing the Secretary of State to think of making the levy mandatory, simply in order to justify the fact that it put all its effort and money into preparing EDPs in the first place, which is, I am afraid, part of the argument it will inevitably present. But, subject to that request, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 158A.
Lord Banner
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable developers to use an EDP after development commences, for example, in cases of applications for alteration of planning conditions, planning applications for developments already carried out or applications for changes to a planning permission.
“(1A) If a development to which a request relates has already commenced, Natural England must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to accept the request.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State when considering whether to accept a request from a developer to use an EDP in cases where the development has already commenced.
“(a) section 125 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (general duties of public authorities in relation to MCZs) insofar as it applies to any function of a public authority of determining an application (whenever made) relating to the development, and(b) section 126 of that Act”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies the general duties on public authorities in s.125 of the MCAA 2009 when exercising decision-making functions that may affect marine conservation zones. Those duties require authorities to further the conservation objectives of each MCZ, so an EDP containing network conservation measures may cause a public authority to breach the duties.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle
“(3) Natural England must pay another person to take conservation measures with regard to its duties under subsection (1)(b), or to monitor EDPs with regard to its duties under subsection (1)(c).(4) Before commissioning another person to take conservation measures or monitor EDPs with regard to subsection (3), Natural England must first set out which private market solutions were explored to address an environmental impact on an identified environmental feature, and why no existing and available private market solution was deemed sufficient or suitable.(5) When commissioning conservation measures or monitoring under subsection (3) with regard to subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c), Natural England must undertake an open competitive tender process.(6) Natural England cannot undertake conservation measures itself unless it can show that no individual or body is willing to undertake conservation measures on its behalf. (7) In the event that Natural England undertakes conservation measures itself, it must first attempt to purchase the land in question at market value.(8) In monitoring an EDP under subsection (1)(c) Natural England must take sufficient measures to monitor —(a) the effectiveness of the conservation measures that have been implemented, and(b) the effects of the EDP in general.(9) When commissioning monitoring with regard to subsection (1)(c), Natural England must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the Minister’s response. I do not think it took us forward, and it does not move us on. I am still deeply concerned about the ability of Natural England to deliver this, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Caithness
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of the Earl of Caithness to clause 77, seeks to ensure that both statutory undertakers and private individual land managers are given equal treatment as regards the powers of entry to be exercised by Natural England.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 183B in my name. These are identical amendments to those tabled in Committee, when, as one will find in Hansard at col. 2327 on Wednesday 17 September this year, the Minister gave some encouraging words to me. It was one of the few amendments to which she responded positively, as though she had listened to what we said, and I was extremely grateful to her then. There is no need for me to repeat the arguments I made. She said she wanted to consider both these amendments further. I have not heard from the Minister, which saddens me. I do not blame her; her officials should have picked this up and made certain that I was informed of what the thoughts were before we came to Report, and I think that is discourteous, to say the very least. I hope that the Minister has given this careful consideration and that on reflection she will be able to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I must say, I smiled when the Bill first came out and I saw this clause. It shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of rural life. Someone working for Forestry England, which is probably the statutory undertaker most likely to be affected, will visit his forests probably three or four times in 80 years—it depends how many operations are going on. The guy working for Forestry England who leaves his desk gets 21 days’ notice. But the farmer, who owns his land and has to make every square metre of it count and pay the income that his family depends upon, probably gets back at nine o’clock at night, opens his computer, tries to have a meal and catches up with family life, and he is informed that Natural England is coming on to his land tomorrow. It is oblivious of what the farmer actually intends to do with the land; maybe he has people visiting, because he could be an environmental farmer. He could be ploughing the land, harrowing or harvesting it, and at nine o’clock at night it is far too late to tell anyone or do anything about it.
I do not think Natural England would naturally behave like this, because it has more sense, but it is strange that this clause gives 21 days to the statutory undertaker and 24 hours to the hard-working farmer. Mind you, as it is only notice that you are going to enter, a 10-day period would probably be enough for both, to be honest. These two amendments need to be supported.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of both amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, to which I have added my name. The arguments were made powerfully and comprehensively in Committee and well summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. Farmers, in particular, should be given adequate notice of entry in order to take necessary precautions to manage their liability towards those entering the farm and to manage the biosecurity risks that entrants to the farm pose to their animals. If my noble friend is dissatisfied with the Minister’s response, we would support him in testing the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to the specific amendments, I apologise for any discourtesy to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I take responsibility for that myself. Although he was kind enough to say that it was not my fault, it is always down to the Minister to make sure that Peers are responded to. I apologise if he did not receive the response that he should have.
I thank the noble Earl for tabling Amendments 183A and 183B, which would extend the written notice period required before Natural England could demand admission to land. This is currently set at 21 days for statutory undertakers and at least 24 hours in other cases. While we agree that it is important that adequate notice is provided, the provisions in the Bill are consistent with powers of entry requirements in other legislation. Through aligning with other legislation, we have minimised the risk of confusion for landowners, while also recognising the justified difference in how we treat statutory undertakers, such as utility companies, whose activities may be vital for public services and may require additional preparation to protect public safety and prevent disruption. There are also additional safeguards in the Bill to ensure that these powers cannot be used to gain access to a private dwelling. These safeguards further ensure that these powers cannot be used in any manner other than for carrying out surveys or investigations as specified within this part of the Bill. I hope that, with this explanation and the assurance that the NRF is in line with standard practice, the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her opening remarks and for taking responsibility for the inefficiency of her officials. The rest of her remarks do not please me so much; I am very disappointed. There is no different argument to what was used in Committee. I just want the Minister to reflect. Does she really want to treat farmers in the way that they are being treated at the moment? This is not emergency legislation. There are, rightly, cases in legislation where emergency access is required and less than 24 hours’ notice is needed. That is not the case here. I disagree with her entirely that it will be confusing for the landowner in this instance. This is just sheer discourtesy towards the hard-working farmers of this country. I think that she would resent it if she was a farmer and was treated like this. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Roborough
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I did ask the Minister whether she might reflect on the debate we had earlier, and I would be very interested to hear whether she has anything to add. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. The noble Lord asked for further assurances in respect of how land acquired under CPO could be returned where the land is no longer required. The Crichel Down rules are existing non-statutory arrangements under which surplus land that was acquired by, or under threat of, compulsion should be offered back to former owners, their successors, or sitting tenants.
In reference to land acquired under CPO in respect of Part 3, as I explained, it is very unlikely that land acquired by compulsory purchase under an EDP would not be used. It is unlikely to be surplus. This is because, if an EDP were revoked, the land might still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures being taken forward following revocation. Where land that has been compulsorily purchased is genuinely surplus, the Crichel Down rules would apply, as they would for land purchased under any other CPO power.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that addition to the debate. On that basis, I reserve the right to come back at Third Reading on this matter, but I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
“Sustainable drainageThe Secretary of State must bring into force in England all uncommenced parts of Schedule 3 of the Water Management Act 2010 (sustainable drainage) within three months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
In England, developers have the automatic right to connect surface water arising from new homes to the public sewerage system, irrespective of whether there is capacity for this. Implementation of Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) would end this automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the approval and adoption of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS).
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this is my moment; I have waited all day and all night. It gives me great pleasure to move Amendment 197 and to speak to Amendment 198. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for lending her name to both amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for lending their support to Amendment 197.
I hope that the amendments are self-explanatory. They are flipsides of the same coin, and they have huge amounts of support among interested parties, such as insurance companies, environmental managers and others, as I shall explain. Amendment 197 explains that developers have the automatic right to connect surface water arising from new homes to the public sewerage system, irrespective of whether there is a capacity for this or not.
Both Houses of Parliament approved Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, the purpose of which was to end this automatic right to connect and provide a framework for the approval and adoption of sustainable drainage systems. It has not yet been implemented in England, but it has been implemented with a degree of success in Wales.
Similarly, Amendment 198 links the right to connect to the public sewer to first having followed the Government’s newly introduced national standards for sustainable drainage systems, to provide a more robust incentive to developers to follow this guidance in the absence of full implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb attached her name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who waited with such patience to present this terribly important group of amendments. It is disappointing that the length of the day and the hour mean that this group will not get the kind of attention it deserves, but it is worth highlighting the breadth of political and non-political support for this amendment. It is also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, one of our acknowledged experts in this general space, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
I will make two additional remarks. We have already had a comprehensive introduction to the background, the very long history and the arguments for this. I am sure some noble Lords here were at the Lord Speaker’s Lecture this week, given by the noble Baroness, Lady May, who is not currently in her place. One of the MPs there asked: “Isn’t it really a problem that constituents today expect the Government to fix things in an hour or a day, just like they get something delivered from the internet?” Maybe it is, but I think 16 years is quite long enough for people to wait for the implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act.
There is a real issue here. The public often think that once the Government have announced something it is going to happen—and that is something we need more political education on and awareness of—but surely they have the right to believe that, once a law has been passed, having been through all the scrutiny and effort such as we are putting in now, it will be implemented. It has been carefully examined and is understood to be a good idea, and the people expect it to be delivered, and it brings politics into disrepute when it is not—that is the small “p” political argument for this amendment.
On the broader argument for SUDS generally, I have visited many such schemes, but the one I point noble Lords to—it is well worth visiting for those who have not seen it—is at the LILAC co-housing scheme in Leeds, which is essentially built around a central pond that all the water on the site drains into. We have spent many hours talking about how important green spaces are and how important supporting biodiversity is. We unfortunately did not get to vote, but we spent a lot of time talking about how important play space for children is. This is a way you can use SUDS. Well-designed SUDS can deliver so many other things that the Government say they want and that the House has said it wants. This is simple, practical common sense on how we should be designing the kind of communities—not just housing—that we desperately need.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have a particular attachment to this amendment. I think it is fair to say that, when I went back into Defra, I was pretty surprised that we had not made any progress in getting Schedule 3 sorted. Yet again, it was the part for housing that had put a block on it, on the basis that apparently it was going to cost more money. But all that does, in a different way, is transfer the costs, both societal and financial, from a developer trying to put together a community to the billpayer, and those costs are potentially higher. I know that we managed to secure, and the Government have continued with it, over £96 billion from the water companies to address certain things to do with sewerage. This is one of those ridiculous situations where there is an obvious answer. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh has already mentioned, Sir Jon Cunliffe has said this should be done. Why has it not been done?
Actually, not just the committee from the Commons but also the committee in this place were very supportive and delighted that, when I was in post briefly for that year, we were going to get things done. We did the review, managed to get DLUHC over the line, and then managed to put out confirmation of a policy we were going to do. We were going to do a consultation. That got going as well, and then the election happened. Do not get me wrong: I understand why this might not be a top priority for a Government coming in, despite this whole issue being one of their key campaigning messages in the 2024 election. Here is the solution, ready-made, that they could just do at the stroke of a pen. That is why it a concern that we are not at this point yet.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, on this group of amendments I feel as if I am on my own. I agree absolutely that SUDS, or sustainable urban drainage systems, can play a wonderful role for smaller-style developments—for ones and twos, miles away from the mains in rural areas, they are obviously the way to go and oftentimes they are the only way to go—but I cannot see for the life of me how promoting SUDS and accepting these amendments will be proportionate when we are talking not just about connecting 10 or 15 homes but building 1.5 million. We will never solve the housing problem by connecting 1.5 million homes to SUDS. We have to connect them to the mains; it is the only way forward.
Lord Fuller (Con)
But I am concerned, listening to this, because we will be letting the water undertakers—the sewage firms—off the hook if we are not careful. I say to my noble friend that I have looked carefully at the amendments. This whole Bill is about speeding up development; we have to get these homes going. It seems to me that we are potentially having a perverse incentive in allowing the sewage treatment firms to have a veto over new development.
The sewage treatment works and the operators—the water undertakers—are going to be the tail that wags the dog. If they say, “We haven’t got enough capacity, therefore you can’t connect”, no new homes will be built at all. I am really concerned about this. I went to the world heritage site at Iona in Scotland and its sewage treatment works were at capacity. It ended up with the visitor centre being forced to have its own package system that drained straight through the public areas, making it worse. In Norfolk, Anglian Water is saying that its sewage treatment plants are at capacity and it cannot contemplate any new homes. It is the blocker: 40,000 new homes in the greater Norwich area, as well as other areas, are now at risk. So far, so much for speeding development. This is going to slow it down, because it gives them a get-out—a perverse incentive not to invest in what they should be doing, while taking the money from business rates and so forth.
In aggregate, we are going to end up with more polluting package systems rather than connecting. That is no good for places such as Poringland, in my own area, where there is clay and the drainage is really poor. This is really important because by promoting a multiplicity of much smaller package systems, rather than incentivising the main sewerage providers to invest, we are going to avoid scale—and we need the larger, better-structured sewage treatment works brought up to scratch, because it is only then that they would address the phosphate problem. Phosphate is very difficult to do in a package system because there are harsh chemicals, so you have to wear face masks, gloves and all the health and safety paraphernalia. It all has to be carefully handled. This is where we get the economy of scale, which is what we should be encouraging.
Another point is that if we are to allow the sewage companies to say, “We think we’re full now, so you can’t have any more”, we will end up with more small package schemes. There is the smell. They are also unreliable and expensive to maintain. It is difficult to get them adopted.
I am really concerned about Amendment 198. I do not want to put the black spot on it entirely, but it needs to be improved. We would end up with a perverse situation in which there was a lack of capacity and we incentivised the sewage treatment companies and water companies to take it easy, rather than go the extra mile. This is not some theoretical risk. In places in Norfolk such as Heacham, Docking, Snettisham, Horsford, Brancaster and the entirety of the greater Norwich area, Anglian Water is holding up the delivery of tens of thousands of houses.
This is an infrastructure Bill, so there would be unintended consequences. While the amendment is well meaning—I accept everything the noble Baroness said about what is in the Water Act, and I accept that for smaller schemes this is it—if we are to have an infrastructure Bill, we need to remove the excuses for the sewage treatment companies and the water undertakings not to invest in that most basic infrastructure. It is as if we are going back to the days before Chamberlain in Birmingham and Bazalgette here on the Embankment in London. We spent ages on the Water Bill, and there is widespread concern about sewage discharge, but sewage discharges will be solved only if we hold the water companies’ feet to the flames and get them to invest. It is a real problem if they just say, “Well, it’s a bit difficult. We’re not going to invest, and therefore you can’t build houses and can’t get the economy moving”.
In summary, we need to make sure that we take into account that SUDS has a role for smaller schemes, but we should not allow the pressure to be taken off the large companies for the big schemes—the schemes that will deliver the homes this nation needs by getting roofs over people’s heads. Otherwise, we will never meet the targets. As it is, in the Times yesterday there were questions about whether we will even get half way to delivering the housing targets, let alone all the way.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I will speak briefly to this group. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her resilience in the face of some opposition from her own Benches.
Amendment 197 seeks to end the automatic right for developers to connect surface water from new homes to the public sewerage system, regardless of capacity, and would instead provide a framework for the approval and adoption of sustainable drainage systems.
Amendment 198, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would go further by linking the right to connect to compliance with the Government’s newly introduced national standards for sustainable drainage systems, creating a stronger incentive for developers to follow this guidance, in advance of full implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
I believe that some of this was developed by the All-Party Group on Flooding and Flooded Communities, among others, and we certainly support what the noble Baroness is attempting to do with these amendments. Managing surface water is a huge challenge. It is such an irony that we have the problem of lots of surface water, but we also do not have enough water.
Protecting water quality, supporting biodiversity and reducing flood risk are really important priorities. We see the merits of these amendments. While they are not the only steps needed to achieve a fully resilient water system, they represent a constructive approach to improving drainage management in particular, and to encouraging developers to take responsibility for sustainable practices.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling her amendments in this group. I know that the whole House respects her for her commitment to the issue of sustainable drainage, and I pay tribute to her for her persistence in raising this particular matter, because it is about time that we made some progress on it.
Our water system is put under pressure when developments are built out and connected up, and my noble friend is right to raise this. Can the Minister please take this opportunity to set out the Government’s ongoing work on delivering a sustainable future for our water systems? We would also be interested to hear what active steps the department is taking to engage with the development sector, including small and medium-sized developers, to ensure that existing non-statutory standards for sustainable drainage have been implemented.
My noble friends have mentioned 2010. I can beat that. I think it was in 1992 that, as Environment Minister, I was shown a revolutionary new system whereby the downpipes from our houses are connected to a soakaway and a system of seepage pipes about a foot underground, where the water then slowly leaked back into the soil. For big commercial car parks, the seepage pipes were put down a metre, so they were not crushed.
Those systems were in development then, and I said, “This is a jolly good idea, we should do it”, but the word was, “Oh no, Minister, it is not quite the right time to do it yet”. So I would be interested to hear what the Minister can say about that particular area. What development work is going on for seepage systems in ordinary domestic houses? We have millions of gallons of pure raindrops falling on our roofs, we put it into the sewerage system and then the water companies spend millions of pounds taking out the clean water again. Seepage systems must be the way to go in the near future.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for proposing these amendments, and for her persistence in these matters. I remember having long discussions with her on the same subject over the course of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.
Proper implementation, adoption and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems can significantly reduce the pressure on sewer networks from new developments by as much as 87%. This creates capacity for further development in areas where conventional drainage alone would be insufficient. There is growing need for SUDS in more developments, with designs that can withstand changing climate conditions, support broader water infrastructure goals and contribute to addressing the water pollution challenges.
Progress has already been made through the planning system to improve SUDS delivery. I am afraid that I do not accept the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that MHCLG has been holding this up. The updated National Planning Policy Framework, published on 12 December, now requires SUDS for all developments that have drainage implications.
Sewerage companies have the authority to reject connection requests if they believe that the mode of construction or condition of the drain or sewer will prejudice their network or fail to meet reasonable standards. There is no automatic right to connect to the sewer system.
The Independent Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, has reviewed the regulatory framework for the water sector in England and Wales. Both the UK and Welsh Governments are assessing the findings, including any potential impact on the right to connect. Any legislative changes to Section 106 should take into account the findings of the Independent Water Commission’s report before moving forward. The Government remain strongly committed to requiring standardised SUDS in new developments and increasing rainwater management strategies to mitigate flood risks and to adapt to climate change.
In June 2025, the Government released updated non-statutory national standards for SUDS, which have been positively received by stakeholders as a very constructive development. Later this year, the Government plan to consult on national planning policies, including those related to flood risk and SUDS. Additionally, a consultation will be launched on ending freehold estates which will explore ways to reduce the reliance on private management arrangements for community assets, such as SUDS. When we bring those national planning policies forward, I hope that the noble Baroness will take part in the discussions. As she has such a detailed knowledge of the subject, I am sure that she would be very helpful in the preparation of those national planning policies.
For all these reasons, the Government cannot accept Amendments 197 and 198. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw Amendment 197.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke in favour of the amendments—and to those who did not. I will take my colleague aside and teach him the error of his ways, perhaps acquainting him with Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
As a newly elected MP, I was surprised at two things: first, that we do not make new laws but amend existing ones; and, secondly, that, having passed a law, we do not implement it. I listened very carefully to the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. She has made the points for me: these are guidelines in the non-statutory National Planning Policy Framework and in the national standards for SUDS.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have explained many times during the course of the debate on the Bill that, although the planning policy statements and the NPPF are not statutory in themselves, they are part of a statutory planning framework and they must be taken into account as local plans are developed. They cannot be statutory documents because they have to be amended frequently, but they sit within that statutory planning framework, and that is what makes them powerful.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. It is not me that she has to convince, but the insurance companies out there, and the likes of CIWEM, who have to pick up the pieces when there is a combined sewage overflow. We have not plugged the gap of the highways runoff, either. I would like to reserve judgment about bringing back the amendment at Third Reading. For the moment, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender
“Heritage tree preservation orders(1) A local planning authority may make a heritage tree preservation order in respect of a heritage tree.(2) The Secretary of State must make provision by regulations for heritage tree preservation orders, which must include provision— (a) for a heritage tree to have all the protections afforded to a tree by a tree preservation order under section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (power to make tree preservation orders);(b) requiring the owner of a heritage tree, or any other occupier of the land where the tree stands, to advertise appropriately its status as such, and the penalties for harming it, to persons approaching the tree or planning activities in its vicinity;(c) enabling the responsible planning authority, Natural England or the Secretary of State to order the owner of a heritage tree or any other occupier of the land where the tree stands to take specified reasonable steps to maintain and protect the tree and, if the owner or occupier does not take such steps in reasonable time, to take such steps itself and to recover the reasonable cost of doing so from the owner or occupier;(d) for the responsible planning authority, Natural England, the Secretary of State or another prescribed responsible body to enter into an agreement with the owner or occupier about the care and preservation of the heritage tree (a “heritage tree partnership agreement”), including about costs;(e) for additional or higher penalties for breach of a heritage tree preservation order.(3) The Secretary of State must make provision for the creation, publication and maintenance of a register of heritage trees in respect of which heritage tree preservation orders have been made.(4) For the purposes of this section, “heritage tree” means a tree listed as such by Natural England on grounds of exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecologic importance.(5) Natural England must create, publish and maintain a list of heritage trees in England for the purposes of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides for the protection of heritage trees.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 199 is about heritage trees, and I thank everyone who has stayed for this debate. A special thank you goes to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who has worked on this for far longer than me.
The existing mechanisms for tree preservation prove consistently inadequate when confronted by development pressure. To halt the continual attrition of irreplaceable ecological and historic assets, we must introduce specific mandatory, statutory safeguards. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for also signing Amendment 199, which achieves this by empowering local planning authorities to make heritage tree preservation orders: HTPOs. A heritage tree is precisely defined as one listed by Natural England based on its exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecological importance. They are exceptional—not just any old tree in somebody’s back garden.
Natural England is explicitly tasked with creating, publishing and maintaining this register of heritage trees in England. The measure would guarantee that these assets were afforded all the protections of a standard TPO but mandate significantly more rigorous enforcement and proactive care. Under it, the Secretary of State must make regulations specifying that breaches of an HTPO incur additional or higher penalties. Crucially, the system would move beyond reactive enforcement; the regulations must specifically enable the responsible authority, the planning authority, Natural England or the Secretary of State to order the owner or occupier to take specified, reasonable steps to maintain and protect the tree. If the owner failed to comply within a reasonable timeframe, the authority could execute the work itself and recover the reasonable cost.
This proposal would ensure that these vital historic assets were kept for future generations. It would be financially enforceable and remove uncertainty. Furthermore, transparency would be mandatory: owners must publicly advertise the tree’s status and penalties for harming it in the vicinity. The provision also encourages collaboration through heritage tree partnership agreements between the responsible body and the owner concerning care and costs.
The mechanisms within this amendment would deliver the focused legal protection required for irreplaceable features, moving accountability from discretionary planning guidance to a mandatory framework of enforcement and proactive conservation of our vital heritage trees. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, it would be exceptional if I did not support this amendment, in that it takes the provisions of my Private Member’s Bill and puts them into the amendment—so it would be a bit two-faced of me if I did not support it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has laid out clearly what the issue is. It is a very important issue in the public domain. We saw the outpourings that happened at the Sycamore Gap, and we see every year in the Tree of the Year competition just how many people exert themselves to vote for their favourite heritage tree. We have the beginnings of a register of these trees already in existence. I believe that my optimism, which was raised when the Government commissioned the Tree Council to put forward a report on what should happen, deserves a bit of encouragement, because, as yet, we have not had a very satisfactory response to the Tree Council’s research.
In Committee, I summarised the Government’s position as being that they felt that by saying that these trees were irreplaceable habitats was simply sufficient—but it is clearly not, as they are increasingly being damaged either by demolition or by poor management, so being called an irreplaceable habitat is not having any impact whatever. The second worry that I had in Committee was that, although the Tree Council had come forward with recommendations, it was clear that the Government were not planning to do very much as a result of them. It would be good to hear from the Minister tonight that, with this having been reflected on, there has been a change of heart, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, having also attached my name to this amendment, for reasons I shall get to in a second, let me say that it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grender —and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in particular, as she has been our champion in this space.
I am going to speak about two groups of trees in Sheffield. Members of your Lordships’ House may remember the great Sheffield tree controversy and the struggles that the whole city went to to defend its street trees. Two groups of those would, I think, have been covered by a heritage tree preservation order. One was about 40 trees on Western Road that had been planted in 1919 as a living memorial for the soldiers killed in the First World War from that community. The council planned to cut them down. There were paintings by artists underneath the trees and a huge march in World War I-style uniforms from the trees down to the town hall, and a huge campaign that demonstrated just how important those trees were to the community, and nearly all of them were saved.
On the other side of the city, in a much more deprived area, there were two cherry trees that were planted to commemorate two brothers killed in the Second World War. They were just cut down and people were deeply shocked. We have talked a lot in your Lordships’ House, throughout the passage of this Bill, about how nature is terribly important to people’s health and well-being, but here we are talking about individual trees that communities have an individual relationship with and that desperately need protection. They are part of their history, part of their future. At the moment, we do not have ways of protecting them, except for communities going to the kind of extraordinary efforts that the people in Sheffield had to go through to save those trees that they did manage to save.
I will make one other point. Poland has a green monument system that marks tens of thousands of trees across Poland, and Romania has a similar scheme. Britain is supposed to be really keen on nature and really keen on heritage, and look how far behind we are.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 199 because I think it is important that we protect and recognise our historic trees. I am thinking not just of the highway and byway trees; there are some really special champion oaks in South Norfolk, where I was the leader of the council. We took steps to recognise them, bring them into the local plan and give them special designations. They form the basis of the strategic gaps between settlements, which is not just a good thing for the landscape; it also maintains that spirit of community.
I am thinking in particular of Kett’s oak, which is a champion oak said to be over 500 years old—it might be more—sat there on the B1172 between Norwich and Wymondham. It was the site of Kett’s rebellion, where Robert Kett marched 16,000 people to Mousehold Hill in Norwich, having had a petition of 29 demands. I expect the Government to want to knock this one back, but I note the context of that historical nature, as well as the landscape importance. Some of Kett’s demands were to limit the power of the gentry and to prevent the overuse of communal resources. It did not do him any good—Kett was executed on 7 December 1549 —but it is part of the lexicon. I am conscious that my noble friend Lady McIntosh is going to take me outside and duff me up afterwards. I hope I do not suffer the same fate as befell Robert Kett.
My serious point is that having a national register of important trees is not just important for biodiversity and all that sort of thing; they are part of our history and culture, and these are things to be celebrated. I warmly endorse and support Amendment 199, with my personal knowledge of Kett’s oak, and other noble Lords will have similar stories from their own areas. I suppose the salutary lesson is that when that Sycamore Gap tree was felled, quite terribly, in Northumberland last year, there was a national outpouring. Amendment 199 attempts to capture that sense of pride and purpose, and it has my full support.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we all share an appreciation of our heritage trees. The Fortingall yew in Perthshire is estimated to be around 2,300 years old, and there are oaks on the Blenheim estate that are estimated to be over 1,000 years old. Of course, the iconic Sycamore Gap tree, which I was driven past the day before it was cut down, was over 100 years old, but while it was a relatively young tree by comparison, I think it was probably the most famous iconic tree we had, loved by millions.
Whether they be ancient yews or oaks that have stood in Britain for hundreds if not thousands of years, our heritage trees are a link to our past. That is why we have robust tree protection laws. While we are committed to maintaining those protections, will the Minister please confirm that the existing protections for trees will not be swept away inappropriately without due consideration when developments are considered? It would be unacceptable to have an EDP that meets the overall improvement test but necessitates cutting down one or more heritage trees. I think we all agree that that would be unacceptable. Will the Minister please set out the Government’s view on the current penalties for breaches of tree protection orders? Do the Government feel that these remain appropriate, or do Ministers have plans to review them or introduce new regulations and new laws?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for the debate and the noble Baroness for moving this amendment. Obviously, trees and the natural environment are very important to all of us, especially the Government. Trees offer profound environmental and societal benefits; they are instrumental in our efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, they support human well-being, and they provide important habitats for wildlife. We have considered the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, which seeks to establish a new category of “heritage trees”—those of exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecological significance—and give them additional statutory protection.
As mentioned in previous debates, the tree preservation order system remains a vital mechanism for safeguarding trees and woodlands in England. Local authorities are already expected to consider the historic, cultural and ecological value of trees when making such orders. Local planning authorities are required to notify relevant parties when an order is made, and they are empowered to encourage good tree management, particularly in the context of making planning decisions. Enforcement powers are available to local officers and it is a criminal offence to cut down, uproot, wilfully damage or top or lop so as to destroy a protected tree without written consent from the authority.
We also recognise the value of trees in planning policy as a core component of natural capital. It is our position that trees should be incorporated into new developments wherever possible, and that existing trees should be retained. Furthermore, development that would result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland, or ancient or veteran trees, should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.
Given these existing provisions, the amendment does not, in our view, offer sufficient additional protection to justify its implementation. The creation of a new category of heritage trees risks introducing confusion and placing an additional burden on both Natural England and local authorities, without delivering commensurate benefits.
In light of these considerations, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the response. I will not be testing the opinion of the House, because I have a sense of clarity as to what the outcome would be right now. However, I do feel that there is a need to push for greater rigour and content within a Bill of this nature, and we will look to see whether there is further work that we can do to perhaps get it into a nature Bill in the future. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Nuclear power station development(1) Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 (decisions in cases where national policy statement has effect) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).(2) In subsection (2), insert at the beginning “Subject to subsection (3A),”.(3) In subsection (3), for “(4)” substitute “(3A)”.(4) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Subsection (2)(a) to (c) does not apply, and this subsection applies, in the case of an application for an order granting development consent for a nuclear-powered generating station with a proposed nameplate capacity of 500MW or higher, if and to the extent that the Secretary of State considers it is necessary and appropriate to disregard any provision of—(a) the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,(b) the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, or(c) any environmental delivery plan made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025,to secure the provision of the generating station in an economic, efficient, proportionate and timely manner.”.(5) By the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations to amend the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 to provide for a bespoke regime for the environmental impact assessment of any proposal for an order granting development consent for a nuclear-powered generating station with a proposed nameplate capacity of 500MW or higher. (6) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (5) must make provision for—(a) a page limit for environmental statements, not exceeding 1,000 pages for the main body of the statement and a total of 4,000 pages for any appendices, and(b) any person or body consulted on an environmental impact assessment to respond to the consultation within 21 days.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes special provision in relation to large-scale nuclear power station developments by allowing the Secretary of State, when determining an application for a Development Consent Order, to disregard regulations relating to environmental impact assessment, habitats regulations assessment, or any environmental delivery plan, if this is considered necessary for the delivery of the nuclear power station. It also requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to put in place a more proportionate environmental impact assessment regime for proposed nuclear power station development.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 202 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Offord of Garvel. It addresses the pressing need to streamline and speed up the delivery of new nuclear power stations, currently burdened by heavy-handed regulations. It aims to correct this and ensure that our planning system facilitates rather than fetters the delivery of affordable, accessible and secure energy for the British people.
Energy is the fundamental deciding factor in the success of an economy and that has never been truer than it is today. Energy is indeed now the currency of AI. Progress is decided by whether innovation can be supported by a cheap and accessible supply of energy, and in the present day, with round-the-clock data centres, AI start-ups and an economy that runs non-stop, that is all the more important. If we want to be a growing and prosperous economy, we cannot resign ourselves to be a nation that accepts intermittent and expensive energy.
Unfortunately, we—I include successive Governments in that—have so far done just that. Our international counterparts have been busy reducing their costs and securing their domestic energy supply. At the same time, we have been busily engaged in a somewhat blinkered and self-defeating ideological pursuit. The result is that our costs are now some of the highest in the world, and our shackled planning system does not let us correct this.
This is not an attempt to play politics; the empirical evidence proves the point. Wind and solar energy now account for nearly 40% of our national grid generation. We have commandeered fields and tarnished the countryside to reach this outcome. The result is that even if wholesale prices halve in the next five years, electricity prices will be 20% higher. The policy costs of this Government’s initiatives add around £300 to the average annual bill and cost companies twice as much to deliver it as it does in France. This is not the result of an efficient energy system.
The obvious solution to this is to build more nuclear power plants. They may have large upfront costs, but that is offset by relatively small variable costs. There are potential economies of scale, and they are infinitely more productive than the sources of energy we currently rely on. Once built, they are entirely domestic and provide a secure and sovereign energy source. Replace wind with nuclear power and we have a source of energy that uses up 3,000 times less land—that is an environmental change that will have a noticeable effect on the people of this country.
The problem lies in the fact that we have not taken the necessary steps to realise nuclear’s benefits. The last nuclear power station to come online did so 30 years ago, and of the five in use, four are scheduled to close by the end of the decade, as it currently stands. Hinkley Point C, currently under construction, is set to become the most expensive power station in human history, at an exorbitant £44 billion in 2024 terms. It uses the same EPRs as counterparts in France and Finland, yet they pay 27% less per kilowatt hour than we do.
I spent yesterday in Finland at Olkiluoto 3, the first nuclear power station to have been opened in 15 years. It began electricity production in 2023. It is estimated to last for another 100 years and is the third-most powerful nuclear power generator in the world. It produces almost a third of all electricity in Finland, regardless of the weather or the time of day. It is the same design as Hinkley Point and that proposed for Sizewell C, so we should learn from the engineering challenges faced by the Finns.
The environmental lobby has undertaken a two-pronged attack on energy security, the first of which is the endless sprawl of wind and solar farms, the second being the endless stream of consultations, challenges and appeals that are now a given with every new planning application. This amendment would go a long way to answering that problem, putting progress over paperwork and allowing vital national infrastructure to be built.
If we seriously want lower bills, a dynamic and growing economy and a Britain that attracts investment, we must be brave in bypassing the self-sabotaging legislation which holds us back. This amendment would not dangerously free the market. It is a balanced approach that gives the Secretary of State the choice—it is a choice—on whether the benefits of nuclear power must outweigh discretionary environmental concerns. It would allow us to achieve energy security, embrace the new technologies that come with industrial development and enable the growth that this Government have for such a long time promised. I beg to move.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 207, 220 and 230, which are all linked. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for supporting them. I am also grateful for all the constructive engagement I have had with the Minister and her teams between Committee and Report. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, cannot be here this evening and wish her a speedy recovery.
I reflected on the Committee debate which highlighted the contentious nature of these amendments. Of course, noble Lords are concerned about rolling back protections for nature for infrastructure build, and the delays we have seen to large infrastructure in the UK are a multifaceted problem, but we cannot get away or escape from the fact that poor interpretation of environmental regulations is causing excessive cost and multiyear delays to many of our large infrastructure projects. The evidence here is clear—I will not go through the examples again that I cited in Committee.
The root cause of the delays to many of our offshore wind and nuclear programmes, and the other examples that I cited, and their excessive costs, comes down to an overzealous interpretation of the habitats regulations. Ironically, those regulations are causing long delays to much of our net-zero infrastructure and much else besides. They are impacting our national security, because energy security is national security.
My amendments offer a way through that, while maintaining protections for nature, by attempting to take the regulations back to their original intent by reversing case law and clarifying interpretation of existing law. These changes would move the dial significantly by ensuring that regulators are guided towards a more sensible and proportionate interpretation of the regulations and compensation, streamlining the programme for getting infrastructure through the system.
Finally, these points relate to a substantive proposal that the Minister has offered related to these amendments, so I look forward to hearing her proposal in detail when she sums up.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I should be clear at the outset that the amendments in this group seek to amend substantively the habitats regulations beyond the context of EDPs and the nature restoration fund, and beyond the current focus of the Bill. I am aware that these amendments, and the desire to make changes to the wider system of the habitats regulations, stem in part from a concern that the NRF will not deliver for infrastructure projects. I want to be very clear that this is not the case. We are all well aware of cases where vital infrastructure has been held up by specific environmental issues. We are currently identifying opportunities where EDPs and the NRF can have the greatest impact on infrastructure delivery, particularly addressing common challenges that are currently difficult for developers to resolve alone.
I stress that the Government are already taking action. We believe that the habitats regulations assessment process should be applied appropriately and proportionately, with decisions based on the best available scientific evidence. The Government are working closely with stakeholders to improve the functioning of the habitats regulations, including by acting on the recommendations of the Corry review and the post-implementation review of the habitats regulations.
We know that there are particular issues with the delivery of suitable environmental compensatory measures for offshore wind projects. The consultation, which closed in September, covered proposed reforms to deliver a more flexible approach to this. We will make it clear in guidance that only relevant information needs to be considered in reaching conclusions on the risks to a protected site. The updated guidance will also make it clear that small effects that do not have any prospect of risking harm to a protected site can and should be screened out.
Finally, we will take the opportunity to set out more clearly where there is already flexibility in law in considering appropriate compensatory measures under Regulation 68 of the habitats regulations. Should guidance not be sufficient to make clear how the regulations should be applied, we may consider whether legislative change is needed, in careful consultation with developers, planners, ecologists and other relevant stakeholders. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, I very much welcome her commitment to address the points raised in the amendment through guidance and her recognition that legislation will be required. I look forward to working with the Minister and her team on that. Nevertheless, I stress the urgency of bringing forward guidance quickly in this area, due to the delays we are seeing. Can she offer any more information on the timescales for the issuing and release of that guidance?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the point the noble Lord is making. I will take the subject back and discuss it with the teams in Defra and my own department, and then write to him, if that would be helpful. I am loath to make a time commitment from the Dispatch Box without doing that first.
Turning to Amendment 202, as previously noted I share the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to support new nuclear development, which will be critical for economic growth and achieving our clean energy mission. However, providing the Secretary of State the ability to completely exempt nuclear power stations producing more than 500 megawatts from requirements in respect to the habitats regulations, environmental impact assessments and any future environmental delivery plans would create uncertainty for developers and erode public support for such projects. These are important tools for making sure that the environmental impacts of projects are considered. The environmental protections they contain relate not only to nature but to the broader community impacts. This blunt approach to disregarding these obligations would put decision-makers at a disadvantage and prevent developers taking important steps to address the environmental impact of the development.
I agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness; we need to do more to reform the planning system to accelerate nuclear development in this country. We are in the final stages of designating a new national policy statement for nuclear energy generation, EN-7. That will provide a robust and flexible framework for new nuclear developers seeking development consent and, alongside the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), will provide the Secretary of State with some discretion when considering habitats regulations and the environmental impact assessment during decision-making by defining low-carbon energy infrastructure, including nuclear, as a critical national priority. We are also awaiting the final recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce.
I hope, following my explanation, that the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, will feel able to withdraw Amendment 202.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. Although I do not entirely agree with her arguments, I have made my case as well as I can and I do not propose to detain the House any longer, given the lateness of the hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.