Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we begin, I should inform the House that there is a fault with the Division Bells in the immediate vicinity of the Chamber—specifically, the officials’ corridor and the third party Whips’ area. I ask colleagues working in those areas to ensure that the annunciators are turned on while the problem with the bells is resolved.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
The Home Office has a procurement policy of competition by default, actively engaging with suppliers via the Government “find a tender” service to generate interest and promote competition for immigration removal centre contracts. Bids are evaluated on both technical and price aspects to ensure the contracts we sign are effective and value for money.
Calum Miller
My constituents are very concerned about the Home Office’s race to reopen the Campsfield House immigration removal centre. The first contract for opening the centre was announced in June 2024, when this House was not sitting. The then Home Secretary announced that she intended to expand the facility in August 2024, when again the House was not sitting. I believe that contract has not yet been tendered. Will the Minister please provide my constituents with some reassurance that Ministers are not just racing to make announcements about this ahead of real need and in order to catch a headline, but are actually serious about using taxpayers’ money in an appropriate manner to look after and contain these issues?
Alex Norris
“Real need” is a very important phrase. The reality is that over this Government’s time in office, we have deported over 50,000 people who have no right to be here—the best period of time in 10 years in this regard. We do need that detention capacity. Things are moving at Campsfield, so perhaps I should meet the hon. Gentleman to give him a full brief on our plans there.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his previous answer. Does he agree that the main cause for the asylum backlog was the fact that, under the previous Government, decisions fell by 70%? What reassurance can he give my constituents in Harlow that this Government will tackle the issue we have inherited?
Alex Norris
I totally agree. The original sin in respect of what we are dealing with today—hotel use across the country and our pivot to military sites—was the choice of the previous Government to simply stop assessing applications. We are of course reversing that, but it is taking time to turn around their failure.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I will later today be sharing the full details of my plans for far-reaching reforms to the UK asylum system to restore order and control to our borders. We have learned lessons from our international partners, including Denmark; fundamental reform to its system has seen asylum claims at a 40-year low. The impact of this Government’s plans will be to restore order and control to the border, so we can be the open, tolerant and generous country that we know ourselves to be.
Nadia Whittome
The Denmark-style policies briefed in the last couple of days are dystopian. It is shameful that a Labour Government are ripping up the rights and protections of people who have endured unimaginable trauma. Is this how we would want to be treated if we were fleeing for our lives? Of course not. How can we be adopting such obviously cruel policies? Is the Home Secretary proud that the Government have sunk to such depths that they are now being praised by Tommy Robinson?
Shabana Mahmood
I am disappointed at the nature of my hon. Friend’s question. I hope she will look at the detail of the reforms. As I have already said on these matters, we have a proper problem and it is our moral duty to fix it. Our asylum system is broken. The breaking of that asylum system is causing huge division across our whole country, and it is a moral mission for me to resolve that division across our country. I know that the reforms I will be setting out later today can fix the system and, in doing so, unite what is today a divided country.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Home Secretary likes to talk tough, while the numbers continue to rise. As part of the statement that she will bring to the House later, will she confirm that detailed modelling will be published and whether she has shared that modelling with No. 10?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman’s question would have had a bit more force if he had apologised for being part of a Government who fundamentally broke our migration system and presided over the crisis inherited by this Government. Of course we will model the impact of our policies. This is a sweeping set of reforms—the most significant in modern times. They will bring down the number of arrivals and increase the number of removals of those who have no right to be in this country. We will build on our track record in government, which has seen removals increase. The totality of the reforms will, I believe, unlock the generosity of this country in creating new safe and legal routes, which will grow more generous over time.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Well, it is good to see the Home Secretary here, taking some time off from her leadership campaign. She is quite clearly preparing a one in, one out policy for No. 10 Downing Street!
The Home Secretary has announced that she wants to replace the Government’s entire immigration policy with Denmark’s. Is that because the Government have failed so badly in the year and a half since the election? Since the election, illegal channel crossings have surged 55%, up to 62,000; new asylum claims have reached record levels; and the numbers in asylum hotels have gone up. In just 75 days, since the right hon. Lady became Home Secretary, 10,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel, but the Home Secretary—
Mr Speaker
Order. You have to at least try to get to a question. Don’t forget that we are having a big statement on this topic shortly.
Chris Philp
Okay, I will ask a question. Will the Home Secretary agree with us that in order to control our borders we must come out of the European convention on human rights, enabling us to deport all illegal immigrants within a week of their arrival?
Shabana Mahmood
Well, I think we can all agree that the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership campaign is going absolutely nowhere. Once again his party reverts to an unworkable solution that is a total gimmick, just like their failed Rwanda plan, which saw £700 million spent and a total of four volunteers returned. What we always get from the Conservatives are gimmicks and solutions that would never ever work. What we get from this Government is a track record of increasing removals, following the situation we inherited from the Conservative Government, and a proper plan that will fix this broken system.
Chris Philp
Our leader is not going anywhere, but the right hon. Lady’s leader most certainly is—out of No. 10!
The Home Secretary talks about the Rwanda scheme. That scheme never even started. It worked in Australia and it would have worked here. After her Government cancelled it with no replacement, numbers have surged. The truth is that under this Government, illegal immigration has gone up, and there is a crime wave going up with it, including rape and murder. Her ideas are not radical enough. She wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship—
Mr Speaker
Order. I’m not being funny. The idea is to ask a question. The statement will be coming later, and we are going to go through all this then. This really does not help. You can pick which colleagues from your side of the Chamber you do not want to ask a question, because they are the ones you are taking time away from.
Chris Philp
The Home Secretary wants to give illegal immigrants a 20-year path to citizenship. We want to deport them. Will she accept our proposal to come out of the ECHR so that we can actually control our borders?
Shabana Mahmood
I am sure that all Conservative Members will be delighted to hear that the Leader of the Opposition is going absolutely nowhere—and we are very happy to see her remain in place.
This Government will not come out of the European convention on human rights. We are going to reform the way that article 8 in particular is applied to immigration rules within our country. This Government are rolling up our sleeves and doing the hard work of governing—unlike his party, which just gave up altogether.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
On the point of asylum policy, the Liberal Democrats recently defeated an attempt by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), backed vociferously by the Conservatives, who he is trying to kill, to rip this country out of the ECHR.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Metaphorically.
Max Wilkinson
Metaphorically trying to kill, yes.
Leaving the ECHR would do nothing to halt small boat crossings but it would deny British people hard-won rights: free speech, the Hillsborough inquiry and protections for older people. The Government have announced that they are reviewing certain articles of the ECHR—the Home Secretary has just referenced it. Can she give us a cast-iron guarantee that when she is working on these changes, she will do so in partnership with other signatories to the convention and will not follow the Conservatives and Reform in seeking to isolate this country on the international stage?
Shabana Mahmood
The Prime Minister and I could not be clearer. We are not coming out of the European convention on human rights. We are going to pursue reform—in particular of article 8, which is a qualified right under the convention—and I will set out those plans later today. There is a conversation happening with our partners at the Council of Europe in relation to the application of article 3. A conversation is already happening on reform of the European convention—both here at home with the domestic legislation that we will pursue and at the Council of Europe itself. That is the approach with which this Government will continue.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
Tackling violence against women and girls is a top priority for this Government, and our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade has begun. We will deliver a transformative cross-Government approach that is underpinned by the new strategy, which we will publish soon.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Ending the presumption of parental contact in the family courts was a huge and long-overdue step that campaigners work hard for. That presumption often allowed post-separation abuse to continue. Although the Ministry of Justice is leading on that, can the Minister tell me what the Home Office is doing to make sure that we properly police and enforce other ways of tackling post-separation abuse so that it cannot continue?
Jess Phillips
I thank and give special mention to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), who have worked tirelessly since they arrived in the House to join some of us who had been trying to get the Conservatives to change the presumption of contact in domestic abuse cases for 11 years—with no success. I work closely with the Victims Minister and with the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, and we will be making sure that this matter is part of a cross-Government package of security.
Tulip Siddiq
My constituent contacted me because she had been drugged and violently raped by a man she knew; she had worked for him, as a nanny to his children. She described this man as a high net-worth individual. Despite providing detailed evidence to the police, she said that ultimately it came down to her word against his, and she feels that his financial standing and influence meant that her case never went to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Minister will know very well that less than 4% of rape allegations result in summons or charge. At what point are we going to stop talking about how unfair the system is and actually do something that means that poor constituents like mine get the justice they deserve?
Jess Phillips
I would be happy to speak to my hon. Friend and her constituent about that case; I have heard similar cases with regard to high-worth, powerful rapists or alleged rapists. It is vital that we undertake a proper change to how our policing and justice system works for rape victims, whether through Operation Soteria or other interventions such as the new national centre for VAWG; we need to improve the situation across the country, not just see pockets of good practice. It is going to take time, but I am more than happy to work with her on that.
Gurinder Singh Josan
The Minister will be aware of the important role played by specialist “by and for” organisations in supporting victims from minority communities and bringing crucial cultural awareness to the table. Sikh Women’s Aid recently held an all-women’s meeting in which it focused on the trauma and fear generated by recent racially aggravated attacks in the west midlands, including in my constituency. Will the Minister outline what steps the Home Office is taking to ensure that specialist community support services, including “by and for” organisations such as Sikh Women’s Aid, are properly resourced so that victims from all backgrounds—whether white working-class girls or Sikh women and girls—can receive culturally-sensitive support?
Jess Phillips
We recognise the vital role of specialist “by and for” services in providing tailored support to victims and survivors. It has been my personal pleasure over many years to work alongside the brilliant women at Sikh Women’s Aid, who operate so furtively in our local area. I meet regularly with Imkaan, the umbrella lead for such “by and for” services, to seek solutions to exactly the problem of ensuring that there is not a postcode lottery and that everybody can have specialist support.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I very much look forward to the new violence against women and girls strategy. Can the Minister give us a bit more of a clue as to when we might see it? Will it include a single definition of violence against women and girls that is applied consistently across law enforcement and the Department?
Jess Phillips
I very much look forward, no doubt, to coming to the right hon. Lady’s Committee to discuss the strategy on its publication. It is not for the Home Office to tell law enforcement exactly what the definition is in this regard—there are obviously definitions of domestic abuse and sexual violence in the law—but we will lay out clearly what we mean by “violence against women and girls”, and police operational matters will be corralled, like I say, by the new centre, which has had £13 million of investment to ensure that there is standardised practice across the country and we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Government are right to abolish the role of police and crime commissioner—the Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for that for some time—but many victims’ organisations rely on the PCC core grant to fund initiatives that address violence against women. Will the Minister confirm that that cash will not be lost by those organisations, including mine in Eastbourne, and that they will retain it after the reform?
Jess Phillips
I can absolutely confirm that the part of the police and crime commissioners’ role that involves commissioning local victims’ services will be brought into the new system. It will not be that that money is gone from the centre; this is about how it will be given out. I cannot say for certain that all organisations that currently have that money will have it on the basis that they currently have it, because nobody could commit to that. That is the commissioner’s job. We look forward to the violence against women and girls strategy, because there will be a huge amount on victims’ commissioning in that.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My constituent Fiona from Milborne Port is a victim of historical rape. With recent reporting highlighting the vile attitudes of some in regard to historical rape victims, Fiona has told me that her confidence in the judicial system and the police has been well and truly knocked, and detectives have told her that there is no starting point for their inquiries. What steps is the Minister taking, along with Cabinet colleagues, to support historical victims of violence against women and girls?
Jess Phillips
There is absolutely no reason why historical cases should not be brought forward and reviewed. As part of the work following on from the Casey review—certainly in cases of historical child sexual abuse—the opening of “no further action” cases has been worked on at pace through Operation Beaconport. More broadly, there are review systems, and I will send the hon. Member information about the organisations that the Home Office works with and that work alongside the police to look into the review systems that might be needed for people in cases such as hers and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) that have not been picked up.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
In March this year, the then permanent secretary of the Home Office said that the strategy to tackle violence against women and girls would be published before the summer recess. In July, the Minister committed to September. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) wrote to the Minister six weeks ago to ask for an update and has yet to receive a response. We would all like to see progress in halving violence against women and girls. Commenting on the delay, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Dame Nicole Jacobs, has said:
“I fail to see where the momentum within government is coming from to ensure this commitment succeeds.”
What does the Minister make of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s words, and can she please reiterate her commitment to publish the strategy before the end of the year?
Jess Phillips
As somebody who meets the Domestic Abuse Commissioner on a very regular basis, I cannot say that she would ever say that I did not have the enthusiasm to make this work—but perhaps I am wrong. I shall ask her what she meant by those comments. What I absolutely can say is that the strategy will come; it will be out very soon. It will be out when it is the best it can be, but we do not need to wait for a piece of paper to start our action. I will not take up too much time going through the list of about 13 things that we have already changed in the last 18 months, such as Raneem’s law or the roll-out of domestic abuse protection orders, which for four years—
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
The Government are increasing resources in neighbourhood policing teams and putting in place stronger measures to prevent farm theft and fly-tipping. We are working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to deliver its rural and wildlife crime strategy, which will be published imminently and will involve a joined-up approach, ensuring that we are tackling the crimes that have devastating consequences for our rural communities.
Helen Morgan
There is no doubt that my constituents are concerned by crimes such as equipment theft and wildlife crime, but they are also really worried about drug dealing taking place in broad daylight in parks, in our villages and in country lanes. Can the Minister tell us what the Government’s drug strategy is to stop our young people being targeted by organised criminals, and also to improve community policing in rural places so that those criminals do not have the confidence to target our young people so willingly?
Sarah Jones
We are putting 3,000 extra community police in our neighbourhoods by next April, and there will be a named officer that people can contact. The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight the wider drugs problem. Since we came into power, this Government have put in place a very successful county lines programme, which is targeting the lines where people are forced, and often exploited, to take drugs across the country. I am happy to talk to her about that more. I have seen it in action for myself in Merseyside and the impact that it is having there, but she is right to highlight this very deep problem, which we are absolutely determined to tackle.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
More than 2,000 wildlife crimes were recorded last year, but fewer than 50 resulted in convictions. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on strengthening the Hunting Act 2004. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions she has had with departmental colleagues to ensure effective enforcement of any forthcoming legislation? Will the Home Office consider making key wildlife offences, including foxhunting, notifiable crimes so that these crimes are recorded and prioritised by police forces?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right to highlight those crimes and the need for us to prioritise them in a way which they were not under the previous Government. The National Police Chiefs’ Council strategy on rural and wildlife crime will set operational and organisational policing priorities for tackling those crimes, and it will be published imminently. Once it has, I would love to have a proper conversation with him.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Rural crime and tool theft are out of control. A tradesman’s tools are stolen every 21 minutes, and when a farmer or tradesman has their equipment stolen, it causes complete misery and costs them severely. Their means of work are then all too often sold in broad daylight at car boot sales. Will the Government adopt our rural crime and tool theft plan to crack down on the sale of stolen goods and on the misery being caused to so many farmers and tradesmen?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are committed to the implementation of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 and fully support its intentions. Indeed, it was brought forward by a Member of his own party—the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). We support the Act and are working with colleagues across the policing landscape to ensure that we can do just that. But I will not take any lessons from the shadow Minister who left crime in the state that it was, had no rural crime strategy, unlike this Government, and whose record took our police away from our neighbourhoods—we will put them back.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
As part of the neighbourhood policing guarantee, we have made £200 million available to police forces this financial year to kick-start the journey towards delivering 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel. By April 2026, there will be 3,000 more neighbourhood police across England and Wales, strengthening police visibility and neighbourhood policing to help to deter, prevent and respond to crime.
Mohammad Yasin
I welcome the Government’s decision to phase out police and crime commissioners, with the savings reinvested into frontline policing. I also warmly welcome the recent grant for additional wardens to tackle antisocial behaviour hotspots. The partnership between the council, community groups and the police has reduced antisocial behaviour in Bedford town centre by nearly 15%, but much more still needs to be done. What further reforms will the forthcoming White Paper include to help Bedfordshire police get more bobbies on the beat?
Sarah Jones
I am pleased to see the progress made, and I would love to visit again, as I did with the Prime Minister in opposition, to see that progress in action. There are two aspects to where we are, and we will be making significant changes. One is through the Crime and Policing Bill, which contains new powers for us to tackle antisocial behaviour in our town centres—respect orders being just one example. Our wider police reform will also look at the entire policing landscape in a way that the Opposition completely failed to do in government. We will make it more efficient and effective and ensure that our police are targeted where the public want them in our communities.
Alice Macdonald
Recently, I visited Mile Cross with local councillors and members of Mile Cross Litterbusters, a local voluntary group that does excellent work to clean up the area, but they really should not have to. Fly-tipping is a real challenge in this area and in other parts of Norwich, so I welcome the pledge to increase neighbourhood police officers. Can the Minister assure me that they will have the powers and presence to be able to tackle fly-tipping, can she advise on any other measures that could be taken to crack down on this issue that blights so many neighbourhoods?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. It is an issue in my constituency, and I suspect in many across the country, and the scourge of fly-tipping must be tackled. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we are putting in place new statutory enforcement guidance for local authorities on what is to be expected by them in tackling antisocial behaviour. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has an ongoing review of the powers that local authorities and the police have to seize vehicles and crush them when we have prolific offenders of this awful crime.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
More than 5,000 people in Bexley have signed my petition to stop Mayor Khan closing the overnight counter at Bexleyheath police station. Will the Minister tell us who is to blame for the £260 million of funding cuts now facing the Met police: the Labour Government or the Labour Mayor of London?
Sarah Jones
I will not take any lessons from the hon. Member given the Conservative record on crime. In the last two years of their Government, shoplifting soared by 70% and street theft by 60%. The Mayor of London held a consultation, which has now concluded, and seven fewer police station counters will close. He will save £7 million through that work. It is important that we recognise the work of Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London. As we heard recently, the number of murders is the lowest since records began.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
One thing that neighbourhood policing can tackle effectively is the way in which TikTok is being used to distribute spice-laced vapes to our young people. Will the Minister comment on that?
Sarah Jones
I would be very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Lady about her experience of that. Of course, the use of illegal vapes, and their sale to under-18s, is prolific and a main source of income for serious organised criminals. I know that the Met police have carried out a huge operation recently to target not just the buyers of the goods but those who are responsible for driving that serious organised crime.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Joy Allen, Labour’s very own police and crime commissioner for Durham, has said that the Government have consistently demonstrated their complete lack of understanding of policing and community safety. Does the Minister think that she said that because the Government have cut police numbers by 1,316 since they came to power, because crime is surging, or because senior police officers are warning that the Government are creating a funding crisis?
Sarah Jones
I pay tribute to Joy Allen, who I know very well. She is a very good police and crime commissioner, and I thank her for all her work. I know that our announcement last week was difficult for police and crime commissioners to hear, but we thank them for all the work that they do and will continue to do for the next two years.
What do the public want? The public want police in our neighbourhoods fighting crime. Did the Conservatives deliver that? No, they did not. Neighbourhood policing was slashed, the number of police community support officers was halved, and the Conservatives failed to tackle the fundamental problems in policing that need reform. Policing is the most unreformed part of our public services. We will make—the Home Secretary will make—the tough decisions in the coming weeks in order to put policing on the right footing for the future.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
The previous Government lost control of our borders, and the result was a ruinously expensive asylum system that used more than 400 hotels at a cost of nearly £9 million a day. We have acted to cut those costs, with fewer than 200 hotels now in use. Our historic agreement with France means small boat departures are prevented, arrivals are detained, and those with no right to be in the UK are returned. As the House knows, I will shortly make a statement setting out the additional steps to go further and faster in the reform of our asylum system.
James McMurdock
According to a recent National Audit Office report, £15.3 billion will be spent on asylum accommodation alone over the next 10 years. That money will be spent on people who will, in some instances, commit violent and sexual crimes—crimes that would make our skin crawl—against the British people. What do we say to our residents, voters and taxpayers, who feel like we are spending money on people who want nothing for us but harm?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman should wait for the statement later today. The assumptions made by the National Audit Office in its projections are based on the current policy environment, which is about to change very significantly.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
UK Visas and Immigration makes millions of decisions every year about who has permission to visit or stay in the UK, protecting our borders and delivering excellent customer service across the globe. Where customers require refunds, UKVI officials ensure that they are made as swiftly as possible.
Peter Lamb
I thank the Minister for his response. I have several residents who have been waiting almost a year for a refund from the Home Office. Given the dramatic improvements that we have seen in asylum application processing in the last year, can I trust that the Minister will put the same zeal into ensuring that the other Home Office processes work just as efficiently?
Mike Tapp
I am aware of those three specific issues, and I reassure my hon. Friend that we are looking at them. I am happy to talk to him in more detail offline.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. Application costs are significant, and sometimes push those who apply to the wall. Whenever it comes to getting moneys back from someone who owes them, the Government are very zealous—as they should be. I suggest that when it comes to those that they owe money to, the Government should be just as zealous.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and of course we will be just as zealous with those receiving refunds.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse will mirror the Casey audit, and therefore cover England and Wales. That said, all parts of the UK must work together to protect children and bring perpetrators to justice. We have committed to sharing relevant findings with devolved Administrations and are considering how the inquiry’s work may interact with devolved responsibilities in Scotland, including cross-area trafficking concerns.
John Lamont
Last week, brave grooming-gang survivor Fiona Goddard spoke of how she was trafficked to Scotland as a vulnerable teenager. As she rightly said, the idea that this issue stops at the border is “insane”. Despite clear evidence from victims about grooming gangs operating in Scotland, the SNP Government in Edinburgh still refuse to hold an inquiry. [Interruption.] Will the Minister please listen to victims and campaigners and extend the national inquiry to Scotland, so that we can ensure that young girls and teenagers are not treated in this way again?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Gentleman—others are stating from a sedentary position that the SNP Government in Scotland have said something different. However, any information can be given to the inquiry. In the example that the hon. Gentleman gave, where people are trafficked into Scotland, that evidence can be given to the inquiry. But police, justice, education, children’s services and health are all devolved, which is different to the system in England and Wales, where just policing and justice are devolved. We have to ensure that we are working within frameworks where the recommendations can be fully taken, but we will work with all nations to make sure that the findings make things better in the future.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
We are committed to delivering a stronger neighbourhood policing presence in communities across England and Wales. Every neighbourhood, including those in Redditch, now has a named, contactable officer dedicated to addressing issues facing the community. West Mercia police is using its share of the £200 million made available this financial year to grow its neighbourhood team by 51 full-time-equivalent neighbourhood officers.
Chris Bloore
I thank the Minister for that answer, and for the extra £39 million given to West Mercia police. But residents in Redditch have told me clearly that they want to be able to walk into their local police station and speak to an officer face to face. Does the Minister agree with me, and the many hundreds of constituents who have already signed my petition, that the new police station in Redditch should reinstate a public-facing front desk?
Sarah Jones
As my hon. Friend will know, how resources are spent is a matter for the chief constable, but the Government are clear that visible policing is essential to restoring public confidence in the police, and we have invested £30 million since we came to power in new IT systems to make it easier for the public to report crime. That is also why we are ensuring that everyone has a named, contactable neighbourhood officer that they can call on.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
An arbitrary limit on legal migration would serve no one. As we have seen in the past, attempts to implement such caps have been unsuccessful. I remind the hon. Member of the 1 million in one year under the previous Government, undercutting British workers. Instead, this Government have set out a plan to reduce net migration by restoring control to the immigration system, reducing our reliance on overseas labour, and investing in domestic skills.
Mike Wood
Does the Minister not recognise that an important step towards significantly reducing net migration would be to make it clear to all those working in his Department or handling migration that there is a number that everyone is working towards? If that is the case, surely Members of this House should be able to vote on that binding cap, as happens successfully in countries such as Australia.
Mike Tapp
It is always amusing to be lectured about immigration by the Conservative party. There are more sophisticated ways to address high net migration, and this Government are doing that by tackling the underlying causes of over-reliance on migrant labour by employers, alongside raising the bar for who can come to the UK, and targeted visa restrictions.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
As set out on multiple occasions in this House, no Ministers and no special advisers played any role in the provision of evidence. The Director of Public Prosecutions has confirmed that publicly.
Alison Griffiths
Our judicial system is rightly rigorous and independent, which is why the Government’s handling of intelligence that is central to national security, and passing it to prosecutors, matters so much. As the Minister responsible for our state threats framework and domestic security, will the Home Secretary tell the House when she was first alerted to concerns that crucial evidence had not been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service? Does she agree that the public deserve a full and frank account of how two alleged Chinese spies were able to walk free?
Dan Jarvis
This was an independent decision by the CPS, and we have repeatedly made clear that there was no political interference in the evidence provided. This Government are extremely disappointed with the outcome of this case, and remain concerned about the espionage threat posed to the UK. We are working relentlessly to counter it.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
The Government remain steadfast in their support for Hongkongers in the UK, and remain fully committed to the British national overseas route. We will consult on the earned settlement scheme shortly, and everyone will be welcome to participate.
Yuan Yang
Reading is proud to be a town of many immigrant diasporas, including Hong Kong BNOs who are seeking refuge here. Many of my immigrant constituents have lived in our community for years, and they work incredibly hard so that they can put down roots, much as my parents did when I was a child. Will the Minister acknowledge the contributions of immigrant families who enrich towns like mine, when making policy about settlement periods?
Mike Tapp
Absolutely. Across the board we recognise the contribution from migrant communities, and specifically the Hong Kong community. We are listening to their views about the route to settlement, and will continue to do so.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The case for legal migration and for those genuinely seeking asylum is undermined by evidence that businesses in Station Road in my constituency are using and exploiting migrants to carry out illegal trading. Local businesses are shocked and frustrated that when the police raid those premises, they remain open and continue trading. Will the Government consider bringing forward legislation to provide for the immediate closure of illegally trading shops?
Mike Tapp
We take extremely this seriously in the Home Office, but it is out of control after the previous Government left us with a broken system. That is why in just over a year and a half we have increased arrests by 50% and visits by 64%—the highest in British history—and we will continue on that route.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I recognise the huge pressure that asylum hotels have placed on communities. This Government are committed to exiting asylum hotels by the end of the Parliament. We have already halved the number of hotels in use since the peak under the Conservative party, but I would like to go faster. That is why I am exploring the use of large sites, including military sites.
Chris Murray
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Home Secretary for that response. The Home Affairs Committee report on asylum accommodation shows that private companies have made millions from the taxpayer, while communities and asylum seekers have suffered. What is the Home Secretary doing to address the appalling profiteering that the Tories allowed, and the disastrous asylum contracts, and will she trigger the break clause next year?
Shabana Mahmood
So far, the amount that has been recouped by this Government is £74 million, of which £46 million is excess profit and the remainder is service charges or service credit and VAT. We are rapidly reviewing the contracts that we inherited, including the break clause, to ensure that they are providing value for money for taxpayers. I will keep the matter under review and update the House in due course.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The last Home Secretary said that we should judge the success of the Government in smashing the gangs by whether the number of channel crossings falls. By which date should we judge whether the Government have been successful? If the Home Secretary fails, will she resign?
Shabana Mahmood
We should already recognise that the action on law enforcement, particularly the co-operation with our colleagues in France and Germany, has led to the confiscation of kit that was being used by organised immigration crime gangs, and has led to 20,000 illegal crossings not taking place. Later today, we will set out a full suite of measures designed to decrease the number of arrivals from across the channel. Unlike many in the hon. Gentleman’s party, I take my responsibilities very seriously and I am happy to be held to account by the British public.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Government have already acted to fix the unworkable mess in which the Tories left the asylum system. An increase of 116% in processing in one year is bringing down the backlog, securing refugee status for those fleeing persecution and removing those with no right to be here, but communities such as those in Falkirk must see the benefit of the difference in approach. What steps will the Home Secretary take to guarantee Tory-created asylum hotels will be closed equitably across the nations of the United Kingdom?
Shabana Mahmood
We are working with Ministers across Government on closing every hotel as soon as possible, and by the end of this Parliament. As we have all seen, that is a complex process that must be delivered through a controlled, managed and orderly programme of work. We do not want to be in a situation where, without an alternative ready, we start exiting hotels before it is time to do so. I assure my hon. Friend that we will take a balanced and evidence-based approach towards making decisions about the locations that we will use and how we will exit hotels. I look forward to talking to him in more detail about these plans in due course.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Government are currently spending some £2.1 billion on hotels, but the system is not working. It does not have to be that way. The Public and Commercial Services union and Together With Refugees have shown that a humane asylum system, which expedites asylum hearings and supports employment, could reduce asylum costs by 40%. Will the Home Secretary at least look at the evidence and concede that she does not always have to try to outdo the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)?
Shabana Mahmood
What I am interested in is recognising the extent of the problems that this Government have inherited and coming up with proper solutions to those problems. For me, this is not about party politics or individual politicians, but a moral mission to fix a broken system that is unfair, costing the country far too much money and putting huge pressure on communities. I ask the hon. Gentleman to engage with the detail of the proposal, rather than playing party politics himself.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
I am pleased to start with some very good news indeed: one of the heroes of the Huntingdon attack, Samir Zitouni, the member of the train’s crew who risked his own life to save others, has been discharged from hospital. There is a long road ahead of him and his family have asked for privacy, but I am sure the whole House joins me in wishing him the swiftest and fullest recovery possible. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Since the last Home Office oral questions, I have made a number of significant announcements. A review of police protest powers was launched last weekend, and I am pleased that the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Ken Macdonald, will lead it.
Last week, we announced that police and crime commissioners will be abolished. The introduction of police and crime commissioners by the last Government was a failed experiment. I will introduce new reforms so that police are accountable to their mayoral teams or local councils. The savings from this will fund more neighbourhood policing on the beat across the country, fighting crime and protecting our communities. I recognise the efforts of all current and former police and crime commissioners, and I thank them because they served their communities with honour and will continue to do so until they have completed their current—
Mr Speaker
Order. The answer is far too long. I still have to get other people in. Please can we have shorter answers.
Seamus Logan
The Muscatelli report, commissioned by the Labour party in Scotland, recommended that the Scottish Government push for a bespoke immigration approach that tackles the unique issues faced by Scotland and its economy. While the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, may be a bit confused about what is devolved and what is reserved, I am sure the Home Secretary is not. Will the Home Secretary meet me to discuss the report further, to deliver a win for the Scottish economy and fulfil one of the manifesto commitments made by the Labour party in Scotland?
Shabana Mahmood
No, I will not, because immigration is a reserved matter. Trying to devolve this matter would create perverse pull factors all across the United Kingdom, which would be deeply inappropriate.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The assessment of the terrorist threat to the UK is made independently by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. Government partners, including JTAC, the National Protective Security Authority and counter-terrorism police, work closely with industry to ensure that the latest threat picture is appropriately responded to by owners of CNI. I am happy to discuss that further with him.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Last October, a Sudanese small-boat illegal immigrant murdered 27-year-old Rhiannon Whyte by stabbing her 23 times with a screwdriver. In September, an illegal immigrant from Egypt was jailed for brutally raping a young woman in Hyde Park. Just last week, an Iranian and two Egyptian small-boat illegal immigrants were committed to trial for the rape of a 33-year-old woman on Brighton beach. How many more murders and rapes must there be before the Home Secretary agrees to the immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants within a week of arrival?
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before the Minister answers, let me say that the last case is sub judice, so please be careful with the answer.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Speaker.
We are totally clear that those who commit crimes should not get settlement or citizenship in this country; they should be removed. That is why removals have reached their highest level for a decade. We can do much more in this space, which is why the Home Secretary will make the statement that she is going to make later.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
My hon. Friend is right to raise that. We will ensure that there are more neighbourhood officers on our streets, with 3,000 more by next April, but PCSOs have a really vital role to play. I am a big fan of them, and I encourage all forces to have more of them.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Ahead of the Budget next week, the Labour Chancellor departed from years of silence on the matter by admitting that Brexit has been a disaster for our economy. Will the Labour Home Secretary follow the Chancellor’s lead by admitting that Brexit has also caused significant harm to this country’s ability to maintain order in our immigration and asylum system?
Alex Norris
I am slightly reluctant to enter into the Brexit theory of everything with the hon. Gentleman. The reality is that we have the settlement we have. The British people rightly want to understand why asylum numbers are falling across Europe but increasing in the UK, and that is why we are taking the actions we propose to take. He will not have to wait much longer to hear the detail.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Dan Jarvis
Everyone deserves to feel safe and to be able fully to participate in public and political life, free from the threat of violence or exclusion driven by hateful prejudice. We will persist in our efforts to challenge extremist narratives, disrupt the activity of radicalising groups and directly tackle the causes of radicalisation. Alongside our work to tackle extremism, the defending democracy taskforce is driving forward a whole-of-Government response to the full range of threats we face to our democracy.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this case with me, and I am happy to look into it in more detail. It is a fundamental principle that victims of sexual violence are entitled by law to anonymity, and breaching that anonymity is a crime. I am very interested to hear from her and to see how we can ensure that that is not happening.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Dan Jarvis
The Department is committed to reinvesting criminal proceeds into asset recovery and tackling related economic crime. In 2024-25, £174 million supported law enforcement, including through the ARIS top slice, a multi-year fund that is ringfenced for core and innovative capabilities. We are reviewing ARIS with stakeholders to improve stability and effectiveness. I know that my hon. Friend is engaging with the noble Lord Hanson of Flint, but I would be very happy to discuss this matter with him further.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman highlights an awful crime that was very much overlooked by the previous Government. We are changing the system, so that the £200 rule—whereby crimes would not be investigated if the goods stolen were worth less than £200—is scrapped. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) championed in opposition, we are bringing in a new offence of assaulting a shopworker. This issue needs a really targeted response, and we know that a lot of local police are working closely with the Co-op group and others to make sure we target the prolific offenders who are responsible for a vast amount of these crimes.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Government have tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill that would create sweeping powers to impose conditions on public protests based on cumulative disruption. Can the Minister set out to the House what that amendment means by serious disruption to a community? How will this be determined and measured, and how will these powers be made subject to democratic scrutiny?
Sarah Jones
That would probably take longer to answer than the amount of time I have for a topical question, but I am very happy to speak to my hon. Friend about this issue. The definition of serious disruption is not changing; the amendment deals with the circumstances in which a police force can put conditions on a protest while not banning it. I am very happy to have more conversations with my hon. Friend about this.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
Alex Norris
I am sad that the hon. Gentleman has a different characterisation of those who seek refuge in this country than the one I have from my own community —that is not my experience. We are clear that if individuals commit crime, there must be consequences, including their removal from this country. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait much longer to hear what the Home Secretary has to say, but I cannot recognise his characterisation.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
As a lifelong political activist and trade unionist, I value free speech and the right to protest. Having lived through the miners’ strike, I know what it means when the state turns against working people and disregards their rights, so I am deeply concerned that the proposed amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill will allow police to prohibit marches, demonstrations and even picket lines simply because another such event has taken place in the same area. Can the Minister guarantee that this House will have sufficient time to debate and vote on those amendments?
Sarah Jones
To be clear, these amendments are not about stopping marches; they are about conditions, including the length of time and the geography of them. Of course, the right to protest is one that Labour will always champion.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Alex Norris
In so many ways, the hon. Gentleman is ahead of his time—I may well be the first person to accuse him of that. He will have the opportunity to hear from the Home Secretary about our plans regarding visa sanctions; he just has to wait a little bit longer.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Crimes committed by grooming gangs are among the most horrific imaginable; victims feel the devastating impact for the rest of their life. Does the Minister therefore agree that the findings of the national inquiry into grooming gangs should be implemented without delay, that the victims must be kept at the heart of our response, and that their voices and experiences must lead the inquiry, so that some justice can finally be delivered for those impacted?
Jess Phillips
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and we are working urgently to establish the inquiry. Baroness Casey is supporting that work. She and I recently met some of the people my hon. Friend is talking about, and I look forward to updating the House.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Home Office has requested transitional accommodation for asylum claimants, following the closure of Garats Hay in my constituency. However, neither Leicestershire county council nor Charnwood borough council has been consulted or received any additional funding for this extra burden. Why are these councils being bypassed, and will they get the funding that they need?
Alex Norris
All local authorities get an extra payment of £1,200 when someone in the supported estate ends up in their local authority, so I cannot quite understand that characterisation. If I have understood wrongly, I would be keen to meet the hon. Gentleman to understand his point, because we appreciate that there is an impact on local communities. We want to make sure that things go as smoothly as possible for the people who live in them, and we want to get this right.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Hartlepool police do a magnificent job, but like police in the rest of the Cleveland force area, they are hamstrung by a funding formula that is broken. The victims core grant works out at £7 a crime in my constituency. Down the road in North Yorkshire, the figure is £19 a crime. That is unfair and unjust. Can the Minister please commit to fixing this fundamental unfairness?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is right that for many of their years in government, the Opposition wanted to look at the police funding formula, but they never did. The Home Secretary will bring forward our police reform White Paper, which will set out the context for our future funding decisions, but the allocations for this year are being looked at as we speak. I hear my hon. Friend.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Met police recently proposed closing, or scaling back the hours of operation for, a number of police front counters across London. Those plans were scaled back, apparently in response to public feedback, but the Twickenham police station’s front counter is still earmarked for closure, and only 15 people were invited to an online meeting at which to give that feedback. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Mayor of London and the Met police have a duty to do a full public consultation on these plans?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Lady is right: there was a consultation, and seven fewer front counters will now be closed than before, and she is right that Twickenham is not one of those that will no longer close. We need to judge the police in London on their outcomes and Sadiq Khan on the work that he has done. We have the lowest number of murders since records began. Fraser Nelson, that well-known socialist, wrote just this week:
“But look past the headlines…the city is winning the battle over violent crime. It’s not a bad time to be a Londoner.”
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Last month, there was an increase in knife crime across my constituency, and it was carried out not necessarily by younger people, but by older people. I know that the Government are determined to crack down on knife crime. What more are they doing to tackle knife crime?
Sarah Jones
Nationally, we have taken 60,000 knives off the streets, knife murders are down 18%, and knife crime is down 5%, but every single offence is one too many. We will keep pushing on the policing response—as well as, crucially, the prevention response; we will work with our young people to stop them getting involved in crime in the first place.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It is often reported that a high proportion of people who enter the country illegally do so without any reliable identifying documentation. Can any Minister say, in percentage terms, roughly what the proportions are of illegal immigrants who do and do not have documentation?
Alex Norris
I will have to follow up in writing with the specific percentages for the right hon. Gentleman, but I assure him and the House that we are doing full biometric checks at the front door. We are checking against European databases, as well as our own databases, to make sure that we know who is here and, if there is any offending history, what that history is.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Returning to rural crime, I pay tribute to the work that the Thames Valley police rural crime taskforce is doing for rural communities and farmers in the Buckingham and Bletchley constituency. Can the Minister set out more detail of how the national rural crime strategy will complement the work already being done by local forces? Will that strategy be complemented by a long-term funding model?
Sarah Jones
I am seeing Thames Valley police to discuss exactly that subject very shortly, and I will let my hon. Friend know when I am going, so that he can, perhaps, come with me. The crime strategy of the National Police Chiefs’ Council will, of course, build on the work that has already been done in Thames Valley.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
One of the major pull factors for illegal migrants crossing the channel is the fact that they can get jobs quite easily. Does the Home Secretary still support an amnesty for all undocumented workers?
Alex Norris
That is not the position. We in the Government are resolute in our attempts to tackle illegal working, which does indeed act as a pull factor. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which will return to this House from the Lords on Wednesday, has important provisions for dealing with the loopholes in the gig economy that can allow for substitution and provide space for illegal working. If we want to stop that, we should get the Bill moving as quickly as we can, and I urge Members to ensure that we do.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I understand that the permanent secretary at the Home Office recently appointed a single senior official to be responsible for asylum hotels. Will the Home Secretary please use her good offices to encourage that official to come to the Stanwell hotel in my Spelthorne constituency, so that they can see for themselves how inappropriate it is in the context of the surrounding village, and prioritise it for closure?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman and I have had this conversation about Stanwell before, and he has pressed the matter with characteristic vigour. I can say to him and his community that we have committed to closing these hotels in this Parliament; they will not be open for a day longer than they have to be. When we close hotels, there will be clear criteria for choosing them for closure, and he has made many very good suggestions of grounds that might be used.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
In recent years, there has been a real increase in racist attacks in this country, including on our NHS staff; they have seen a rise of 55% in such attacks. Recently, two Sikh women were not just racially but sexually abused. Does the Home Secretary fear that implementing asylum policies like those in Denmark would exacerbate the problem, and embolden those who would create hate on our streets?
Alex Norris
The Minister for Policing and Crime recently met a delegation of Sikh colleagues to discuss that very important case. As for the hon. Gentleman’s broader point about Denmark, it is right that, given the challenges we face in this country, our policies seek to draw on best practice from around Europe and the world, and he will not have to wait much longer to see the fruits of that.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Last week, the Minister for Policing and Crime told me:
“the funding allocation will be made in the usual way before the end of the year…there is more money going into policing this year and we will ensure that it is given to where it is needed.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 344.]
Irrespective of the fact that more money is going into policing, can the Minister clarify for my constituents whether the Government will update the police allocation formula this year to give Cambridgeshire its fair share? The neighbourhood policing guarantee means nothing if our local police forces are underfunded in comparison with neighbouring forces.
Sarah Jones
I would not say that the neighbourhood policing guarantee, involving an extra £200 million, means nothing. It is a substantial amount for all our communities in England and Wales, and the allocations will be decided in the usual way this year.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As a former police officer, I have policed protests, and I know how important they are. On the issue of cumulative disruption, what evidence has the Minister gathered that demonstrates that a protest that is deemed safe as a one-off would become a public safety risk if it were repeated?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Lady is aware of these issues, and she is aware of the complexities of policing what are sometimes very disruptive and upsetting protests. We must get the balance right, and that is what we are trying to do, but I am happy to engage in more conversations with her about this.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Shopkeepers in Maidenhead town centre tell me how pleased they are to see neighbourhood police officers doing their regular patrols, but those outside the town centre do not see those patrols as regularly and struggle more with shoplifting as a result. What is the Minister doing to tackle that, so that we have more neighbourhood police in communities, and not just in town centres?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman has referred to a challenge that the police to do with their resources. Through the White Paper and the reform programme, we are trying to ensure that our police officers can spend all their time doing the things that we want them to do—not dealing with bureaucracy, doing police staff jobs or sitting behind a counter, but fighting crime in our communities.
Budget: Press Briefings
(1 day, 10 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
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on briefings to the press about the contents of the Budget.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
Every Minister in this Government takes their obligations to this House very seriously. There has been much speculation, as is usual ahead of a Budget, but the Chancellor will come to this House on 26 November and deliver a Budget that will protect the NHS and public services. It will support growth and enable businesses to create jobs and innovate. It will support those struggling with the cost of living, protect families from high inflation and interest rates, and get debt falling, because the less we spend on debt interest, the more we can spend on the priorities of working people.
As you would rightly expect, Mr Speaker, I will not comment on individual measures today. The Chancellor has asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce a forecast. The OBR and the Treasury exchange information throughout the forecast process, which is the usual practice, established over many years. The Chancellor will take decisions based on that forecast, and we will set out our fiscal plans at the Budget next week in the usual way. The OBR is making an assessment of the productivity performance of the previous Government, and we will not allow the mistakes of the previous Government to determine our country’s future. The Budget next week will be guided by this Government’s values of fairness and opportunity, and will be focused entirely on the priorities of the British people.
Stability remains at the heart of our approach. By building more resilient public finances with the headroom to withstand global turbulence, we will give businesses the confidence to invest, and leave Government more free to act, when the situation calls for it. We will continue to meet our iron-clad fiscal rules, which allow the Government to invest in homes, transport, energy security and infrastructure. Taking this action means that we can continue to build strong foundations for our economy, because that is the route to securing Britain’s future.
Sir Mel Stride
Given that response, the right hon. Gentleman might try a bit of stand-up in his spare time. The process around the Budget is meant to be the most closely guarded secret in Government, but in recent weeks, we have barely been able to pick up a newspaper without reading a fresh report of the latest policy movements. On 6 November, The Times reported that the Chancellor had included increases in income tax rates in the measures sent to the OBR for scoring. Then, last Thursday, the Financial Times revealed that those proposals have now been removed from the Budget package.
The Chancellor and her officials may think this is a game that they are playing, but it has real-life consequences and impacts markets, as we saw on Friday. More than that, it shows utter contempt for this House. In this place, questions about the Budget are always met with the same answer: “Decisions on tax will be announced at the Budget”. That is right and proper, but it becomes hollow and absurd when those same matters are being openly reported in the national media daily. The Chancellor even delivered a pre-Budget address to the country—not in this House, but in the Downing Street press room.
Given that the Chancellor has chosen not to come to the House today, I will ask the Minister the following questions. Has the Chancellor or any Treasury Minister sanctioned any briefings to journalists on potential Budget tax measures or the contents of the OBR’s forecasts? Have any Treasury officials or special advisers conducted such briefings? Has the Chancellor or the permanent secretary launched an investigation into the source of the leaks, and can the Minister explain why the Chancellor seems to have confirmed that the OBR has downgraded its productivity forecasts before the Budget has even taken place?
Either the Chancellor has been knowingly allowing the Budget process to be briefed out, or serious unauthorised leaks have occurred from her Department. That has fuelled confusion and uncertainty, and disrespects this House.
Mr Speaker
Minister, it is not normal for a Budget to have been put in the press. This is the hokey-cokey Budget: one minute something is in, the next minute it is out. I am very worried. The previous Government also had to be reprimanded for leaking. It is not good policy. At one time, a Minister would have resigned if anything was released. This House should be sacrosanct, and all decisions should be heard here first. Please do pass on the message.
James Murray
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I can reassure you that every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously.
I will not engage with speculation or comment on the ongoing Budget process, but everyone in this House and beyond can be very clear of what the Chancellor’s priorities are going into the Budget. We will meet the iron-clad fiscal rules, we will make the public finances more resilient, we will reduce inflationary pressures and we will get the costs of borrowing down, because that is the way to focus on the priorities of the British people, which are to protect the NHS, bear down on the cost of living and reduce the national debt.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
There has been either a leak or wild speculation about the Budget, and it would be helpful if the Minister could advise us which it is. In doing so, could he outline—as he will obviously not go into detail, quite rightly, a week before the Budget—what this Budget’s strategic objectives are for the country?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Regrettably, there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget, but I am not going to comment on that speculation. As the Chancellor set out in her speech earlier this month, although we face challenges going into the Budget, we are very clear about the priorities of this Government, which are to make the public finances more resilient, to reduce inflationary pressures and to bring down the costs of borrowing, because that is the way we can focus on the priorities of the British people—the NHS, the cost of living and getting debt down.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
These leaks are not just Westminster tittle-tattle; they have a real impact on people’s lives and livelihoods. The cold weather has now reached all corners of Britain, and households do not know if they can afford to put the heating on, because they do not know if their taxes are going up or down or staying the same. It is just five weeks until Christmas, and our high streets are struggling with low consumer confidence. That is precisely why we Liberal Democrats have called for a windfall tax on the big banks to fund an emergency cut to people’s energy bills and a VAT cut for hospitality, visitor accommodation and attractions.
However, these leaks are a symptom, not the cause; the real problem runs much deeper. The Labour Government have no vision for the country and no vision for the economy, and whatever their destination is, they are not taking the country with them. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I have had Pinky and Perky chirping all day. Well, that is the last time!
Daisy Cooper
When people and the markets do not know what the Government are trying to achieve, rumours can and do run rife. It is clear that this Budget is more leaky than our crumbling hospitals.
I should add that the confected outrage from the Conservatives is slightly absurd, because their key Budget announcements were often leaked in advance—in at least one case, almost word for word. Perhaps this House needs to move to the Swedish system in which the Swedish Parliament gets to debate the Government’s Budget, proposes alternatives and amendments before it is finalised, and gets a proper period of scrutiny and accountability in the months that follow. What are the Government doing to stop these leaks, do they recognise that this flip-flopping is incredibly damaging to households and the markets, and will they consider all good ideas, including from the Liberal Democrats?
Mr Speaker
I remind the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that the time limit is one minute, not one minute and 50 seconds.
James Murray
Like the hon. Member, I regret the fact that there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget, but I am not going to add to that speculation here in the Chamber today. Our focus as a Government is to build the strong foundations that our economy needs, because that is the way to secure Britain’s future.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I am often put in mind of that scene in “Casablanca” where the official expresses surprise at gambling taking place in the casino when I hear Conservative Members say that briefing might have taken place. Perhaps in 2017, when the key stamp duty measure in that Budget was leaked, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) was equally surprised, as he was then the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. While there is always briefing, I am sure the Minister agrees with me that the job of the Chancellor is to get the best deal for this country.
Mr Speaker
Order. That is a toughie that one, and I think we know the answer. It is the worst patsy question so far. I call Steve Barclay.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
As the Minister will know, leaks of market sensitive data obviously carry a much higher premium than other leaks that may occur in Government. Again, could he address the shadow Chancellor’s question as to why the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent secretary have not been asked to launch an inquiry into these leaks?
James Murray
As I said, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, but what the markets know is that the Chancellor’s commitment to her fiscal rules is iron-clad. They have been met at every fiscal event since this Parliament began, and they will be met next Wednesday.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
The problem that we have is an insatiable 24/7 media who want stories and will sometimes generate their own. All this speculation has created uncertainty that has hampered investment, which I know is not what the Treasury wants. Will the Minister be clear from the Dispatch Box that any further speculation we read about will not have been authorised by anyone in Government?
James Murray
Mr Speaker, as I made clear, every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously and I am not going to engage in further speculation today, but what we are seeking to achieve in the Budget next week is to ensure that, in meeting her iron-clad fiscal rules that the Chancellor has committed to, we provide extra headroom to give more resilience to the public finances, reduce inflationary pressures and get the cost of borrowing down.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Two weeks ago, the Chancellor held a press conference from which everyone inferred that income tax was going to go up. On Friday, every newspaper said that income tax was not going to go up. It is plainly obvious to the general public and anyone who reads any of the papers that everything is being briefed from the Treasury or No. 11. Surely the Minister needs to come to terms with that and face up to the fact that it has a horrendous effect on business and consumer confidence, which is doing the economy a lot of damage.
James Murray
As I said earlier, regrettably there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget. In reference to the Chancellor’s speech earlier this month, the reason she set out the challenges we face as a country was to be straightforward with the British people about the challenges we face and clear about her priorities, which are to protect on the NHS, bear down on the cost of living and get national debt down.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Tories are still as irresponsible as they were under Liz Truss, blindly promising £47 billion of cuts to justify their wacky fiscal policies? Does he agree that that is back of the fag packet territory? Does he agree that the Chancellor will deliver an excellent Budget next week?
James Murray
I agree entirely that the Conservative party has learned nothing, and nor has it apologised at all for what happened under the short-lived Government of Liz Truss. For the Conservatives to talk about the savings they have apparently identified recently, including welfare savings, is frankly not credible when the shadow Chancellor is the man who presided over the biggest increase in the welfare bill in decades.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
On one level, this is all just a bit embarrassing, is it not? But on another level, this is having a real impact on business confidence and the ability of local businesses to make decisions about investment and their future. Does the Minister agree that this is all just a bit self-defeating?
James Murray
I am not quite sure what I am supposed to say in response to that question. I would rather this urgent question had not been asked today—there are other things that we could be doing—but it is important to underline to you, Mr Speaker, that every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I was astonished to hear those on the Opposition Benches cheer and jeer as the Chief Secretary made his statement. If I remember correctly, when we first took office after the election, we were told about how they had mishandled the economy, mishandled Brexit, mishandled the pandemic, spent the reserves three times over and promised money for sensitive schemes when they did not have the money, just to try and win the election. Will the Chief Secretary tell the House how decisions are made in the Budget process, and what we were left with when we first took office?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our priority is to take the right decisions to provide stability and secure foundations for the long-term future of this country. It is true that we inherited a mess from the Conservative party. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility is now looking at the previous Government’s record on productivity. We have been clear that we will not let the mistakes of the previous Government determine this country’s future. We will take the right decisions for the future of this country.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The speculation was inflamed by the Chancellor herself giving a speech at the press conference. Surely one of the most damaging pieces of speculation in the media was that there might be an exit tax on wealthy people fleeing the country. That has only just been ruled out, but many, many people have fled in the interim. There has been a real cost to the Exchequer from all the speculation, so will the Minister confirm that there will be a leak inquiry?
James Murray
As I made clear, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, nor am I going to engage in speculation about Budget measures. I note that this urgent question is about speculation, which I am not engaging with. It is actually Conservative Members who seem to be fanning the speculation, and I would discourage them from doing that.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that we have had leak inquiries previously when major statements have come out? The reports may be contradicted within days, but they are obviously coming from somewhere. It is worth while thinking about it.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Minister said in his response that the Treasury and the OBR are exchanging information, but that did not happen in the period immediately before the last election, when spending pressures were withheld from the OBR in a way that the chair said may have broken the law. Will the Minister confirm that that failure is being corrected under this Government?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is right to point out that the process between the OBR and the Treasury has been strengthened to be more robust and transparent under this Government. Of course, it is an iterative process whereby the OBR shares its forecasts with us and we share with it our proposed measures. It iterates throughout the Budget process, culminating in the Budget itself on 26 November.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
There is no doubt that the chaos and uncertainty of this Budget process is having enormous consequences for the credibility of the Labour party, and maybe even for the Minister at the Dispatch Box. I am, surprisingly, less interested in that and more interested in the damage that the Government’s policies are having on my constituents and their livelihoods. I am not asking him to speculate but to clarify: does he acknowledge that if the energy profits levy continues in its current form, more of my constituents will lose their jobs?
James Murray
I am not going to take lessons on credibility from the right hon. Gentleman. What I will say is that he is inviting me to speculate on Budget measures, and I will not do so.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Can the Chief Secretary confirm that this will be a Budget that prioritises economic growth?
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Can I ask the Minister whether I have got this right? The Chancellor made a speech to try to reassure the markets that she was going to plug the enormous black hole in the Government’s finances. It reassured the markets to an extent, and the forecasted borrowing costs fell. The OBR adjusted its forecasts, and then the Chancellor decided that she did not need to take the measures she had announced in her speech, and the markets have now reacted adversely. This is all against the background of the cost of borrowing being higher today, as it has been all year, than the peak under the supposedly disastrous Budget of Liz Truss. What sort of confidence is that going to give the British economy?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is incorrect to say that the Chancellor announced measures in her speech earlier this month. All measures are announced on Budget day. What the Chancellor set out in her speech earlier this month were the challenges we are facing as a country and the priorities that will guide her—those are to make the public finances more resilient, with more headroom, to reduce inflationary pressures and to get the cost of borrowing down.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary will be aware of the vital role that beer and pubs play in my constituency, the beer capital of Britain. As the Chancellor finalises the Budget, will she ensure that this sector, which faces significant pressure, receives the support that it deserves in order that it can thrive and continue serving our communities?
James Murray
While I have made it clear that I will not speculate on what will be in the Budget, I note my hon. Friend’s passionate case for support for the pub sector, which is so important to all of us and our constituents.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Does the Minister have any understanding at all of the impact of this incontinent briefing and leaking—the contradictory rumours about pensions, inheritance tax and housing—which is enraging so many of my constituents in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield? Does he not agree that normally an omnishambles happens once the Budget speech has been delivered, not while it is still being crafted?
James Murray
As I have said, there is always noise and speculation ahead of a Budget, but I will not engage in speculation about what the Chancellor will announce on 26 November, because that is when she will set it all out.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I promise the Chamber that I will not repeat any of the stories about my mum’s career in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. However, the Minister will know that I take tax evasion very seriously. He will be aware that it costs the Treasury billions of pounds each year. I appreciate that he cannot speculate on what will be in the Budget, but will he commit his Department to looking seriously at how we tackle tax evasion, with serious investment in HMRC?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right that I cannot speculate on the contents of the Budget, but I can thank his mother for her years of service to HMRC. I can also reassure her, him and the whole House that tackling tax avoidance and evasion and closing the tax gap is a top priority for the Government.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister is right to point out that speculation ahead of a Budget is not abnormal, but we have had speculation throughout most of this year. I wonder whether he will accept that part of the reason for that is how the Chancellor has both constructed and applied her fiscal rules. She set them up, with good intentions—we do need fiscal rules in place—but left herself with minimal headroom in a pretty volatile global economy, which has driven speculation all year round about how she would fill the gaps that have emerged throughout the year. Does he think that was a mistake?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of fiscal headroom to ensure that public finances are resilient. That is exactly why the Chancellor set out that one of her priorities in the Budget, in meeting the iron-clad fiscal rules, is to ensure that we have more resilient public finances so that the Government are freer to act when the situation calls for it.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Given the blatant breach of pre-Budget purdah, will the Chancellor follow the proper example set by Hugh Dalton?
James Murray
I fear that my history is not good enough to know exactly what that question means. [Interruption.] I am embarrassed to admit it. I am not entirely clear, but I suspect that I do not agree with the right hon. Member, whatever it was. I will leave it at that.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Given the chaos around the Budget, none of us would be at all surprised if the date itself changed. Nevertheless, is the Treasury aware how incompetent it looks in the eyes of the markets, which are utterly aghast, and in the eyes of businesses, which have stopped investing and stopped hiring?
James Murray
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Budget is next week, on Wednesday 26 November. I can also reassure him that businesses are welcoming the Chancellor’s iron-clad commitment to her fiscal rules.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Does the Chancellor recognise that her trailing of a mansion tax for houses that are nothing of the sort has caused deep anxiety for thousands of people, including many pensioners in my constituency, who could not afford a potential doubling of their council tax?
James Murray
As I made clear earlier, the level of noise and speculation ahead of the Budget is regrettable, but I will not engage in further speculation on these measures today.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am disappointed that the Minister does not know of the example of the Chancellor who resigned from Attlee’s Government for inadvertently or otherwise leaking details of the Budget. Does he at least appreciate that there is a difference between speculating about the contents of a Budget and leaking a Budget, and does he think that there should be any punishment for people who leak a Budget, irrespective of whatever the details were?
James Murray
I repeat what I said about the approach of Ministers—every Minister in the Government takes their responsibility to the House seriously—and I will not engage in further speculation about the contents of the Budget.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I have had meetings with businesses and constituents in Surrey Heath who tell me that they have changed their decisions based on the speculation they have heard in recent weeks and months. We have heard about the rage that some people have felt; in my constituency, I have heard anxiety from people who have drawn down their pension pots and perhaps not pursued the house purchase that they were looking at. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever the reality—whether speculation or leaks—this situation is deeply regrettable? If he can do anything at all, will he please ensure that this never happens again?
James Murray
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I am not adding to the speculation around the Budget. It is regrettable that there is noise and speculation around the Budget, because the right way for Budgets to be conducted is for those measures to be iterated with the Office for Budget Responsibility in the normal way, with the forecasts and measures being exchanged between the Treasury and the OBR, and for the package of measures in full to be announced by the Chancellor on Budget day.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
In some ways at least, this Chancellor is improving: her Budget last year unravelled within a day, and this year the Budget has unravelled before it has been announced. We know why the Chief Secretary is refusing to answer the question about the leak inquiry. It is because the Chancellor knows exactly who leaked the details of the Budget, because she sees that face every day in the mirror. This all goes back to last year’s Budget. Labour said in its manifesto that it would limit spending increases by the year 2028-29 to £9.5 billion a year. In the Budget, the Government increased spending by £76 billion a year. That is eight times higher. Before the Chief Secretary starts spouting about the £22 billion fiction, £9.5 billion plus £22 billion equals a lot less than £76 billion, doesn’t it?
James Murray
At the Budget last year we took the right decisions to fix the public finances and to get the NHS and public services back on their feet. We could not carry on with public services as they were when we inherited them. We could not carry on with public finances as they were when we inherited them. We have restored stability because that is a prerequisite for functioning public services, for investment and for growth.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Leaks, unauthorised briefing and speculation—or maybe not speculation—are creating instability, chaos, volatility and uncertainty for the markets, for businesses and for households in my constituency, so why will the Minister not answer the shadow Chancellor’s question about having an inquiry into what has actually happened? Let us get to the bottom of this.
James Murray
As I have said, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process. However, the right hon. Lady mentioned stability, and stability is at the heart of our approach, which is why building more resilient public finances with the headroom to withstand global turbulence is so important in giving businesses the confidence to invest.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
There appears to have been a lot of speculation about this Budget, and it seems to have been the same measures that have been speculated on by a number of different news sources, which leads to suspicions of a leak. The Minister must surely recognise that there was a possibility of a leak, in which case either he knows who the leak was and that is why he does not want to investigate, or he does not know who the leak was, in which case he should want to investigate. I am not asking him to speculate on the contents of the Budget, so he should please not give me that answer again. Why will he not institute a leak inquiry?
James Murray
A number of the hon. Lady’s colleagues have asked the same question today, and my answer has been consistent throughout, which is that I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The chaos and confusion at the heart of this Government are deeply damaging to Scotland, to its economy and to its public services. The constant leaks, briefings and U-turns flowing from the Treasury make the Scottish Government’s task all the more difficult, and this is worsened by the Chancellor’s refusal, to date, to meet the Scottish Secretary for Finance. Can the Minister succeed in persuading the Chancellor to have this meeting, please?
James Murray
In my role as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I have met Ministers in the Scottish Government to discuss the fiscal situation. We have a fiscal forum every quarter, with representatives from the Scottish Government as well as from Wales and Northern Ireland, and that is the right way for us to have routine discussions about matters of shared interest.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Government have clearly lost control of this Budget process. While they have been flying kites, businesses across the UK have been sending up distress flares. The £40 billion of tax from them in the last Budget saw hiring down, confidence down and investments down, and we are now seeing the same again. If any business in this country went to find backing and made as many U-turns as this Government are producing, it would not have a chance of finding an investor, so how can any business across the country have confidence in this Government?
James Murray
Businesses can have confidence in this Government because when we say we are going to stick to our fiscal rules, we mean it. When we say we are going to have more headroom to make our economy and our public finances more resilient, we mean it. And when we say we are going to get national debt down, we mean it—unlike the Conservatives when they were in government.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I host a regular business forum with Cheltenham constituents, who tell me that the late date of the Budget and the speculation around it have undermined their ability to make decisions, in particular on investment. They also note that there has been nearly no speculation about pro-business measures for those trying to start or grow a business. Might the Chief Secretary to the Treasury take this opportunity to speculate on something that might be useful for the small and medium-sized enterprises and larger businesses in my constituency?
James Murray
While the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to speculate on details, I can reassure him that our Budget will support growth by enabling businesses to create jobs, innovate, invest and grow.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
This urgent question is about Budget press briefings. The Minister has repeatedly said that he takes his responsibilities very seriously. He was asked by the shadow Chancellor whether he could rule out any of the ministerial team or special advisers having leaked any of the information out to the press. Will he do so from this Dispatch Box in honour of what he has been saying in his answers this afternoon?
James Murray
I did not say just that I take my responsibility to this House very seriously; I said that every Minister in this Government takes their responsibility to this House very seriously. I am not going to engage in further speculation ahead of the Budget.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
In the past year, a record £70 billion has been withdrawn from pension schemes through the tax-free lump sum as a result of the fear driven by the uncertainty of recent months. Does the Minister understand that the constant leaks and policy kite flying are leading to this adverse effect on pensioners’ savings?
James Murray
As I have said already today, there is, regrettably, always noise and speculation ahead of the Budget, but I am not going to contribute toward that speculation.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Businesses in Maidenhead tell me that what they want to see in the Budget—the one bit of speculation that they want to hear at the moment—is for the Chancellor to just leave them alone. That is an outrageous thing for them to have to think, and it is because of what they think the Chancellor will do at the Budget. Given the damage that has been caused by our current Brexit deal, does the Minister understand that we could look to generate £25 billion a year for our economy by negotiating a new EU-UK customs union? It is very simple.
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Government’s red lines on not rejoining the customs union. I can reassure him that, in approaching this Budget, the Chancellor’s commitment to her fiscal rules will ensure that we prioritise having extra resilience in terms of headroom, reduce inflationary pressures and get the costs of borrowing done.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Last week, VAT was to increase; this week, it is not. Pensions increases were to feature in the Budget; then they were not. Income tax was to feature; then it was not, and then it was again. The one thing that we are sure of is that retailers faced £7 billion in extra costs from the 2024 Budget, with employers responding by increasing prices and slashing jobs. How are the Government and the Chancellor going to breathe life into our high street and not sound the death knell for struggling small businesses? There is a very real fear that this Budget will bring a different kind of Black Friday for businesses across the UK in the form of closing down sales, which can never be allowed to happen.
James Murray
It does not count as me engaging in speculation if I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as we have already preannounced, we will set out our new business rates multipliers at the Budget, with permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, in order to help high streets across the country. That is a really important measure for us to take to support those businesses; more widely, however, it fits within the economic stability that we will provide, which is so important for businesses. That is why, as well as meeting our iron-clad fiscal rules, it is so important that we ensure that the public finances are more resilient, reduce inflationary pressures and get the costs of borrowing down.
Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa
(1 day, 10 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
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the development of the UK’s first small modular nuclear reactor power station at Wylfa.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I welcome the hon. Lady’s commitment to securing a new nuclear project in her constituency. She and I have had a number of discussions about nuclear power and other energy projects.
Nuclear energy provides the stable low-carbon baseload we need to keep the lights on and to support our economy. It is central to our clean power mission. That is why we have launched a new golden age of nuclear, committing £17 billion to the most ambitious programme of new nuclear for a generation. Our small modular reactor—SMR—programme, led by Great British Energy Nuclear, is an example of British innovation at its best. These mini reactors are smaller and quicker to build than traditional nuclear power stations, and we have been considering which is the best site to kick off the SMR programme now that we have reached that decision.
Last week, we announced that Wylfa on the north coast of Anglesey—Ynys Môn—is our chosen site for GBE Nuclear’s first SMR project. A written ministerial statement on the matter was made on Thursday. The initial project will see, subject to contracts, the construction of up to three Rolls-Royce SMR units. The site could host as many as eight, subject to future policy and funding decisions. That will deliver the largest industrial investment in north Wales for a generation. It will provide 3,000 good jobs on the site at peak construction. GBE Nuclear already looks forward to working with Welsh communities on the project, with work due to start on the site as early as next year.
We will be progressing the SMR project across this Parliament, working towards final investment decision. Meanwhile, large-scale nuclear power stations will also continue to make a vital contribution to our home-grown clean energy mix, complementing these SMRs. We will continue to act decisively, to invest ambitiously and to work with communities, investors and allies to deliver this golden age for new nuclear.
Llinos Medi
Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd, for granting the urgent question.
Last week’s announcement that nuclear power will return to Wylfa is hugely welcome. I am pleased that the Government have backed the site. As I have mentioned several times in this Chamber, Wylfa is recognised as the best site in Europe.
May I pay tribute to the teamwork over decades, by elected Members from all parties, campaigners, businesses and the local community, who have long fought for new nuclear at Wylfa. Ynys Môn has known nuclear for 65 years, with a strong local college and university ready to train a skilled workforce of the future.
To maximise the success of the project, the Government must work with the local authority on behalf of our community to deliver tangible economic and social benefits. That includes maximising opportunities in the local supply chain. The potential is clear, but the challenge is turning it into reality. After many false dawns and broken promises, my optimism is cautious. We know the cost of failure on Ynys Môn: when the Wylfa Newydd project collapsed, it robbed a generation of the opportunity to live and thrive in their community.
Recent data from the Nuclear Industry Association shows that nuclear jobs on Ynys Môn are at a record low. We cannot afford further setbacks. Clear timelines and transparent decisions are therefore essential. Can the Minister confirm when the Rolls-Royce contract will be signed, the general design assessment completed and the final investment decision made? As it stands, the SMR project is already four years behind the previous Horizon project at Wylfa. The project had a planning application and was approaching a final decision before it collapsed.
Funding the SMR project at Wylfa remains critical. Although the Government’s £2.5 billion for the SMR programme is welcome, most of the costs at Wylfa will currently be funded privately. Given the problems of the past, and that Wylfa will host a fleet of SMRs—these first-of-their-kind reactors—are the Government prepared to demonstrate their full commitment?
We cannot let this historic opportunity slip through our fingers yet again. This is a unique opportunity to create a project that will deliver for our language, our culture and our young people. I urge the Government to work with myself, key stakeholders and developers to provide the best project ever to deliver prosperity and energy security.
Michael Shanks
The hon. Lady is right that the community in Ynys Môn faced a number of false starts under the previous Government. This is an historic opportunity—a huge moment—as the project moves forward with tangible timelines in place and the £2.5 billion that she mentioned. Rolls-Royce is taking forward three SMRs initially, but there is the potential for more in the future. People will start to see jobs soon. We expect that there will be work on the site as early as next year, including 3,000 jobs when the construction phase is at its peak.
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to all those who have worked on this project over a great many years. There have been a lot of false starts and disappointments, but last week was a huge moment not just for realising the potential of the site with the next generation of nuclear, but for the UK to see SMRs actually move forward after years of talking, and, with that, the huge investment coming into the social and economic fabric of communities like hers.
The Prime Minister spoke last week about the investment—in colleges, for example—to ensure that we have the skilled workforce in the local area. Nuclear prides itself on creating many well-paid and sustainable jobs. Of course, the hon. Lady’s community has benefited in that way from previous generations of nuclear. We are determined to ensure that those economic and social benefits are felt by her constituents and for those right across the UK.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
My constituency hosts Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations, and provides the cleanest energy of any UK constituency, so obviously I am keen that Heysham continues to be part of our golden nuclear future. Is the Minister, like me, eagerly awaiting the report of the regulatory review—particularly on the outdated semi-urban population density criteria—and will he work with me to ensure that the benefits of the Heysham site are known across the industry?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend rightly highlights the huge economic advantage of nuclear. I grew up in Ayrshire, next to Hunterston, so I know how important nuclear power stations are for the communities that grow up around them. We are considering existing sites. This is not, of course, the end of our nuclear ambitions; we have been clear that we see nuclear as a hugely important part of our energy mix now and in future. Our work to consider the regulatory regime will report in due course to ensure that we have a robust process that rightly recognises the importance of nuclear safety but is also flexible enough to take advantage of the opportunities of nuclear.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
It is no secret that I am a fan of new nuclear in this country, so I welcome the progress on SMRs. If we are to have a strong economy and a good standard of life, we need abundant, reliable and cheap energy. Nuclear works in the winter, can run 24/7 to power artificial intelligence, and is 100% clean to boot. It uses 3,000 times less land than wind and solar energy, and the latest prices around the world show that it can be much cheaper, too.
The Conservative position is that we need a lot more nuclear. We were the party that overturned the complete failure of the previous Labour Government to start any British nuclear plants, so I say this with some feeling. I have been told that there was just one nuclear welder left in the country when we started work on Hinkley Point C. We invested in the supply chain and in skills, which had completely withered under the previous Government. Now the most important thing is to keep building.
I personally signed off on a third large nuclear plant at Wylfa because it is our best site. It could host both large-scale nuclear and small modular reactors. By ruling out large-scale at Wylfa and ditching the 24 GW target, are the Government calling time on new large-scale nuclear? That is what it looks like to the rest of the country. It would be a huge mistake—the same mistake that Labour made last time it was in power. If we want cheap energy and growth in this country, we need to build, build, build when it comes to nuclear.
The Minister talked about power generation from SMRs in the 2030s, but industry is being told that it will be 2042 at the earliest. Who is right, and is that really the best the Government can do? We have plans to make nuclear building much cheaper. In fact, to cut environmental red tape, we tabled radical amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but the Government voted against them. The nuclear regulatory taskforce will report soon, though; will the Government consider our proposals when it does? Lastly, does the Minister agree that it is fundamentally absurd for the Green party to talk about clean power while it has a policy of dismantling Britain’s nuclear power plants?
Michael Shanks
Well, let me start at the end, because it is nice when we have a rare moment of consensus in this place now and again. I would add our friends in the Scottish National party to the last question, although I am not quite sure about Plaid Cymru—some of its members support nuclear and some do not, even though we are building in Wales. The right hon. Lady is right to say that nuclear must be the bedrock of our clean power system. It is also an economic opportunity, as we all know. I welcome that brief bit of consensus.
The right hon. Member says “build, build, build,” but all the Opposition did was consult, consult, consult. She talks about signing off new nuclear, but none of it has been built. It is easy to sign things off, but the previous Government committed no money—not a penny of funding. On one of the biggest days for our domestic nuclear industry in a very long time, it was remarkable to hear Opposition spokespeople last week talk down the sector. They talked big for 14 years, but built very little. Not a single new nuclear project was completed in their entire time in office, and that is because they did not put any funding into delivering it.
We have committed almost £20 billion of real money to build real projects, because we are ambitious about our nuclear future, about Sizewell C and about this SMR programme. We have not ruled out any future giga-scale projects, but our ambition is matched by funding to actually deliver them. Wylfa was the absolute best site on offer, which is why we chose it to host this most important, flagship project for the United Kingdom. We are delivering jobs and investment in Wales, and we are delivering the next generation of nuclear after many, many years of disappointment by the Conservatives.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Scotland’s Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, told the SNP conference that her Government would not allow Labour to turn Scotland into a “nuclear playground”. I guess she knew her audience, but given her reputation as the common-sense member of that Government, she should have known better. That kind of playground politics is an insult to Scotland’s nuclear workers, thousands of whom leave Scotland to work in highly unionised, safe, skilled jobs in England—and now Wales—to build the next generation of nuclear power stations.
Does the Minister agree that Scotland could have these jobs—that Dounreay, Torness in East Lothian, and Hunterston in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) could have these jobs—if it was not for the Dr Nos of the SNP and their outdated opposition to nuclear power?
Michael Shanks
I cannot help but notice that none of the SNP MPs is in the Chamber for this statement, so they are not defending the ideological objection that they seem to have. My hon. Friend, not surprisingly, is absolutely right to highlight the Scottish Government’s playground politics; this is holding back investment right across the country, as well as the necessary energy security.
We know that nuclear power stations across Scotland have delivered generations of well-paid, skilled and sustainable jobs. I recently met people in Torness who had started out as apprentices and who are still there, 20 or 30 years later, working in the nuclear industry. There will be jobs in Scotland in the supply chain for the SMR programme and Sizewell C, but it is a great shame that the Scottish National party is holding back the full potential of Scotland to be part of this nuclear story. I hope that the people of Scotland will vote for a different Government in May, so that we can get on with delivering the jobs and investment in communities right across Scotland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
New small modular reactors have real potential to help reduce our reliance on foreign gas and bring down energy bills, as well as bringing a welcome boost to jobs and investment in Anglesey. SMRs should be where the focus is when it comes to nuclear, not big, expensive nuclear power stations that cost multiples more and take far longer to build.
The Liberal Democrats are pleased to see SMRs coming forward as part of a mix of cost-effective and safe decarbonised power generation, but will the Government please confirm that they will also maintain focus on boosting wind and solar power generation in order to bring down everyone’s energy bills? My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) has been working closely with constituents who will now be disappointed that the alternative site of Oldbury has not gone forward, so can the Minister clarify what the future is for that site?
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman is right to say how important this next generation of nuclear is—but alongside other technologies. The Government have been really clear that our clean power mission is about wind, solar and storage, but it is also about nuclear. That combination is how we deliver our energy security and get away from the volatility of fossil fuels, and it is how we create thousands of jobs across the country. We need all of that.
The hon. Member is right to highlight Oldbury, which is a hugely important nuclear site that is owned by Great British Energy Nuclear. We continue to look at the future potential for Oldbury and other sites. This is not the limit of the Government’s ambition on nuclear; it is the next stage of that ambition. Wylfa was judged as the best possible site for the SMR programme and it is right that we put our flagship programme on the best possible site, but we are ambitious about the future of nuclear and Great British Energy Nuclear is looking at a range of sites across the UK—including both Oldbury and sites in Scotland—for potential future projects.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Although this announcement is a welcome step forward for the SMR programme and the community on Anglesey, after suffering many broken promises and false starts, it is abundantly clear that the UK will not meet our future clean energy needs without further gigawatt-scale plants alongside SMRs and AMRs. To that end, and with Wylfa having been widely considered one of the best sites, if not the best, in the UK for a full gigawatt-scale reactor, does the Minister grasp the urgency in setting out the road map for wider nuclear industry needs for future gigawatt sites beyond Sizewell C?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is a huge champion of the nuclear industry, and I have learned a huge amount from her in my time in this post. I am sure the whole nuclear industry is grateful for her work on the all-party group on nuclear energy, and in other activities throughout the House to ensure that these issues are always top of the agenda. Great British Energy Nuclear has been charged with driving forward our ambition for nuclear, and the SMR programme is a key part of that, as are Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, and we are also looking at what future potential we need.
Our country’s energy needs will clearly only increase in the coming years, and we will be looking at the future of that energy mix, and the mix of renewables with nuclear. The Secretary of State has charged Great British Energy Nuclear to look at what more projects there will be. I take my hon. Friend’s point about a road map to give some certainty to that, and I am sure that the Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, Lord Vallance, will have heard that comment, as well as Great British Energy Nuclear, and I am sure they will work with her on that.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Like the shadow Secretary of State I welcome the announcement on moving forward with SMRs, but like the Minister’s extremely knowledgeable hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), I am concerned about gigawatt scale. Wylfa is truly the best site for a gigawatt-scale nuclear development. When we build in such a way we create a lot of jobs in north Wales, whereas bringing in a modular pre-made SMR will do less of that. Why was the decision made to put SMRs on Wylfa, when Wylfa is practically unique in its attributes for large-scale gigawatt nuclear production, and many sites could host SMRs? Will the Minister please explain that to the House, because I genuinely do not know the answer?
Michael Shanks
I am grateful for a genuine question in the House of Commons—always appreciated. As I said earlier, the decision was made that Wylfa was the best possible site for SMRs. This is a hugely important project for us, starting with three SMR units, but with potential at Wylfa to increase that, which is a huge opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Wylfa would also have hosted at gigascale, but after a great many years of Wylfa being promised lots of things, the option on the table was either a project with funding now, and a clear pathway to delivery on an important site that will deliver the outcomes we need as a country, or a potential wait for another spending review where we might make a decision about future nuclear. We are ambitious about what the future of gigascale nuclear would look like, but right now funding has been confirmed for SMRs. It was right that Wylfa, which is a significant site and has a skilled workforce, takes advantage of that after a significant amount of time of things being promised but not delivered. As I said, we have not set that as the limit of our nuclear ambitions, and we will say more in due course about what future sites might look like. Great British Energy Nuclear is looking at those now.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement of the new SMRs at Wylfa. This is British innovation we can be proud of, leading to decarbonisation of our electricity grid, and helping to combat climate change. It is exactly the sort of policy that my Exeter constituents want from this Government. Does the Minister agree that supply chains at Wylfa and Sizewell C will benefit businesses and workers across the entire United Kingdom, alongside the local areas where they are based?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right: we should all be—I know we are, and the consensus has been welcome—hugely proud of this British innovation. We have a huge opportunity to be at the forefront of a technology that I have no doubt will change the energy system of a great many countries around the world, and Britain can be at the leading edge of that. This is a hugely important moment, and we should recognise that. As well as 3,000 jobs in Wylfa for the construction of the site, as my hon. Friend says there is a significant number of opportunities, including thousands of jobs across the supply chain. Great British Energy Nuclear aims to ensure that 70% of supply chain products are British built across the SMR fleet, ensuring that those SMRs are not just a product of British innovation, but that they are clearly stamped with “Made in Britain.”
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
No one likes to consider the prospect of international conflict, but we have seen from that between Ukraine and Russia how dangerous a situation can be when fuel supply installations are targeted. What thought have the Government given to affording the same level of protection against either sabotage or external attack for these new smaller reactors as those that are already built into the construction of the larger plants?
Michael Shanks
The right hon. Gentleman asks a typically important question. We take the security of our nuclear fleet in all its forms extremely seriously, and SMRs are a new part of that. The security arrangements will take into account the existing nuclear constabulary, which will look at security as soon as construction starts to ramp up on site. Across Government, we have been looking at the broader question of how we ensure our critical national infrastructure is protected in an increasingly hostile world, not just from physical attack and sabotage, as the right hon. Gentleman points out, but from cyber-attack, which is becoming more of a priority. My Department and the Cabinet Office are working together to come up with a more detailed plan to ensure that we do that, but the security of all our energy infrastructure is a top priority.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on the announcement and the thousands of jobs that it will create. Is he as disappointed as I am in the SNP’s immature stance on new nuclear in Scotland that would mean that communities like mine in Ayrshire, where we have Hunterston, would not have access to thousands of new jobs? Is there anything that the Minister could do to change the SNP’s mind, short of a stonking Scottish Labour victory next year?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to say that the SNP’s policy on nuclear is immature. Nuclear has been an important part of Scotland’s energy mix for decades. As a result, tens of thousands of people have had good well-paid jobs in his constituency, across Ayrshire and across the other nuclear sites in Scotland. After almost two decades in power, perhaps the SNP is beyond an explanation about this and so many other things, and the only answer for Scotland is change.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Minister is right to say that we want as many individual components of these SMRs as possible to be built in the UK, as well as the final SMRs themselves, but what work is he doing across Government to ensure not just these SMRs, but the world’s SMRs are built in the UK?
Michael Shanks
That is a hugely important question. This is a significant moment for British innovation, because we are now moving forward quickly to ensure that we are at the forefront of this innovation, so that other countries that are already looking to the Rolls-Royce designs can benefit from them as well, but made in Britain. The aim of SMRs that is different from gigascale nuclear is to get to a point where their replicability means that we can produce the SMR technology for export market as well as for ourselves. That is important for our allies across the world who want nuclear to be part of their energy mix, and it is a hugely important economic opportunity for this country as well.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
In the first nine years of the 14 years of Conservative Government, David Cameron sent Wylfa to the wall, George Osborne begged the Chinese to invest—we are still unpicking that mistake—and Theresa May nearly killed off Hinkley Point C, and with it Sizewell C, and after that things actually got worse. Under Labour, plants are getting off the ground to end our reliance on dictators like Putin, which is to be commended. Will the Minister set out how we will build our nuclear future in all parts of the UK? May I make a particular recommendation for Dorset, because we have Winfrith, which could be a really big part of our nuclear future?
Michael Shanks
I was expecting every question today to be, “Could an SMR be built in my constituency?” but my hon. Friend is the first to ask, so he wins the prize for that. I will not labour the point, but as he says, we had a lot of promises and a lot of big talk from the Conservative Government on nuclear, but very little actually delivered. The truth is that no money was put forward for any of those things. It is easy to sign and say, “We want to deliver something,” but without putting any money forward, nothing will happen. We have committed almost £20 billion in funding to make Britain’s new golden age of nuclear a reality, which will deliver jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We are ambitious about the future of SMRs. They can be sited in a great many more places than traditional nuclear facilities. We have asked Great British Energy Nuclear to look at the range of sites across the United Kingdom that are possible, not just the sites that were traditionally designated for nuclear projects. That opens up huge opportunity for the energy mix of the future, and for jobs, investment and training throughout supply chains as well.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
In the spirit of consensus, which the Energy Minister untypically just moved away from, I join him in welcoming this announcement. I was advising the then Energy Minister when the Hinkley contract was signed and the Horizon project was proceeding, before Hitachi withdrew, so I am keen to see development at Wylfa and beyond. Will the Minister confirm what tangible steps are being taken to accelerate approval of Rolls-Royce’s design and other SMR designs, and by how much? When does he expect the first SMR to be operational at Wylfa?
Michael Shanks
Let me say genuinely that with all the debates we have about our energy mix, nuclear may be a point of consensus. That is important for the industry, so I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. On the exact details of the timelines, I am afraid that I am not the Nuclear Minister, so I will get my noble Friend Lord Vallance to write to him on that point.
In terms of the overall timeline for the SMR programme, our ambition is that the SMRs will be online in the mid-2030s. There is obviously a significant amount of work to do on the site itself and on the designs, but we want to ensure that we are moving everything possible to get this done quickly. We have a first-mover advantage as a country if we can prove that this technology works, set about expanding it and look at the export market for it internationally.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
I strongly welcome this announcement. Nuclear is a growing sector. Just on Friday, in Haydock in my constituency, I helped officially to open the new HQ of Delkia, a relatively new company that does a lot of work in this sector. Will the Minister assure me and small and medium-sized businesses such as Delkia that they will benefit from this growth, supported by this Government?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The investment in these projects is felt in his constituency and in communities and small businesses right across the country. It is creating apprenticeships and opportunities for young people to set out in their careers in the energy industry.
As I said earlier, Great British Energy Nuclear’s ambition is that 70% of the supply chain products that will build these SMRs will be built in Britain. That is a hugely important investment right across our economy. Of course, 70% might not be the ceiling of our ambition, but this is an opportunity for communities and businesses to come forward and say, “We can help to build this innovative and hugely important part of our future energy mix, and we are really excited about the opportunities that it presents.”
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I welcome this announcement. Plaid Cymru supports new nuclear at Wylfa unequivocally, as well as at Trawsfynydd. Last week’s statement announced AI growth zones, with two sites in north-west Wales—one at Holyhead and the other at Trawsfynydd. Will the Minister provide further information on the infrastructure required in Trawsfynydd, especially in relation to data centres and energy supply?
Michael Shanks
I think Plaid Cymru as a party has different views on this matter, but I am grateful to hear of the right hon. Lady’s support for new nuclear. The AI growth zones are all about us trying to designate an area for data centres, which is important for our future economic development, in a way that allows us to plan strategically how power will get to it and what transmission infrastructure is required. It is also about us trying to give confidence that infrastructure will be in place so that data centres know it is a site that can be invested in, which brings forward significant amounts of private investment. If she has specific questions about the infrastructure, I am very happy to speak to her outside the House.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
There will be good, well-paying jobs at Rolls-Royce in Derby to get these reactors built. That will not just benefit those doing those jobs, but power up the local economy, putting money in the tills of shops, restaurants and pubs. There is huge pride in knowing the crucial roles being played in powering Britain with clean energy. Will the Minister tell us more about the work being done to maximise the extra jobs and prosperity that will be delivered in Derby, Warrington, Wylfa and other sites as a result of this Labour Government’s investment in this historic project?
Michael Shanks
My hon. Friend is right to point out the wider impact that investment has in not just the nuclear supply chains, but the local communities that that drives forward. Nuclear tends to have much more sustainable, well-paid and trade-unionised jobs than other parts of our energy system, which means that there are wider economic benefits for those who work in the nuclear industry. We want to see a great many more jobs in nuclear right across the country. We should be hugely proud that Rolls-Royce is taking forward this project in the UK; it is hugely innovative. The UK is at the forefront of this new technology, which will change the future energy system for the UK and across the world, and we are really proud that it will be built in Britain.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Reform UK believes in investing in nuclear energy and welcomes this news for the north-west region, which will bring jobs and growth, including in my constituency. We are told that the Wylfa SMR will start producing power in the mid-2030s, but the procurement process will be done through Great British Energy Nuclear, a publicly owned Government company. How can the Minister assure us that this will not turn into another HS2, with spiralling costs and missed deadlines?
Michael Shanks
When I said that this was a moment of consensus in the House, I did not assume for a second that Reform would be part of that consensus, but I welcome its finally taking a serious position on the country’s energy security. We are committed to delivering this SMR programme as quickly as possible; it is important for our energy security and our energy mix, but it is also important to ensure we deliver the programme as quickly as possible on an international level. Great British Energy Nuclear is an expert company, set up by the previous Government to ensure expertise is right at the heart of steering these projects through, with a board made up of nuclear experts. That remains an important part of this programme. It is in the interest of Great British Energy Nuclear for these projects to move forward as quickly as possible, as it is in all our interests.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I welcome this brilliant announcement for Wylfa, delivering for the people of north Wales after 14 years of failure by the previous Conservative Government. I join in commending the stakeholders who have helped deliver this, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), my colleagues in the Wales Office, and our brilliant Welsh Labour MPs in north Wales who have been arguing vociferously for this project. It will be central to cutting energy costs and honouring our green energy commitments, so will the Minister assure me that this is just a sign of more great things to come for Wales from this UK Labour Government?
Michael Shanks
I thank my hon. Friend, and repeat my thanks to all those across the House who have been involved in these projects over many years. I particularly thank colleagues in the Welsh Government and Labour MPs from Wales who have been campaigning on this issue in recent months, as well as the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), who has campaigned on it as well.
Jobs will come from this project in Ynys Môn, but more jobs will come from the wider energy transition right across Wales, from our investment in transmission infrastructure to our investment in renewables projects, as well as in the Celtic sea and all the jobs that go with it. That will be delivered by this Government’s commitment to clean power—to delivering not just the energy system of the future, but the jobs that go with it. We will have an industrial strategy that creates jobs in Wales, after 14 years of a lack of industrial policy leading to job losses across the country. This is the beginning of great things for Wales; it is leading the way in this area, and with the expertise, skill and commitment that exists in Wales, it will do a fantastic job and make this country proud.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi) for securing this urgent question and giving us an opportunity to discuss this issue. As the Minister will know, I welcome the UK’s first small modular reactor nuclear power station, recognising the strong nuclear heritage and expertise of that area of Wales. It is imperative that we all share that capacity—that we have the same capacity in Northern Ireland, without reliance on an all-island network. Will the Government commit to working with the Legislative Assembly to create a similar project in Northern Ireland that will provide power to homes and businesses throughout the area that I represent, and indeed right across Northern Ireland?
Michael Shanks
I should have come prepared with a line about whether an SMR could be sited in Strangford, because I should have known that that question was coming—sorry! As always, I welcome our discussions on energy policy; as I always say, I take the relationship with the Northern Ireland Executive very seriously, but energy policy is transferred to Northern Ireland. I do not have any direct responsibility for that, but we have been working with the Northern Ireland Government on their push to clean power, and of course nuclear power that is part of our baseload here in the UK is also important for Ireland. The interconnectors across the sea help to ensure that our energy security is a priority for both Governments, but I am happy to look at Strangford as a future candidate for an SMR.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
I am delighted to see this Labour Government cracking on with new nuclear in the form of small modular reactors. When the Rolls-Royce site in Barnoldswick in my constituency was saved from closure during the pandemic, future SMR manufacturing work was specifically referenced in the dispute resolution agreement negotiated by my own trade union, Unite. As this Government are committed to creating clean jobs in all parts of the country, will the Minister and other relevant Ministers impress on Rolls-Royce SMR that some of the jobs created by this project must come to Barnoldswick?
Michael Shanks
It would be wrong for me to say that I am fully briefed on the particular issues of that settlement, but I am happy to take that away and write to my hon. Friend. Rolls-Royce winning this contract is a hugely important moment for British innovation. There will be thousands of jobs in the supply chains for this project in constituencies up and down this country.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome this announcement about small modular reactors. Thanks to the landmark deal done back in September, Hartlepool will now lead the world in advanced modular reactors, which will bring £12 billion of economic input and 2,500 jobs, and power 1.5 million homes. The pace in getting that project started is critical, so what will this Government do to ensure that regulatory alignment is in place so that spades are in the ground as soon as humanly possible?
Michael Shanks
September seems a long time ago, but during the state visit we announced the UK and US partnership—the Atlantic partnership on advanced nuclear energy—with a commitment from this Government to work with like-minded Governments with similar regulatory regimes to build nuclear, as well as to bring in the private sector much more. My hon. Friend mentions the agreement between X-energy and Centrica, with the plan to build up to 12 advanced modular reactors in Hartlepool. Thousands of good jobs will come with that, and it is a great example of where private investment, unlocked by decisions that this Government have taken, will deliver jobs across the country.
I am happy to come back to my hon. Friend on the timeline, but we have said throughout that we want to move as quickly as possible to make sure that the regulatory regime maintains the safety that the British public rightly expect, while also being flexible enough to ensure we take advantage of these opportunities when they come. We are working on that as quickly as possible.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
It is brilliant to listen to all this chat about thousands of new jobs and billions of pounds of investment, but we are not getting any of it in Glasgow, because the Scottish National party is against nuclear power. Nuclear power is a source of reliable baseload energy and is essential for security of supply. In fact, we import nuclear energy to Scotland from time to time when the system is short. Against that background, does the Minister agree that the SNP’s anti-nuclear stance defies logic?
Michael Shanks
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. Much of SNP policy defies logic, but this one does in particular. His constituents in Glasgow and constituents across Scotland will benefit from supply chain jobs from the SMR project and from the work we are doing at Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C. However, they are not benefiting anywhere near as much as they would, were we building those projects in Scotland. It is an economically stupid idea to ideologically block new nuclear in Scotland, but it is also a real challenge to Scotland’s energy security. For more than half of the past few weeks, nuclear has been providing electricity in Scotland. Renewables are hugely important, but they have to be balanced with storage and with nuclear. Only when we get that balance right do we deliver secure, clean, home-grown power. We need both parts of it, and the SNP is missing half of it and missing in action as usual.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only thanks to this Labour Government investing at scale in our domestic nuclear industry that we can overturn the disastrous legacy of the Conservatives? Does he further agree that this Government, investing for the long term and working closely with our companies, can deliver the jobs and change to our energy system that constituencies across the country need?
Michael Shanks
It will not surprise the House that I completely agree with my hon. Friend, but he is right on two fronts. First, it is all fine and good to promise to do things and to talk big and to consult and consult, but at some point money has to be put on the table to deliver it. The previous Government failed to do that. Almost £20 billion of investment has now been brought forward by this Government to make these projects a reality. That is how we deliver a new golden age of nuclear in the United Kingdom, rather than just publishing lots of documents and thinking that is the end of it.
My hon. Friend’s second point is also right. Investment in the UK in the clean power transition is hugely important. We have had more than £50 billion of private investment since we came to power last year. That is because of the certainty and the policy confidence that investors have in the UK. That would be put at risk by the policies of the Conservatives, Reform and others who talk about the future energy mix, but miss out the detail and put that investment at risk. That puts at risk jobs and investment in supply chains across the country, too. We are delivering the energy policy of the future for energy security, for climate leadership and for good jobs.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for his responses this afternoon.
Illegal Waste: Organised Crime
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the powers, funding and staffing of the Environment Agency to tackle the work and impact of organised criminal gangs illegally dumping huge quantities of waste in the countryside.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
Let me first convey apologies from the Minister for Nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh). She would have loved to be here for the urgent question, but she is currently attending COP30 in Brazil. In her absence, I will be doing my absolute best to answer all the questions from Members about this important issue.
The British countryside is one of our nation’s greatest treasures. From rolling hills to tranquil woodlands, it is both beautiful and essential to our wellbeing and our health. That is why it is so deplorable when waste criminals scar the landscape with complete disregard, damaging precious ecosystems and undermining our communities. This Government are committed to tackling waste crime, which is a blight on local communities and the environment and damages legitimate businesses. The Environment Agency has a wide range of powers, which it uses in its enforcement work against organised crime in waste and other environmental areas. It has strong powers of entry and evidence gathering, is able to authorise mobile communications data, and has authority to use covert human intelligence sources. It is one of only three non-police agencies to have access to police databases.
The Joint Unit for Waste Crime, hosted by the Environment Agency, brings together the Environment Agency, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Crime Agency, the police, waste regulators from across the UK and other operational partners to share intelligence and tasking in order to disrupt and prevent serious organised waste crime. The Environment Agency’s economic crime unit targets the financial motivation behind offending, and uses financial mechanisms to inhibit the ability of offenders, including organised crime groups, to operate.
This Government have also increased the Environment Agency’s funding, including the amount available to tackle illegal waste operators, after years of frozen budgets and real-terms cuts. We have raised the budget for waste crime enforcement by 50% this year to £15.6 million, but we plan to go further still to tighten the net on waste criminals with policy and regulatory reforms to close loopholes exploited by them. We are fundamentally reforming the waste carriers, brokers and dealers system, tightening waste permit exemptions and introducing digital waste-tracking, and we are determined to clean up Britain and end the throwaway society.
Calum Miller
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr. Speaker for granting the urgent question.
I recently knocked on the door of Billy Burnell, the chair of the Kidlington Angling Society in my constituency. Billy showed me photographs and videos that took my breath away. They revealed the obscene scale of the illegal waste dump in my constituency. The site is approximately 150 metres long, 10 metres wide and up to 12 metres high. It has to be seen to be believed. Over the weekend, the situation has become much more urgent. Heavy rain has caused the River Cherwell to rise by 4 feet or so. Water now laps against the waste that can be seen floating towards the Cherwell. This incident highlights the fact that organised criminal gangs are carefully planning operations to dump industrial waste in the countryside. They gain millions of pounds in illegal earnings without a thought for the health of people or animals, or the damage to soil, water or air. It concerns me deeply that the Environment Agency is not equipped to deal with this unfolding environmental disaster. For example, the agency recently informed those in the other place that six other sites had experienced waste dumping on the same scale as the disaster at Hoad’s Wood in Kent, but the site in my constituency was not on that list.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, and most urgently for my constituents, will Ministers follow the example of the previous Secretary of State—the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who, on 22 May 2024, issued a directive to the Environment Agency to clear up the illegal dump at Hoad’s Wood—and issue a similar urgent directive for the clearance of the dump in my constituency before it is too late for the River Cherwell? Secondly, will Ministers undertake a root-and-branch review, independent of the Department, of the Government’s response to waste crime? Finally, in the meantime, does the Minister support calls from Liberal Democrats for the National Crime Agency, in the most serious cases, to take over the investigation?
Emma Hardy
The Government are aware of the appalling case of illegal dumping in the hon. Member’s constituency, and I absolutely share his constituents’ anger. I, too, have seen the photographs and videos, and it is no wonder that he feels moved to bring forward this urgent question. There is a criminal investigation under way, and an Environment Agency restriction order has been served to prevent access to the site and further fly-tipping. The local resilience forum has been notified to explore opportunities for multi-agency support.
I understand that the Minister with responsibility for nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), has offered to meet the hon. Gentleman when she returns from COP, and I know that she is keen to fulfil that offer. I do not want to pre-empt the findings of the criminal investigation, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Environment Agency is working very closely with local partners, and that the offer of continuing the conversation outside the Chamber is there for him.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) for bringing forward this urgent question. As the Minister knows from her visit to my constituency last week, millions of plastic beads recently washed up there. After initially denying any involvement, Southern Water has admitted that it was responsible, and that they came from its waste water treatment plant. This is a huge environmental catastrophe, not least because we know that the beads pose a serious risk to wildlife, and we are awaiting further investigation of just how toxic they could be. At my public meeting on this issue last week with over 100 residents, Southern Water admitted that the use of these beads is outdated, and that there are better modern methods. I recognise that the Minister cannot comment on the live investigation by the Environment Agency, but does she agree that the Environment Agency must look at the use of these beads, and at how we can prevent such an environmental catastrophe from ever happening again?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is formidable and impressive. Frankly, I am delighted and proud to be on the same side of the fight as her, and she has led an incredible campaign. I went to see these beads myself, and they are appalling. They are tiny plastic beads embedded in the sand. People are having to remove them with sweeping brushes and sieves; they are literally sieving the sand to remove thousands of beads, up and down the coastline. She is right to feel angry and upset about the issue.
As for the use of such beads being outdated, I will write to all the water companies to ask them who is still using these beads. If companies are still using them, I will ask what mitigations are in place to prevent them escaping, and what their plans are for looking at alternative methods. I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want this to happen anywhere else.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
My thoughts are with those affected by the floods and by Storm Claudia. We cannot overstate the mental health impact of these events, and I pay tribute to the emergency teams and volunteers for the work that they do when we need them most.
All Members from across the House will have had incidents in their constituencies of fly-tippers dumping waste; sadly, we have seen serious cases in my constituency of Epping Forest. Fly-tipping is a blight on communities, and the shameless people who do it should be punished to the full extent of the law. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) is right to raise the issue of the shocking illegal waste dump in his constituency, in which the waste was stacked over 10 metres high. It is positively frightening to think of the effects that will unfold for the environment, ecology and wildlife.
The Labour Government’s action so far on dumping and fly-tipping has been somewhat lacklustre, despite the fact that 36 of the 50 local authorities with the highest fly-tipping rates—a staggering 72%—are Labour-controlled. What are the Government doing to help join up police forces to tackle this issue? In the case of huge, catastrophic dumps, such as the one in Oxfordshire that we are discussing, what support do the Government give the Environment Agency and the local authority? Will they work with the Home Office, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to tackle this? What analysis of reform are they proposing to the Environment Agency? Would they consider a review, as we have proposed? With police numbers dropping under Labour, how do the Government propose that rural and, indeed, urban police forces tackle fly-tipping more effectively? With regard to this catastrophic Oxfordshire case, are the Government conducting an assessment of the potential public health and environmental impacts of this horrific waste dump?
Emma Hardy
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that this Government increased funding for waste enforcement by the Environment Agency by 50%, after that funding had been frozen for years under the previous Government. Not only are we increasing the funding to the Environment Agency, but we are going much further. We are reforming the carrier, broker and dealer regime by moving waste management and transport from being subject to a light-touch system to coming under the environmental permitting regulations. We are reforming the rules for waste permit exemptions. We are using digital waste tracking, so we can see where the waste ends up. We are looking at extended producer responsibility for packaging, to reduce the amount of pollution and what needs to go into the waste system, and at reforms to ensure simpler recycling. My hon. Friend the nature Minister has, ever since being appointed, been working hard to deal with the legacy that she inherited of problems in the waste environment.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Newport council is prioritising tackling waste crime and fly-tipping, and we have seen a drop in incidents this year, as more fixed penalty notices are handed out. As others have said, much of the waste is dumped by rogue traders posing as legitimate businesses, often using false number plates. Can the Minister remind the House of some of the tools that the police and local authorities already have, and what more can the Welsh and UK Governments do, working together, to help Newport council?
Emma Hardy
I congratulate my hon. Friend and her council on the work that they are doing to deal with illegal waste. On fly-tipping, there are all the measures that I mentioned in my response to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), and we have also made an announcement about crushing vehicles. We are carrying out a review of council powers to seize and crush the vehicles of fly-tippers. We want councils to work with the police and use the latest technology, such as drones, to help catch fly-tippers, and to crush more vehicles. I will provide guidance about what more we can do in the new year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Waste crime on an industrial scale is blighting rural communities across the country and costing the UK economy £1 billion a year. It has even been described as the “new narcotics” by a former chief executive of the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency needs the resources to both investigate the criminal activity that leads to the waste dumping, and to prevent environmental damage and toxic run-off, not just one or the other. Waste crime is significantly under-reported. Criminal activity is widespread, and there is little chance of prosecutions being brought. Will the Government back Liberal Democrat amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled in the other place? They would designate serious and organised waste crime as a strategic policy threat, establish a national action plan, ensure that waste crime data was collected and published quarterly, and establish an independent review of serious and organised waste crime. Will she support the National Crime Agency in preventing and effectively prosecuting serious and organised waste crime?
Emma Hardy
Again, I share the hon. Lady’s anger about what is happening in our beautiful countryside; we see more and more evidence of illegal dumping. As I have mentioned, the Environment Agency’s total budget for 2025-26 has increased, and it includes £15.6 million for waste crime enforcement, which is a 50% increase. Overall, the Environment Agency has been able to increase its frontline criminal enforcement resource in the joint unit for waste crime and in environmental crime teams as well. It has a wide range of powers, but of course we are always keen to look at what further could be done.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Alongside our people, our natural heritage is the most important part of our national identity, yet every week, profiteering corporations and organised criminals treat it as a giant dumping ground for pollution and waste. It is these enemies of our countryside, not asylum seekers escaping hardship and persecution, who are the clear and present danger to our nation. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, the status quo is clearly failing, so how will she ensure that we finally start holding to account all those who trash our environment?
Emma Hardy
Again, I share my hon. Friend’s upset and anger about the state in which waste criminals leave our countryside. We are taking forward many measures, but one that I think will be particularly important—the nature Minister was keen for me to mention it—is the digital waste tracking system. This will replace outdated methods of monitoring waste movements in and outside the UK. It will be an excellent way of digitally tracking where waste ends up. Waste holders will record waste movements digitally at each transfer point, making it easier to share with regulators and improve timely compliance checks. This is just one of the many reforms that we will introduce.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The number of fly-tipping incidents per day is 3,157. That is equivalent to one every 27 seconds. We see fly-tipping all too often in the west midlands. In my constituency, despite the council’s great efforts to rid us of the scourge of piles of mattresses and fridges, what we see is absolutely shocking. The situation is not helped, of course, by the Birmingham bin strikes, which continue. Will the Minister support the introduction of penalty points on driving licences for those convicted of fly-tipping, to send a really strong message that those involved in organised waste crime will pay for the misery that they impose on our communities?
Emma Hardy
I agree about the appalling state in which fly-tippers leave our environment. We are looking at reviewing council powers to seize and crush the vehicles of fly-tippers. We want councils to work more closely with the police, and to use the latest technology. We will be providing more guidance on what they can do, but I will ensure that the nature Minister hears the right hon. Lady’s other ideas.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
My constituency is on the edge of the west midlands conurbation, and has plenty of country lanes and quiet beauty spots. Communities in my constituency, and particularly in my home village of Norton Canes, know all too well the impact of fly-tipping and organised waste crime. We Labour Members have not forgotten the deep cuts made to the Environment Agency under the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Can the Minister assure us that this Government will ensure that the Environment Agency has the resources and powers that it needs to go after those who make a living out of exploiting people and businesses, and destroying our precious environment?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have introduced a 50% increase in the Environment Agency’s total budget for waste crime enforcement, so that it has the powers and resources to go after the waste criminals who are ruining our countryside.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I think we are probably all agreed that illegal fly-tipping is a scourge on many of our constituencies. I praise Bromsgrove district council for its work to clear up illegal fly-tips. I am particularly concerned about the impact of cross-border crime. My constituency is adjacent to the west midlands, which is in a different police authority. What assurance can the Minister give me and my constituents—particularly those in villages on the northern fringe of the constituency, from Romsley to Wythall—that the Government are doing every single thing they can to empower all authorities to get to the bottom of the issue, and to put illegal fly-tipping to an end, once and for all?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. On sharing best practice, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is chairing the national fly-tipping prevention group. It includes representatives from a number of councils, the Environment Agency and the National Crime Agency. They share good practice, look at the practical tools for tackling fly-tipping, and hopefully encourage everybody to learn from the best.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Penn cricket club in my constituency allegedly had contaminated soil illegally deposited on its grounds. That not only caused an eyesore, but prevented the club from playing cricket on its grounds. The EA put a stop notice on the club in July 2022. Despite investigations continuing, there is no end or resolution in sight. What support can the Government give to prevent such delays in the EA pursuing its investigations?
Emma Hardy
We certainly do not want to get in the way of a good game of cricket. The weather does that enough; we certainly do not want our regulators to do that. I think the best thing in this instance would be for my hon. Friend to write to the nature Minister with more information, and I will see that she meets him to discuss this issue.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am sure that we were all shocked to see the images from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Rural police forces are the worst-funded in the country, with Dorset rock bottom. That is made much worse by the amount of additional visitors. We welcome them, but 25 million day-visitors and many millions of staying holidaymakers make it really hard for the police to work on this kind of countryside crime. How is the Department working with colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that rurality is properly considered? Will she work with the Home Office on including tackling organised waste crime as a strategic priority for the National Crime Agency?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises an important point. It is important that we have all the money that the Home Office needs, so I hope she will be supporting our Budget next week.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), for securing this urgent question. The River Cherwell runs right through the heart of Banbury, so this issue and the images and footage from the weekend have concerned a number of my residents as well. Can the Minister reassure them that the Government are supporting local authorities as best they can so that they can fulfil their obligations to tackle environmental crime?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is appalling to see in the pictures how the pollution is right next to the river, and it is very concerning. Obviously criminal investigations are ongoing, and work is happening on the ground. The Environment Agency is working closely with all local partners, but my hon. Friend is right that we need to make sure that this is joined up across all the different authorities. I can assure him that that is happening. I can also offer him a meeting so that he can get more detail on what is happening in this particular case.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On the dumping of waste across the countryside, what assessment has the Minister made of the ability and capacity of the Environment Agency to adequately control and regulate the dumping of toxic emissions by wholly unwanted and unnecessary waste incinerators that are being foisted on our communities, including in Westbury in my constituency?
Emma Hardy
As I understand it, all waste incinerators are tightly permitted. If there are problems with permitting or if the right hon. Member believes that permits are being broken, I encourage him to contact the local Environment Agency office so that it can be urgently investigated.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s clarification on organised crime and fly-tipping. From the fields to the streets, Gravesham borough council works tirelessly to investigate, fine and take to court these criminals, but as well as councils being given the powers and resources to investigate and keep our streets clean, they need a better legislative framework to make prosecution more efficient. Fundamentally, the taxpayer should not be paying for this organised crime; the criminals should be punished. Does the Minister agree?
Emma Hardy
I absolutely agree that waste criminals should face the full force of the law and be punished and fined for their activities.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is not just my opinion that Tiverton and Minehead is the most beautiful constituency in the country. It contains Exmoor national park, the Brendon hills, the Blackdown hills and the Quantock hills, all of which are areas of outstanding natural beauty. These are criminals who effectively run corporations that decimate our countryside. Please can the Minister make sure that the fine meets the crime and that they are penalised in their pockets, where they deserve it most?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. One of the ways to tackle this is to go after the criminals with all the legal powers we have. The legal powers we have in this particular case could include an unlimited fine.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
There were 868 cases of fly-tipping in 2023-24 in my constituency. We saw a particular rise in on-street fly-tipping, and in Nottingham there were over 30,000 incidents of fly-tipping within the urban space. What work will be done to help bolster the power of local authorities to make sure that both urban and rural fly-tipping is addressed?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is as appalling to see waste dumped along the streets in urban environments as in rural ones. We are seeking powers through the Crime and Policing Bill to provide statutory enforcement guidance to increase consistency across the country in how fly-tippers are dealt with, wherever they may be.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Hoad’s Wood, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), is a patch of semi-ancient bluebell woodland in my constituency where criminal gangs have dumped 30,000 tonnes of waste. It took about six months for them to fell ancient trees and bring in lorry after lorry. My constituents are really concerned that something like this might happen again. Over that whole period, the criminals were not stopped or apprehended. Have the Minister and the Secretary of State come to an understanding on who is responsible in such scenarios for stopping it from happening, and have they met the Environment Agency, police and local authorities to make sure that criminals will be stopped in the act if they do this in future?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises an important and serious case; I know that the nature Minister has been having many meetings about it. It is the location of a live investigation, so I will not say too much about that, but the hon. Lady is quite right that lessons need to be learned and the criminals need to be brought to justice for the damage they have done. I am grateful to her for raising that matter. Of course, when there is any further information, she will be contacted with an update.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
On Raspberry Hill Lane in my constituency near the village of Iwade, there is one of these mega illegal dumps. It has started metastasising, sprouting accessory dumps nearby, all in an attempt to evade the police and the Environment Agency. It is not just putting pressure on and destroying the countryside, but putting strains on legitimate waste processing businesses in my constituency such as Sweeep, Countrystyle, MVV and DS Smith, which are key to recycling the waste that we produce. Will the Minister tell my constituents how we are not only increasing the capacity of the Environment Agency and the police to handle this problem with extra resources, but boosting the capability of those agencies—particularly with the skills and the cross-agency working that is needed—to get to the bottom of this serious organised crime?
Emma Hardy
I am horrified to hear that such an appalling thing has happened in my hon. Friend’s constituency. He is right, and we should praise the legitimate waste businesses who do a proper job and work within the confines of the law. I reassure his residents that as well as increasing funding, we are looking at increasing the powers available to the Environment Agency and local authorities to ensure that we do not continue to see these appalling acts right across our country.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
In my constituency, a 200-tonne illegal dump has left a farmer with a £40,000 clean-up bill and the risk of criminalisation if he cannot afford to clear it quickly, yet a cross-agency meeting clarified that no single agency takes responsibility for investigating these large-scale incidents on private land. When perpetrators are caught, the fixed-term penalty is a pitiful £1,000—that is for a crime that costs the economy £1 billion. Does the Minister agree that the enforcement gap, where victims shoulder the costs of organised crime while the penalties remain pitiful, is completely unacceptable? Will the Government help to establish a single accountable authority to investigate waste crime on private land and ensure that penalties reflect the true cost of these offences?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Lady raises an important point. I am sorry to hear about the impact on a farm in her constituency. One of the most important reforms we can make is to the carrier, broker and dealer regime, to go from the current light-touch system to environmental permitting so that we can better track exactly when waste transfers from one place to another. That will mean tougher background checks for operators and tougher penalties for those who break the law.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Brambletree wharf in Borstal in my constituency has been blighted by an illegal tip for years. A council enforcement notice recently expired without the site being cleared, yet I have recently been informed that unfortunately the Environment Agency will not be prosecuting those responsible but will instead leave it to the local council. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Environment Agency uses all the powers at its disposal to tackle such criminal activity?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I am sorry to hear that there will not be a prosecution. She might want to write to the nature Minister with more details and information, as perhaps we could look at that in more detail than we have.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Correlation is not causation, but no one has so far mentioned that our environmental levies on legal waste disposal go up and up, in correlation with rises in criminal dumping. Is it possible that we have gone too far in that direction? Regardless of the enforcement we do, we are creating an incentive, and if there is enough money in it, we will have criminals doing it. There is no point wringing our hands in this Chamber and urging greater enforcement if we have created the fundamentals of an economy that we can never fix.
Emma Hardy
Of course we need to have a legal operating system, and it needs to be based on the cost of enforcement. We cannot have a legal system that ends up costing the Government and the taxpayer more. There needs to be a system that is fair and that operates well, but one of the fundamental problems we have with waste crime is that the Environment Agency was previously so badly underfunded.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
While the dumping and the criminal gangs that perpetrate the dumping are one part of this, the other part is the businesses that seek to circumvent the legitimate routes for getting rid of their waste by passing it on to those companies that are illegally dumping in the first place. Can the Minister say a bit more about what action might be taken to educate businesses on their responsibilities for their waste, and what this Government can do to prosecute not just the dumpers but the people who are producing the waste and not dealing with it themselves?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There needs to be greater education on who we are giving our waste to. Digital waste tracking will make a big difference, because we will be able to see whether the waste ends up in the place where it is meant to end up.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
In 2023-24, there were 1.15 million fly-tipping incidents across England, with about 47,000 classified as tipper-load lorry sized or industrial. A tip fire occurred at an unauthorised waste dump in Dewsbury in early 2012. It burned for four weeks, causing significant disruption and house evacuations, and it cost over £1.2 million to manage and to clear the waste. There is no excuse for fly-tipping, and perpetrators must be made to pay for the clean-up. What resources are the Government providing to Kirklees council to help keep waste and recycling centres maintained and open, and what enforcement action is the Environment Agency taking against illegal dumping?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. As I have mentioned, the national fly-tipping prevention group is sharing best practice through local authorities coming together to look at how we are tackling this issue across the country. Unfortunately, it is one that seems to be everywhere at the moment.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I commend the Government’s action in this space. A contact of mine who used to work in environmental health tells me that there is a misplaced perception that in our covert surveillance regulation—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—“directed surveillance” prohibits surveillance of fly-tipping hotspots, yet surveillance of a “place” is not directed surveillance. The statutory code of practice makes this clear, with in-practice examples, but it simply needs updating to give fly-tip surveillance examples. That could liberate the enforcement agencies to catch far more criminals and produce a much-needed deterrent. Could my hon. Friend look into that?
Emma Hardy
The Environment Agency is able to authorise mobile communications data and has the authority to use covert human intelligence sources, but if there is more that can be done, I urge my hon. Friend to write to the nature Minister with further details, and maybe even request a meeting with her.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Residents in the Woodcote area of my constituency have been living with the misery of being opposite an illegal waste dump for years. Despite all the photographic and video evidence that they produce, nobody seems to be able to shut the site down. Can the Minister look into what level of proof is required to take action, because it seems obvious to everyone that what is going on is wrong, but nobody seems to be able to put an end to it?
Emma Hardy
I urge the hon. Gentleman in the first instance to request a meeting with the local Environment Agency area director and to ask what further evidence is required to enable them to seek a prosecution. Of course, if he is not satisfied after having that meeting, he should write to the nature Minister.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It took four years before statutory bodies did anything about the waste dumping in Hoad’s Wood near my constituency after it was originally reported. Can the Minister tell us more about how she hopes to work with local authorities such as mine in Ashford to ensure that immediate actions are taken against people committing these appalling crimes?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is right to be angry about the incidents that he is seeing in his constituency, and this is one of the reasons we have increased the Environment Agency funding for waste crime enforcement by 50%. Of course, we are always keen to work with all local authorities and to share best practice to ensure that all of them are going after these waste criminals.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Devon county council received almost 5,000 reports of fly-tipping last year. The police rural affairs team has supported East Devon district council and the Environment Agency in a fly-tipping engagement event, which saw examples of tyres and plastic wrap. Will the Minister please speak with her counterparts at the Home Office about bolstering rural affairs teams in police constabularies such as Devon and Cornwall?
Emma Hardy
As luck would have it, the Home Affairs team happens to be on the Front Bench just now, and they will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Residents in Exeter have raised with me the appalling fly-tipping in the glorious countryside around our city, particularly in Stoke Woods. As we have heard, it is rarely individuals; this is about dodgy cowboy operators who are ruining our countryside. I am pleased that the Government are cracking down on them, but we have to break the business model. How is the Department working cross-Government to tackle the financial incentives of waste crime, which would also support the many legitimate, responsible waste companies that do exist?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight that there are legitimate companies out there, but there are also waste criminals. That is why the Environment Agency has launched its economic crime unit, which targets the financial motivation behind offending and uses financial mechanisms to inhibit the ability of offenders, including organised crime groups, to operate.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
We have a serious fly-tipping issue in my constituency, but it is not just an issue in Birmingham Perry Barr; all of Birmingham has this issue because of the bin strikes. Residents are calling for CCTV cameras, but the city council says it has no funding available. I have two questions for the Minister. First, does she feel that the Labour-run city council should re-enter negotiations with the bin workers, given that agency staff are now also striking? Secondly, will this Government give additional resourcing to Birmingham city council for enforcement, such as CCTV cameras?
Emma Hardy
I think it is a shame that while the hon. Gentleman raises this issue here, on the ground he unfortunately does not seem able to work cross-party to actually deal with it. I encourage him to put party politics to one side and work with the people in the local area to bring this issue to an end.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
In January, criminals dumped two lorry loads of rubbish on Watery Lane, just outside the city of Lichfield. The dump was so large that it blocked access to the road and, in the process, stopped emergency services being able to access nine properties. One of the residents of those properties requires chemo and has issues with his blood pressure, and occasionally he needs to call an ambulance. Given that these incidents are having such a serious impact on people’s lives, are the Government looking to introduce an aggravating factor for such situations, so that if fly-tips prevent access to a property, the risk to life is treated as an aggravating factor, and the waste criminals receive larger sentences?
Emma Hardy
I am so sorry to hear about the issue my hon. Friend raises. It is shocking that his constituents were unable to access the treatment they needed because of the appalling waste criminals. I assure him that we will go after the waste criminals with every power we have to ensure that they are brought to justice for all their crimes.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
We all agree that fly-tipping is a national scourge. In addition to causing dismay, it causes a lot of disunity between communities. Furthermore, according to a 2018 report, it costs us £392 million to clear up. Will the Minister agree to give more resources to our local councils to fund enforcement measures such as cameras and to implement a zero-tolerance policy, prosecuting offenders and imposing custodial sentences on those who break the law?
Emma Hardy
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the issue he is having in his constituency and, of course, the need for more powers. He also requests more funding, which is why I am sure he will be supporting our Budget next week.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
My constituents are quite rightly appalled by fly-tipping. It is a particular problem in the west end of Morecambe, but it also affects the beautiful countryside in my area. What action are the Government taking to tackle this appalling crime?
Emma Hardy
Fly-tipping is a serious crime. It blights local communities. It blights both our beautiful countryside and, as we have heard, our urban environments. Dealing with it costs taxpayers and businesses a huge amount of money. We are supporting councils to seize and crush the vehicles of fly-tippers, forcing fly-tippers to clear up their own mess and taking steps to provide statutory fly-tipping enforcement guidance to help councils to make full and proper use of their enforcement powers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. Nobody in this House doubts her commitment to addressing this issue, and we very much welcome that and thank her for it. The discovery of the Mobuoy illegal dump in Londonderry in 2013 revealed an enormous operation involving criminals who buried vast amounts of waste. It showed the scale of the problem and the finance available. It is clear that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency has been historically underfunded and so cannot thoroughly investigate reports of incidences, which leads to more environmental waste crime. Indeed, illegal waste has been dumped in Northern Ireland through cross-border organised crime. The matter is devolved, but will the Minister commit to liaising with the Northern Ireland Assembly on how better to work together with the investigatory bodies for these crimes throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for, as ever, raising an important issue for his constituents. I am sure the nature Minister meets the Northern Ireland Assembly regularly and that she can get back to the hon. Member and update him on those conversations.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
In Stoke-on-Trent, under the leadership of Councillors Wazir and Ashworth, we have had the successful IDIOT—illegal dumping in our towns—campaign. As a result, we have seen the number of fines go up and the amount of fly-tipping reduce. Does the Minister agree that the IDIOT campaign is an apt title?
Emma Hardy
We perhaps could call many things in here idiot campaigns, but let us not get diverted into discussing those. I pay full tribute to my hon. Friend’s local council for the work it is doing to tackle this hugely important issue, and full credit goes to him for raising it here.
Asylum Policy
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Home Secretary to make her statement, I am sorry that Mr Speaker has once again had to ask me to remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major new policy announcements should be made in this House in the first instance and not to the media. This afternoon’s statement has already been the subject of very extensive media coverage, both over the weekend and this morning, including a lot of policy detail. Hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches were very quick to criticise Ministers in the previous Government for this kind of behaviour, but the Home Office seems to have a particular problem with making media announcements before Ministers come to make statements to the House. I know that the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) is looking at this matter, and I look forward to reading the Committee’s recommendations. I call the Home Secretary.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publish the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.
This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it. Our world is a more volatile and more mobile place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use and abuse our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries, searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.
The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy: 400,000 have sought asylum here in the past four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived. To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way because it is. The pace and scale of change have destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place. There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.
I have no doubt about who we really are in this country: we are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.
Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative Government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country. As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels and shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill.
My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this dreadful inheritance and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system. Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased, reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government. Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year. The Border Security Bill is progressing through Parliament, and my predecessor struck an historic agreement with the French so that small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.
Those are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are twofold: first, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here. It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer compared with many of our European neighbours. That generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40% come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal proportion come legally, via visitor, work or study visas, and then go on to claim asylum. They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years and is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status.
In other European countries, things are done differently. In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims in Denmark have hit a 40-year low, and now countries across Europe are tightening their systems in similar ways. We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last for two and a half years, not five years. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five years.
I know that this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and who are willing and able to, we will create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to. Outside the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee able to bring family over only if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.
Although over 50,000 claimants have been granted refugee status in the past year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation. We know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings. We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative. We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal power to do so instead. We will continue to support those who play by the rules, but those who do not—be that through criminality or antisocial behaviour—can have their support removed.
We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. That will end the absurdity that we currently experience, in which an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it.
The measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. That will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused. In recent months, we have begun the voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again. However, many failed asylum seekers from Syria are still here, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.
We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims—despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European convention on human rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.
Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action. I can announce that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms, we will impose visa penalties on them. I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.
Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government have already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure that early legal representation is available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered. Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.
While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European convention on human rights has contributed. This is particularly true of article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of that right. As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming. That includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison, whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer. More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.
Article 8 is a qualified right, which means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is in the public interest. To narrow article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and to our immigration rules. First, we will define what, exactly, a family is—narrowing it down to parents and their children. Secondly, we will define the public interest test so that the default becomes a removal or refusal, with article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, we will tighten where article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.
We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of article 3, and the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own. As article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns.
It is not just international law that binds us. According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed that they were modern-day slaves. That well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal, so I will bring forward legislation that tightens the modern slavery system, to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it. Taken together, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.
We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hongkongers. For that reason, as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government. We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises across the world, as they happen.
I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement, most of which I read The Sunday Telegraph. I am pleased that she is bringing forward measures to crack down on illegal immigration. It is not enough but it is a start, and a change from her previous position in opposition of a general amnesty for illegal migrants.
I praise the new Home Secretary. She is bringing fresh energy and a clearer focus to this problem, and she has got more done in 70 days in the job than her predecessor did in a year. She seems to get what many on the Labour Benches refuse to accept, and she is right to say that if we fail to deal with the crisis, we will draw more people to a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred. We will also allow our English channel to operate as an open route into this country for anyone who is prepared to risk their life and pay criminal gangs. That is not fair on British citizens, it is not fair on those who come here legally, and it is not fair on those in genuine need who are pushed to the back of the queue because the system is overwhelmed.
Anyone who cannot see by now that simply tinkering with the current system will not fix this problem is either living in la-la land or being wilfully obstructive. It is a shame that it has taken Labour a year in office to realise there is a borders crisis—[Interruption.] I don’t know why Labour Members are chuntering. What was their first act in government? The first act of the Home Secretary’s predecessor was to scrap the Rwanda plan, which was already—[Interruption.] Yes, they are cheering. It was already starting to act as a deterrent before it even got off the ground, and before it started, Labour Members threw away all our hard work and taxpayers’ money—they are the ones who have wasted that money, not us.
The statement is an admission that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill of the Home Secretary’s predecessor will not work, but I am glad to see Labour Members now changing course. The powers they are using in the Bill are ones they all voted down when we were in government, and they would not be able to do that if we had not got those measures through. None of them know the work that was done; they are just cheering nonsensically, but we know what has happened since Labour came to office. The Home Secretary will know that 10,000 people have crossed the channel in the 70 days she has been in office, and we have seen record levels of asylum claims in the last year. The problem has got worse since Labour came into office, and it is getting worse by the day.
I am afraid that what the Home Secretary is announcing will not work on its own, and some of these measures will take us backwards. I say that to her with no ill will, and I hope she believes me when I say that I genuinely want her to succeed. Conservative Members are speaking from experience: we know how difficult this is— [Interruption.] We do, and we will not take any lectures from the people who voted down every single measure to control immigration. Some of the measures that the Home Secretary is announcing today are undoubtedly positive steps—baby steps, but positive none the less. We welcome making refugee status temporary, and we welcome removing the last Labour Government’s legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers—she is right to do that. However, some of what she is announcing simply does not go far enough.
Conservative Members believe that anyone who arrives illegally, especially from safe countries, should be deported and banned from claiming asylum. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone who comes to this country illegally should be deported? I would like to know, and I think the country would like to know, because this announcement means that some people who arrive will be allowed to stay—they just need to wait 20 years before getting permanent settlement. That does not remove the pull factor. The main problem is that for as long as the UK is in the European convention on human rights, illegal immigrants and those exploiting our system will use human rights laws to block anything she does to solve this. I know that because I saw it happen again and again over the last four years, and I know she has seen it too. We even saw it this year with the Prime Minister’s one in, one out scheme, which has seen people return to France and come back on small boats yet again.
I guarantee that the Home Secretary’s plan to reinterpret article 8 will not work. We tried that already, and Strasbourg and UK case law will prevail. I agree with her that the definition of “degrading treatment” is over-interpreted, but renegotiating article 3 internationally will take years—years we do not have if it were even possible, but the fact is that it is not. We know that because a small group of EU countries tried that earlier, and they were dismissed by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Her Government did nothing to support them, so I am not convinced it is the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills that will sort out that problem.
We have looked at this issue from every possible direction, and any plan that does not include leaving the ECHR as a necessary step is wasting time we do not have. Just like the Government’s plan to “smash the gangs”, or the one in, one out policy, it is timewasting, and it is doomed to fail because of lawfare. We have seen this all before. The tough measures will be challenged in the courts and blocked, the new legal routes that the Home Secretary is talking about will be exploited, and the numbers arriving on our shores and disappearing into the black economy will keep on rising. If the Home Secretary is serious about reducing these numbers—I do believe that she is—she must be bolder. She must take steps to deter illegal immigrants from coming to Britain, and deport them as soon as they arrive. Our borders plan does just that, and I know that she has studied it in detail. I have seen the looks, and I know that she knows that we would leave the ECHR and the European convention on action against trafficking to stop the Strasbourg courts from frustrating deportations, and establish a new removals force to ensure that all illegal arrivals are deported. We would end the use of immigration tribunals, judicial review and legal aid in immigration cases, as those are the things that are slowing us down, and we would sign returns agreements that are backed by visa sanctions to ensure that we send illegal arrivals back to their place of origin. I welcome what she says about Angola and Namibia, but we all know that those countries are not the ones that are creating the biggest problems.
We need to be bold, serious and unafraid to do what the British people demand: secure our borders. That is what is in our borders plan, so I urge the Home Secretary to take me up on my offer to work together, not just because we have some ideas that she might find useful, but because judging by the reaction of her own Back Benchers today, she may find our votes come in handy. Earlier this year, we saw what happened when the Government tried to make changes through the welfare Bill: the Prime Minister was defeated by his own Back Benchers and ended up passing legislation guaranteeing that more money would be spent on welfare. It does not appear that his grip on the party has improved since then, so we can be sure that Labour Back Benchers are already plotting to block any serious changes that she tries to make, so we can help her with that—[Interruption.] Why are Labour Members shaking their heads? We have seen them do that time and again.
Our offer to work together is a genuine one and in the national interest. We will not play the same game that Labour Members did by voting things down for no reason. However, the Home Secretary must be clear with the House on these questions: how many people will be able to take advantage of the new work and study visa routes? What will be the level of the cap? Will it be 10,000 people or 100,000 people?
The Government have separately confirmed that they will allow Gazan students to bring dependants. We oppose that, but can she clarify how the Government will ensure that people brought to the UK from a territory under Hamas control are not a risk to our security? If she finds that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR prevent her from enacting those proposals, will she use primary legislation to resolve that? Has Lord Hermer agreed? By her own admission three weeks ago, the Home Office is not yet fit for purpose, so why are we creating a new legal route for the Home Office to run?
Will she take me up on my serious, genuine offer to meet and to discuss how we can work together to resolve the asylum crisis—yes or no? I urge her to put party politics aside, meet me and my shadow Home Secretary, so that we can find a way to work together—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I was very generous with the time I allowed the Leader of the Opposition. I call the Home Secretary.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her response to the statement. I see that the shadow Home Secretary has been subbed out after his performance at Home Office oral questions, but whether it is the shadow Home Secretary or the Leader of the Opposition herself, I am very happy to take on the Conservative party any day of the week.
Let me start by saying that we will not take any lessons from the Opposition on how to run an effective migration or asylum system. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, when the Conservatives were in Government, they gave up on governing altogether. They gave up on making asylum decisions, creating the huge backlog that this Government were left to start to deal with. In our first 18 months in office, removals are up 23% compared with the last 18 months that the Conservatives were in office, so I will take no lessons from anyone on the Conservative Benches on anything to do with our asylum system. They simply gave up and went for an expensive gimmick that cost £700 million to return four volunteers and was doomed to failure from the start.
The Leader of the Opposition had a lot to say about the European convention on human rights, but I do not recall the Conservatives ever bringing forward any legislation to deal with the application of article 8, the qualified right to a private life. A Bill that sought to clarify the way that article 8 should apply in our domestic legislation or in our immigration rules was never introduced, so I am not going to take any lessons from the people who never bothered to do that in the first place. This Government are rolling up our sleeves, dealing with the detailed, substantive issues that we face, and thinking of proper, workable solutions to those matters.
The position on article 3 has changed across Europe. In my previous role as Lord Chancellor, I was at the Council of Europe just before the summer recess earlier this year, and I was struck by the sheer range of European partners who want to have this conversation. It is important that the British Government lean into that conversation and seek to work in collaboration with our European partners. The one thing that will not work is simply saying that we are going to come out of the European convention altogether. That is not and will never be the policy of this Government because we believe that reform can be pursued and that this is an important convention, not least because it underpins some of our own returns agreements, including the one with France. The right hon. Lady talked about how many years it would take for us to think about reform of the convention, but as she well knows, it would take just as many years to start renegotiating lots of international agreements that would be affected by us coming out of the convention, so I am afraid that, once again, her solution will not work.
I am always up for working in the national interest because nothing matters more to me than holding our country together and uniting it, but if the Conservatives really wanted to work together in the national interest, they could have started by voting for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, currently going through the House, that they have voted against at every opportunity. Forgive me if I do not take this newfound conversion to working together in the national interest with much seriousness, but the Conservative party’s track record suggests that it should not be taken seriously.
To not be taken seriously sums up the position of the Conservatives: these are the people that left this Government an abject mess to clear up. They gave up on governing, they gave up on running an effective asylum system, and now they turn up without so much as an apology to the British public, thinking that they have got anything to say that anyone wants to hear.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the first Back-Bench contribution, may I remind Members that in order to expect to be called to speak in response to a statement, they should have been here from the start of the Home Secretary’s statement? There may be Members bobbing quite unnecessarily.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
The reality is that we need an asylum and immigration system based on fairness and consistency. My constituency of Vauxhall and Camberwell Green is a testament to that, as it is a place that has been made richer because of the people who have come there from all over the world. Some of them have fled persecution and have made a home in my constituency over many years. I meet these people every week in the community, including in schools, where I see those children excited about their future. When this Government came into office last year, they were right to say that their priority was to tackle the huge backlog of unprocessed asylum claims left by their predecessor. Clearing that backlog is a big task, but it is right that we identify who has the right to be here, although introducing more assessments of those who have been here for many years and making new judgments about the safety of a country, will take considerable resources. Is the Home Secretary confident that these changes will not have the unintentional consequence of making it harder to achieve her goal?
Shabana Mahmood
I assure my hon. Friend that there will be both the administrative system and the resources needed to underpin the asylum changes that we are making. At the end of the five-year leave to remain period, there is already meant to be an assessment about whether the country of origin remains a safe country or not, but in practice there has ended up being an almost automatic pathway to permanent settlement, and that it what we are changing. I would ask her to look carefully at our protection work and study route, because we will be encouraging those who have sought asylum here and been granted refugee status to go into work or to study. That supports their integration and means that they are making a contribution that will retain public support for the system overall.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is right that the Government are looking for ways to bring order to the asylum system, which was left in total disarray by the Conservatives. Sadly, the Government have been too slow to act.
Britain has a long and proud history of responding with compassion to people fleeing unimaginable horrors. That should continue in a way that is fair and sustainable, so we welcome some of what the Home Secretary has said on that score. However, it is not helpful for the Home Secretary to claim that the country is being torn apart by immigration. Acknowledging the challenges facing our nation is one thing, but stoking division by using immoderate language is quite another.
I welcome the news about safe and legal routes. The Liberal Democrats have called for such routes since they were scrapped by the Conservatives, leading to more small boat crossings, but we have some concerns about the far-reaching detail behind the proposals, which seems to be missing.
The Home Secretary is revoking the legal duty to provide asylum seekers with accommodation, and says that asylum seekers should support themselves and contribute to our society, yet she is still banning them from working so that they can support themselves and contribute to our society, which makes no sense. The Home Secretary relies a lot on Denmark as an example. Denmark lets asylum seekers work after six months, so will she? Can she guarantee that the burden to house asylum seekers will not fall on already struggling local councils? Can she also guarantee that we will not see a wholesale transfer of asylum seekers from hotels to the streets?
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum has announced to the media that asylum seekers could have jewellery confiscated. Is the Home Secretary doing that to raise money or to deter people? Either way, does she acknowledge that many British people will see it as unnecessary and cruel? State-sponsored robbery will certainly not fix a system that costs taxpayers £6 million every day in hotel bills.
If the Government plan to keep their promise to end hotel use, they must process the claims of the 90,000 asylum seekers in the backlog. The Liberal Democrats have a plan to do that within six months using Nightingale-style processing centres. Does the Home Secretary seriously believe that an overstretched Home Office that is yet to clear the existing backlog can also undertake reviews of every refugee’s status every two-and-a-half years?
The UK must continue to lead international efforts to manage large migratory flows. Because the flow of people comes from Europe, the Home Secretary will need to work with the EU on a solution. The Oxford Migration Observatory has identified a clear Brexit effect. That means that people refused asylum in the EU make a second attempt here—a consequence of the Brexit delivered by the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). The Minister for Border Security and Asylum refused earlier to answer whether Brexit has harmed our immigration and asylum system, so I will ask the Home Secretary now. Does she think that Brexit has made it easier or more difficult for this country to control its borders and asylum system? Does she think that reductions in overseas development spending will reduce or increase migratory flows?
We have already made it very clear that we think leaving the ECHR will make no difference to securing our borders and will tear hard-won rights away from British people. It is encouraging that the Home Secretary has said that that is not part of the Government’s plan. We urge the Government to tread carefully and act with fairness, efficiency and compassion for local communities in the UK who want this issue resolved, but also for asylum seekers.
Shabana Mahmood
I wish I had the privilege of walking around this country and not seeing the division that the issue of migration and the asylum system is creating across this country. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, unfortunately, I am the one who is regularly called a “fucking Paki” and told to “Go back home”. I know through personal experience and through the experience of my constituents just how divisive the issue of asylum has become in our country.
I wish it were possible to say that there is not a problem here—that there is nothing to see and that in fact these are all extremist right-wing talking points—but the system is broken. It is incumbent on all Members of Parliament to acknowledge how badly broken the system is and to make it a moral mission to fix this system so that it stops creating the division we all see. I do not think it is acceptable or appropriate for people in this place not to acknowledge the real experience of those who sit outside this House. We are supposed to be in this House to reflect that experience, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will approach the debates that we will no doubt have on all these measures in that spirit.
The hon. Gentleman accused this Government of being too slow to act. I have to say that removals of those who have no right to be in our country are up by 23% in the first 18 months of this Labour Government compared with the last 18 months of the former Tory Government. We are a Government who are getting on with the job. We have made 11,000 enforcement raids, 8,000 arrests and, as a result of those raids, more than 1,000 people with no right to be in this country have been removed from this country. This is a Government who are getting on with the job, and this is just the next phase of our work as we deal with the broken migration system we inherited from the Conservatives.
The hon. Gentleman said he thought that people who are waiting on their claim should be given the right to work. I think he knows that would be a huge pull factor and increase rather than decrease the number of channel crossings. That would be our experience in this country, and that is why we are not pursuing that policy. We have said that those who are granted refugee status in this country who can and want to will be able to switch into the protection work and study route, so that they can start contributing to society. That will help them to integrate, and it will help the communities they are living in.
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is not the policy of this Government to confiscate jewellery from those who are accessing asylum accommodation. Asylum accommodation is provided to asylum seekers by British taxpayers, and it is right that if people have high-value assets, they contribute to the cost of that asylum accommodation. In my speech, I gave the example of a man who was in supported asylum accommodation, paid for by taxpayers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine. He received £800 a month from his family and had enough money to acquire an Audi. It is right that the British state should be able to say to such an individual, “Contribute.” We are not saying that we will take everything away and leave that individual destitute, but contribution is a fair principle here. I would be very disappointed to discover that the Liberal Democrats do not support people contributing, when they can afford to, to the cost of their asylum accommodation.
The hon. Gentleman made his remarks on Brexit. I do not have any more to say about that; I am living in the world as it is today. If he has things to say about that, I am sure that the House will continue to hear them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The Home Secretary should know that language that is not acceptable in this House does not become acceptable if it is attributed to others. She might like to apologise for the language that she used.
Shabana Mahmood
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not mean any discourtesy; I was merely reflecting the truth of words that are used to me.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think we all appreciate that, but I urge Members to keep their language acceptable in the House.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I fully support the Home Secretary and her statement. It is a fundamental duty of Government to protect our borders and to know who is coming into this country—something that we have not known for some time. She has set herself a difficult task. Will she agree to publish targets for all the areas that she outlined in her statement, and particularly for a reduction in the number of undocumented and illegal entrants to the country, so that we can check whether the plan is working? If it is not, she may need to alter some of the policies.
Shabana Mahmood
What we will not do is set arbitrary targets or caps. We have learned the lessons from previous Governments, and setting a number in that way actually costs public confidence. The better thing to do is to get on with passing the necessary legislation in this House, to deliver the reforms out there in the country, and to assess them as they go. I have no doubt that there will be much debate and scrutiny in this place and others about the success of these reforms, and I look forward to answering questions over the coming months and years.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I am sure that my Committee will want to look closely at the very significant number of announcements that the Home Secretary has made today. She referred on a number of occasions to asylum seekers contributing when they are given support. Has she given any consideration to setting up a deferred payment scheme, much akin to the student loan scheme, so that when people are granted asylum and are in work, they can start to pay back the generosity that they have received?
Shabana Mahmood
I very much look forward to my first appearance before the right hon. Lady’s Committee, which I hope we can arrange very soon. I am sure that we will discuss in detail all these proposals, as well as other matters relating to the Home Office. On the point about further contribution, we are exploring that; it is not part of the package of measures that I am announcing today, but I will happily update the House in due course.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Does she agree that enforcing the immigration rules, including on removals, is in the public interest? Will she provide greater detail about the action that the Government will take to balance the public interest against individual rights?
Shabana Mahmood
We will bring forward legislation in the next Session on the specific ways that we will deal with the application of article 8 to immigration cases, and on updating our immigration rules. I am happy to discuss with her how that legislation will be developed over the coming weeks, but the intention is to do exactly as I said in my statement. In particular, we will define “family”; set out how the public interest test is to be used, and that it is to be used only in the most exceptional circumstances; and tighten the “who” and “where” of how article 8 claims can be made. Taken together, we believe that those measures will ensure that article 8 is applied exactly as was intended when the European convention on human rights was first agreed to.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We Conservative Members genuinely wish the Home Secretary well, because otherwise, in her own words, the country will start falling apart. It is a good effort—seven out of 10. She clearly has strong conservative instincts, but does she fear that the misery in many of these countries is such that asylum seekers are not really worried about how long they have to wait for their claim to be processed? Does she fear that unless we arrest, detain and deport people very quickly, this problem will just go on and on? The Home Secretary mentioned return hubs; could she say a bit more about those, and will she have an open mind about schemes such as Rwanda?
Shabana Mahmood
On Rwanda, no. Turning to the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I do not think he can be right, because claims are down in Europe but up here. I hope that he will approach the debate that we are having with an open mind, ditch the failed policies of his party, and maybe consider more workable solutions proposed by this Government.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
We want to continue the UK’s proud history of offering sanctuary, while simultaneously reducing illegal channel crossings. Refugees fleeing persecution should seek safe and legal routes that are subject to full security checks and controls, not pay people-smuggling gangs to cross the channel in an uncontrolled and unsafe way. I therefore welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement that such routes will be created. How quickly does she envisage them being implemented?
Shabana Mahmood
It is absolutely through safe and legal routes that we should seek to bring people into our country, not through the people-smuggling route that originates in the north of France and crosses the channel. I have made an explicit policy choice to disincentivise people from coming through that route; they are paying thousands of pounds to organised immigration criminals to do so. We will privilege those who come through our safe and legal routes. As we get order and control into the system we have inherited, those routes will become more generous over time. They will start modestly—the numbers will be in the low hundreds—but they will grow. We want them to grow, because we want people seeking sanctuary to be able to find safe harbour in this country. We are proud of that position as a Government, so those routes will grow over time. I hope that Members from across the House will support that, but we have to get order and control into our system first.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I think there is general agreement that we have chaos in the immigration and asylum system, and that the Government should be looking for new ways to discourage people from crossing the channel in small boats. Given what the Home Secretary has said today, though, is there a danger that the people we need to come to this country legally—people with the skills that we need to fill the employment gap, and who will keep our NHS working and work in the social care sector—will look at this country now and say, “No, I don’t want to go there”?
Shabana Mahmood
I disagree with the hon. Lady—there is no reason to believe that. The people who come into this country on small boats constitute about 40% of all asylum claims. About the same number of people come through a legal route—a visit visa, a work visa or a study visa—and then apply for asylum when that visa comes to an end. I hope that she will recognise that it is important that we stop that abuse of the asylum system, so that we can retain public confidence in the legal migration system that I think we can all agree this country needs.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Over the past few years, three times as many people have come to this country from Ukraine and Hong Kong, fleeing war or persecution, as have come in small boats, and there has been no public outcry about that. The lesson is that the British people are compassionate and generous to refugees when the system is controlled, fair, and gripped by the Government. Over the 15 years that I spent working on asylum issues before being elected, I saw the dysfunction that this Government have inherited. There is nothing progressive about ducking asylum reform and allowing public support for refugees to drain away. How will these reforms address the manifest unfairness in the asylum system, and rebuild public support for the system, and for immigration overall?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. This country is an open, tolerant and generous place, but there are conditions for that openness, tolerance and generosity—there must be order and control in the system. When people can see that a system is not working, and that rules are being abused and not enforced, they rightly feel angry. It is important that this Government deal with those problems, so that we can have public consent, not just for a new system that works better, but for the safe and legal routes that I know my hon. Friend and others in this House want. The two principles that underpin all the reforms that I am announcing today are fairness and contribution. Those are quintessential Labour values, but they are also quintessential British values.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
As the Home Secretary struggles to find these return hubs, she should reflect on the fact that it was her Government who wasted £700 million by giving up an opportunity to Germany and the United States before we got the chance to use it.
Shabana Mahmood
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; in all the finger-wagging, I sort of missed the question. I think it was something about Rwanda, which I think we can all agree was a totally failed scheme and a waste of money. There are good, ongoing negotiations about return hubs, and I very much hope that we can update the House in due course.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I hope we can all agree that a strong immigration system does not have to be cruel. When the Tories painted over murals for refugee children, the number of small boat crossings still went up. When they threatened deportations to Rwanda, guess what? The number of crossings still went up. What evidence does the Secretary of State have that taking personal belongings, such as jewellery, from refugees and selling it off actually works as a deterrent? Would it not be a much better use of all our time to focus on the new plans for safe and legal routes that she has outlined?
Shabana Mahmood
We are not taking jewellery at the border; I cannot say it any more clearly than that. As my hon. Friend knows from the example I used in my speech, the sort of cases we are going after are those in which people have assets and access to money and can afford quite expensive cars. Those people should make a contribution to the cost of what is currently free asylum support. The two things are not the same, and I urge my hon. Friend to not conflate them. We will not, and never will, seize people’s jewellery at the border; we are not going after their sentimental items, such as wedding rings. We are talking about those who have high-value assets and, having claimed asylum in this country, but before they have been granted refugee status, receive free accommodation on the state. If those people have assets, they should contribute to the cost of that accommodation, as I explained through the example that I used in my speech. That is the sort of case we are talking about, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not perpetuate what is being said about jewellery, because I have clearly ruled that out in the House today.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Labour’s change of course is most welcome, and she has outlined some useful steps. My constituents want to see the Holiday Inn in Bridgwater emptied of migrants and returned to commercial use. To achieve that, she will have to be bolder, so does she agree that anyone who arrives in this country illegally should be detained on entry and deported automatically?
Shabana Mahmood
Again, forgive me, but I am not going to take any lessons from the party that gave us hotel use in the first place and is now lecturing me about hotel exit. It is a manifesto commitment of this Government that we will get out of hotels by the end of this Parliament. I hope to do so before then, which is why we are exploring large sites, including military sites. I know that will give rise to more debate in this House over the coming weeks and months, which I look forward to, but the hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that started hotel use; I hope that he will reflect on that fact first.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I support my right hon. Friend’s statement, and particularly her announcement about safe and legal routes. She will know that cities like Cambridge have a long tradition—going back to the Kindertransport—of welcoming people, including those from Syria and Ukraine. I very much hope that she will work closely with authorities like Cambridge city council on measures that can make those routes work.
Shabana Mahmood
We will work with local partners, councils, philanthropists and other charitable organisations as we develop safe and legal routes. As I said in my statement, they will take three primary forms: community sponsorship, because we believe that is the best model for integrating refugees into our communities; a route for talented students; and a route for skilled workers. We want to play our full part as a country in providing sanctuary to those truly in need. We need to move to a better system. Safe and legal routes will be the way to do it in the future.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I am sure that all of us across the House can agree that a key aspect of dealing with the asylum system is to deal with the crisis of the backlog, which is enormous. The Home Secretary said in her speech that the Government are looking at a number of large military sites as an alternative to asylum hotels. One large military site already in use is RAF Wethersfield in Essex. I understand from Essex police that Braintree district council has been given funding to the tune of about £2 million to help with community cohesion, because that facility is nearby. However, buses are taking asylum seekers from Wethersfield to such places as Colchester and my constituency of Chelmsford several times a day. That is placing extra strain on Essex police in those areas, yet they are unable to access those funds. Will the Home Secretary commit to providing extra funds to Essex police in those areas to help police them?
Shabana Mahmood
I think there were two questions. The first was on the backlog of appeals, which I recognise is far too high. That is why we will create a new independent appeals system so that we can run through these cases more quickly, while fulfilling our obligations to have an independent process and provide early legal advice. On the specific point on Wethersfield and pressures on councils, we work closely with local councils and provide funding to assist with community cohesion and other issues. I will look carefully at the example the hon. Lady has raised if she writes to me.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
The Home Secretary’s statement is most welcome. The proposals that she set out today are a significant step in the right direction. The comments that she made about the damage to the social fabric of this country are important. I have a specific question about asylum seekers who have committed crimes and are deported, but are then allowed to make a second application to come back to this country. Will she look at the law to see how that can be addressed?
Shabana Mahmood
On those who are convicted of crimes, the combination of the Sentencing Bill changes and what I have said today should lead to the earlier deportation of foreign national offenders from this country. It is important that those individuals face the full force of the law, but we have made a policy decision as a Government that for the vast majority of foreign national offenders, the appropriate thing to do is to move to immediate deportation wherever possible.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Home Secretary said that she was exploring
“the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.”
Can she tell the House which countries she is negotiating with and how much it will cost?
Shabana Mahmood
No. I do not think the hon. Member would expect me to comment on live negotiations with other countries, but those negotiations are ongoing. I hope we will have announcements to make soon.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
The Hornsey and Friern Barnet constituency has a long tradition as boroughs of sanctuary, and just today I had an excellent briefing from the Jewish voice for refugees, HIAS+JCORE. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a real problem with the cliff edge for failed asylum seekers who end up street homeless or rough sleeping, particularly in the Finsbury Park area of my constituency? Will she redouble her efforts to understand the connections between homelessness and the asylum process, so that all people can have shelter as we go into the winter?
Shabana Mahmood
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. The reality is that there are a lot of failed asylum seekers within the asylum accommodation system, and I am sure she would accept and agree that where somebody has a failed claim and no right to be in this country, the best thing to do is to voluntarily leave the country. We already provide packages to help people make that decision. I do not want to see people homeless in this country, but I know she cannot possibly think that the answer to that is essentially for there to be no consequence of a failed asylum claim. We need to run a system where the rules are enforced, as uncomfortable as that might occasionally be. We recognise that we do not want people in destitution; that is why we make financial packages available for people to voluntarily leave the country, and that will always be the case.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
In its manifesto, Labour promised to defend migrants’ rights and build an immigration system based on compassion and dignity. Instead, we have a policy that is welcomed by Reform UK and has even found favour with Tommy Robinson. Throwing refugees into destitution, denying any meaningful route to citizenship and forcible evictions—where exactly is the compassion and dignity in that?
Shabana Mahmood
Given that Tommy Robinson does not even think I am English, he will certainly not be supporting anything I have to say, but let us just leave that there. We do not need to hear any more about what vile racists have to say about anything.
Let me say to the hon. Member that it is not a surprise to find a Scottish National party Member of Parliament defending a broken status quo; that is what they do with the Scottish Government under the SNP every day, and it is what he is doing now. I hope he can agree that good, much-needed reform of a broken system is the best way to retain public support for having an asylum system at all.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is right to seek to bring order to the chaos at our borders—chaos instituted by the Tories—which undermines trust in our state and imposes such costs on communities. She is also right to address the pull factors that lure migrants to their deaths in our channel, with claims of cushy lives in five-star hotels. She is right to insist that our proposals must reflect British values and work in practice. On that, will she say a bit more about how reviewing refugee status every two years will work in practice, particularly in regard to Home Office capacity and in regard to integration?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. We are moving from a situation where refugee status is effectively permanent and the most attractive of all routes into the country to one where it has a more temporary status. I will ensure that the administration and funding are available to run the new system as it is being designed. We are creating the protection work and study route because we believe that the best integration outcomes happen when people are in work and able to contribute. That is how we will retain popular support for having an asylum system. People will transfer, we hope, into the protection work and study route, but if they do not, they will still receive sanctuary from this country under the core protection model, and it will be more regularly reviewed. I hope we can all agree that where a country is safe for an individual to return to, a return should in the normal run of things take place. If people have switched into a work route and are making a contribution, we will set out plans in the coming days for how they can earn their way to an earlier settlement that is longer than what is available to people today—and still longer than what will be available to people on safe and legal routes—but shorter than for those who remain on the core protection model.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Most on the Government Benches disagree with us, but I share the Home Secretary’s admiration for the Danish model. The Danish Finance Ministry publishes data regularly on the fiscal contribution of different profiles of migrants. It shows in Denmark that migrants from MENAPT—the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey—are net recipients over the course of their lifetimes. Will the Home Secretary ensure that the Treasury publishes the same data in the same way in this country?
Shabana Mahmood
We keep all statistics under review, as the hon. Member knows and as was the case when he was an adviser to a former Home Secretary. The principle that underpins all these reforms is fairness and contribution. We believe that most people want to be able to contribute to this country, because refugees recognise that it is the best way for them to have stability and security in their lives, and it is what is needed for the wider community, too. We think that all refugees, if they are on the protection work and study route, will have that opportunity. I am not interested in models that start separating out different nations from one another. Once somebody has got status in our country, they are on a path to becoming one of us if they are working and contributing.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I agree about the need for a fairer asylum system in which the public can have confidence, but everything that the Home Secretary has proposed today is predicated on decent legal advice being available to people, and we know—I know from 20 years as a Member of Parliament—that that is simply not the case. Despite the best efforts of the advice sector in Bristol, which is proud to be a city of sanctuary, there is a dearth of decent immigration lawyers, and I see too many constituents fall into the hands of dodgy lawyers who will help them to falsify and fabricate claims. What will the Home Secretary do to ensure that that decent legal advice is there?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend, in that many people have turned up at my advice surgeries believing that there are things I can do as a constituency MP to assist them with their migration claims which I cannot do. They have been completely misled and robbed by unscrupulous individuals. Under the new appeals system that we will set up, legal advice will be available from the start. We believe in access to justice, and people need to have the right legal advice, but providing it early, right at the start of claims, means that we can run a system whereby there can be one claim and one appeal rather than the merry-go-round and whack-a-mole of claims that we see today.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I welcome the rhetoric in the Home Secretary’s announcement. In fact, I recognise her rhetoric. We have our plan for restoring justice, and she has announced a plan to restore order and control. However, before she puts in her application to join Reform UK—and I would very much welcome her doing so—may I just draw out the difference between our parties?
Unlike the Government, we do not propose to give illegal immigrants the right to stay here for two and a half years after arriving; we do not propose to give them the right to study and work here; we do not propose to allow them to bring their families here; and, crucially, we are not going to contort our law to comply with and fit into the European convention on human rights. The derogations announced by the Home Secretary will not work to stop the lawfare, just as the derogations announced in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 would not have stopped the lawfare, which is why I opposed that Bill as well. She talks about—
Shabana Mahmood
I do not think there was a question in there, Madam Deputy Speaker. As for the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to join his party—hardly any of whose Members appear to be present—let me say to him, “Over my dead body.”
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I commend the Home Secretary for getting the balance absolutely right. I think that her announcement will be widely welcomed throughout our diverse community in Birmingham, because we know that our generosity of spirit is upheld by our rule of law and the kindness that we show is protected by the justice that we share. Will the Home Secretary confirm that while we will always give sanctuary to those who need our protection, what she is advancing today is in effect a form of earned citizenship, and that only those who step up to the full responsibilities of citizenship will enjoy the full rights of citizenship of this country?
Shabana Mahmood
My right hon. Friend has made a powerful point. We are constituency neighbours, and both of us have engaged in many community meetings over the years in which these issues have been discussed, not just by those who are white but by those who are ethnic minority Britons. What unites all Britons, regardless of their background, is a desire for fairness and for a good system in which people can have confidence. My right hon. Friend is entirely right about the concepts of earned citizenship, earned settlement, contribution and fairness. As I said earlier, those are quintessential Labour values, and they are quintessential British values as well, which is why I know that this plan will have support from people throughout the country.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
These steps are definitely a move in the right direction, and I am pleased that the Home Secretary has rejected the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to allow those who arrive in the UK illegally to work, which would, I think, be a ludicrous magnet that would attract more illegal migrants. However, she will be aware that the vast majority of removals from the country are voluntary rather than enforced. What is she planning to do to ramp up enforced removals from the UK, in respect of visa sanctions, and why did the Government vote against their inclusion in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me just say gently to the hon. Gentleman that voluntary removal is the outcome that we should be aiming for. Enforced removals cost more money and are more likely to result in a failed removal, especially if there is such disruption that the pilot in charge of the plane says that he or she will not take the individual concerned. That often costs the British taxpayer much more. It is value for money for voluntary removals to take place wherever possible, but we will pursue all types of removal, voluntary as well as enforced, along with deportations of foreign national offenders. Our track record over the past 18 months shows that we got those numbers up by 23% to just over 48,000, doing better than the Conservatives did over their last 18 months in government. As for the issue of visa sanctions, all I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that these were powers that the Conservatives acquired but did not use.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the measures that she has introduced to tackle abuse of our asylum system and clamp down on those who are taking advantage of this country’s generosity. The Government have already closed 200 hotels since coming to power, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that her Department is expediting the measures that she has announced so that we can restore public confidence?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that we are moving at pace on the exit of hotels. We have already made good progress, having closed a number of them. The number of hotels that remain has fallen from the peak that we inherited to just under 200, but we will go further and faster. We are looking at large sites, including military sites, and there will be more announcements about that in due course. As for the wider proposals, some require consultation while others require legislation—I know that they were debated with real vigour in the House—but we will aim to pass these measures as quickly as possible, because I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for us to make a rapid transition to a better system in which we can all have more confidence, to introduce the safe and legal routes that are the viable alternative and the right alternative, and to persuade people not to get on to a dangerous boat in the north of France instead.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Home Secretary has spoken a great deal about contribution, but one of the most powerful forms of contribution to our country is getting a job and paying taxes, which the Home Secretary will not allow people seeking asylum to do, despite the fact that it can be done in Denmark. She has said that pull factors cause an aversion to that, but a study conducted by the University of Warwick, which looked at 30 other studies, found that there was no long-term correlation between labour market access and destination choice. Will she therefore review her decision not to offer people seeking asylum the right to work, so that they can pay their own way in our country?
Shabana Mahmood
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is what I said in response to a question from another Liberal Democrat earlier today. It would be a pull factor, because we know that the ability to work in this country illegally is already a pull factor, which is why we are clamping down on illegal working—we have seen 11,000 raids, 8,000 arrests and the removal of 1,000 people with no right to be in this country. Let me also say to the hon. Gentleman that I have had the misfortune of having to look through the TikTok accounts and the various other ways in which the organised immigration criminals advertise their packages for people to get on to a boat in the channel in the north of France, and it is in all those marketing materials as well. We also know from the intelligence that we gather that that is one of the pull factors, and we have to deal with it.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, which I fully support. My constituency, like hers, is incredibly diverse, with people originating in countries across the world settled and contributing to our communities. One thing that people from all backgrounds have in common is that they detest the unfairness that the Conservative party allowed to creep into our asylum and immigration system. They also detest the demonising of their neighbours by members of Reform. Does the Home Secretary agree that the choice is clear: a choice between the chaos, handed over by the Conservatives, of a system taken advantage of by those who can pay the people smugglers, and a system of fair and safe legal routes for those who need them?
Shabana Mahmood
My own parents were migrants to this country in the late ’60s and ’70s. Migration is woven into the story of my family, and those of thousands of people I represent in my constituency of Birmingham Ladywood. I agree with my hon. Friend that ethnic minority Brits are just like every other kind of British: we value fairness and contribution as well. That is why those principles sit underneath all the policy announcements that I have made today.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
It is not people seeking sanctuary who are tearing our country apart; it is toxic, racist narratives and the scapegoating of migrants and asylum seekers for what is nothing to do with them. The chronic housing crisis and the running down of public services are not caused by migrants; they are caused by political decisions and by the grotesque inequality in this country. Does the Secretary of State understand that attempting to out-Reform Reform is actually just boosting this baseless, far-right narrative and will only deepen divisions, when we urgently need leadership and hope instead?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me tell the hon. Lady that I could not care less about what any other political party has to say about these matters. I do not care what other politicians are saying on the television. I do not care what other activists are saying either. I care about the fact that I have an important job to do, and I can see that there is a problem here that needs to be fixed. If there was not a problem, I would not be pretending there was one. There is a genuine problem in the asylum system and we need someone to sort it out, not to pretend that it does not exist, which I am afraid is one of the things that fuels division in the first place.
Since I have been Home Secretary, my own constituents have been telling me directly of abuses in the visa system that they can see with their own eyes, long before any officials in Whitehall have ever clocked on to those things. When we see something broken, we have a moral responsibility to fix it and to make sure that the fact that it is broken is not fuelling division in our country. Let me also say to the hon. Lady that it is Green party politicians who are absolute hypocrites, because they talk great language in here and then oppose asylum accommodation in their own constituencies.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As the Member for Bradford West, I am really proud that Bradford is a city of sanctuary. The Home Secretary is aware that I am a former foster parent to an Afghan refugee, and my concern is about the reform of article 8 that the Home Secretary suggests. Had somebody like my foster son come to this country and not had a parent, he would not be able to apply for his only sibling to come over. The same would potentially apply to a Ukrainian woman who has young children and cannot contribute because of the trauma that she has experienced. Will the Home Secretary meet me when she is doing her consultation on safe passage for refugees and asylum seekers?
Shabana Mahmood
Of course, I will always happily meet my hon. Friend. We made it clear in the asylum policy statement that these measures do not apply to unaccompanied children and other vulnerable groups. We will set out our specific policies in relation to vulnerable groups, including unaccompanied children, separately; these measures do not apply to them. She will know that the scheme for Ukrainians is a bespoke temporary scheme that was brought in by the Conservative party when it was in government and supported not just by our party, but across this House. I expect the rules of that scheme to apply in the normal way, but I will of course discuss with her the issues that she raises.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for a copy of her speech. It states that
“the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country, and who must leave,”
and I agree. One thing that is missing, though, is verifying the people who come in. We Conservatives put forward the idea of age verification, which many other countries have. Is that part of her plan? If not, would she consider putting it back in the plan, so that we know that those coming in are who they say they are?
Shabana Mahmood
If the hon. Gentleman reads the asylum policy statement, he will know that, on age verification, we are pursuing artificial intelligence as a more effective and workable model, unlike that suggested by the Conservative party, which was all about MRI scans and bones. We believe we have a much more effective way of ensuring that age verification is available and that the methodology for it actually works.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. There is currently a loophole in UK employment law that means that people who are self-employed are not subject to right-to-work checks, which means that many people work illegally in the gig economy, with no potential risk to their “non-employer”. Will the Home Secretary discuss how we can close that loophole while simultaneously ensuring that we uphold rights for British workers, but also the rule of law and the remainder of our rights within the UK?
Shabana Mahmood
We are closing that loophole through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and it is important that colleagues support us when that is debated again on Wednesday. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that closing loopholes and ensuring that everyone is subject to a right-to-work check, thereby building support for a rule-of-law approach to the way that people access employment in this country, is incredibly important. I hope that all colleagues, even Opposition Members, will support those measures later this week.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Nowhere in the Home Secretary’s statement does she put this into any kind of global context. Millions of people have become refugees or homeless all around the world, and more than two thirds of them are housed by the southern countries—the poorest countries in the world—with the least resources to do it. She is putting in draconian measures against refugees trying to come to this country, failing to recognise that more than 6,000 of those who have crossed the channel this year come from Afghanistan, a war-torn country that we helped to make into a war-torn country. She is instead trying to appease the most ghastly right-wing, racist forces all across Europe in undermining and walking away from the European convention on human rights—a convention created by the post-war Labour Government. Does she not recognise that history is going to be a harsh judge of this Government for undermining the global humanitarian principles behind the ECHR and the universal declaration of human rights?
Shabana Mahmood
Not for the first time, I am a little mystified as to what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. He starts with the global context. I guess my starting point is different from his, because I start with our domestic context first. He ought to know that in this country there have already been bespoke schemes for the resettlement of people from Afghanistan, so perhaps he could read up on those schemes. He should also have heard from what I said in my statement that we remain absolutely committed to offering sanctuary to those who are fleeing conflict abroad. We think that the best way to do that is not to encourage people to get on a boat in the channel by paying thousands and thousands of pounds to people smugglers.
By the way, it is not just smuggling that is a vile crime; those individuals are involved in all sorts of other, disgusting organised crime. They should not be in receipt of money from vulnerable people. I want to disincentive people from making that choice, and I want to incentivise people to come on safe and legal routes instead. If the right hon. Gentleman had actually read the asylum policy statement, he would know that it is the policy position of this Government to provide more safe and legal routes. Once he has done more reading, I will be happy to answer more of his questions.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I remember when the Prime Minister pledged an
“immigration system based on compassion and dignity”,
yet now we have an immigration Minister tweeting
“Deport, Deport, Deport”
and this policy announcement, which I am afraid scrapes the bottom of the barrel. If we are being frank, is this not just a desperate attempt to triangulate with Reform? Like some of the other terrible policy errors that have been made in recent months, it is not only morally wrong but another policy that is set to push away Labour voters. Why not recognise that now, rather than recognising it in a few months’ time and making a U-turn?
Shabana Mahmood
I really caution my hon. Friend not to defend a broken status quo. He should know that it is foreign national offenders who are deported from this country, and I hope he can agree that foreign national offenders should be deported from this country. We should not be keeping convicted criminals in our nation for a day longer than is absolutely necessary. I say to him that the thing that is morally wrong is knowing that we have a broken system and then either pretending that it is not broken or defending a broken status quo. I will never tolerate that.
I have to say to my hon. Friend that, as I have said to Opposition Members today, I do not care for what other parties are saying on these matters or for what other politicians have to say either. First and foremost is my moral responsibility to the people of this country as I fulfil my duty as Home Secretary. I have a series of reforms that are underpinned by the values of the Labour party and the values of the British people: fairness and contribution. I hope my hon. Friend will reflect on that as he reads up on the detail of these reforms.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In February, at Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I raised the issue of the generous financial and accommodation package that is advertised on the Government’s own website under “Asylum support: What you’ll get”, which outlines the provision of an asylum support enablement—ASPEN—card with £49.18 of cash loaded on to it each week, on top of free accommodation, even if someone has been refused asylum. The cards can be used for gambling and have been over 6,000 times, according to a freedom of information request. In May, I raised this issue again when I asked the previous Home Secretary what she planned to do to address the pull factors of free cash and a free home. Can this Home Secretary now commit to address my previous calls that these pull factors must be mitigated to create a deterrent, and will those on section 4 or section 95 support have the benefit withdrawn under these measures?
Shabana Mahmood
I urge the hon. Member to look at the detail of the asylum policy statement, the whole point of which is to deal with the pull factors that we know are drawing people to get on a dangerous boat and cross the channel illegally. The upshot of the reforms will be to deal with those pull factors, and he will know that we have said in the asylum policy statement that a relatively small number—just under 10%—of those in asylum accommodation already have the right to work, and in future we will expect them, where they have the right to work, to work.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary is arguing that what will heal this divided nation is to get somebody who we have agreed is a refugee, with a well-founded fear of persecution, to feel a permanent sense of limbo because they will never be able to plan for the long term for them or their family, because their status will always be uncertain because they could still face deportation. Her consultation document, which I have read, talks about using enforced return for families. Last year alone, 10,000 children, many of whom are with their families, were granted refugee status in this country. I know she plans to consult, but given that this involves children, can she be clear with us about whether she intends to incarcerate children with their families as part of enforced return, or to separate children from their mums and dads as part of this policy? How will we continue to uphold the UN convention on the rights of the child in terms of education?
Shabana Mahmood
I encourage my hon. Friend to look at the detail of the asylum policy statement on our intentions for the protection “work and study” route, which in future will be the route by which refugees can contribute and earn their way to settlement in this country. Of course, it is the express intention of this policy statement to disincentivise people coming on dangerous channel crossings, and to incentivise and to push people towards what will, over time, become more generous, safe and legal routes of entry into this country, with more privileged status when it comes to earning permanent settlement.
Let me say to my hon. Friend on failed asylum-seeking families, because I think that important context was missing from her question, that there are 700 Albanian families at the moment who have made asylum claims and whose asylum claims have failed. The only reason they have not been removed from the country is the policies on not removing families—that is, parents with their children. We are not going to separate parents and their children, but we are going to consult on the removal of support and how we effectively and safely ensure that those individuals are returned. However, we will of course want to see most of those people return voluntarily instead.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Stoking fear and division through the kind of performative cruelty trailed in the media this weekend has consequences. We saw that in Caerphilly last month in that where Reform UK spread information, Ukrainians spoke of intimidation. When the Home Secretary speaks of unity, surely the lesson from Caerphilly is that imitating Reform does not create unity and does not win trust, but that standing firm on values does.
Shabana Mahmood
I am sorry, but that is just unserious from the right hon. Lady. I am sorry to find that the Reform party is living rent free in so many people’s heads, but I can assure hon. Members that it is living nowhere near mine.
These policy proposals are designed to fix what we all know to be true, which is that we have a broken system that is driving division across our country. I see that in my own constituency, and I hope the right hon. Lady is not suggesting otherwise. I have seen that with my own eyes and it is my own experience in my own constituency, where over 70% of people are not white and most of them have a migration story just like my own. These are matters of great interest across our country—across every type of community in our country—and it is incumbent on any Government who want to make sure we can run a decent system and not fuel division in our country to pursue the sorts of reforms that we are talking about. They are underpinned by what I would have hoped were values her party could have signed up to as well—that is, fairness and contribution.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, which I support. This reform of the system is long overdue. It is about reforming safe and legal routes, and cracking down on illegal working and those abusing the asylum and immigration system, yet it maintains support for those that need our support, such as those fleeing war in Ukraine and others who come here legally. It is about fairness. When will these reforms be in place so that residents can see the outcomes of these actions?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will pursue the consultation on measures that require it as quickly as possible, and there will be legislation in the coming months—certainly in the second Session—which we will obviously seek, subject to the agreement of the House, to pass as quickly as possible.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Home Secretary’s asylum plans still have a gaping hole in the middle of them in that she does not know what to do with failed asylum seekers who cannot be returned home. Her statement says that she is exploring possibilities with third countries. Can I suggest that she swallows her pride, and speaks to a third country that we know is willing: Rwanda?
Shabana Mahmood
I say to Conservative Members that they are going to have to ditch their addiction to Rwanda. The scheme did not work, and nobody in the country supported it. As the hon. Member and Opposition Members well know, when we are negotiating with other countries about possible agreements, the one thing we do not do is publicise them before an agreement is reached.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is aware that, in the absence of safe and legal routes, the law forces a refugee to set foot on UK soil to seek asylum, which has led to dangerous journeys and no checks or vetting taking place. She has referenced sponsorship as the primary safe route. Could she clarify whether this can be applied for from outside the UK, and what consideration has she made of recommendations by Safe Passage to implement a visa refugee scheme, so that applications can be done from outside the UK, with cases assessed, vetted and decided before a refugee embarks on a dangerous journey here?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The whole purpose of the new safe and legal routes is that those individuals are accepted as refugees before they enter the United Kingdom. The point is that they never pay thousands of pounds to illegal smugglers along any sort of route on which they may travel. In fact, exactly as she says, we want to accept people as refugees before they set foot on UK soil, and once they are here on a safe and legal route, they will access permanent settlement more quickly than on any other route in this country. It is good that the Government are seeking to incentivise people to come through safe and legal routes, not pay thousands and thousands of pounds to criminals along the way.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It was a genuinely good statement—as far as it went—from which we learnt that countries could be determined to be safe at some point in the future and refugees from them returned home. What would be the Home Secretary’s criteria for safety, and which countries does she have in her sights? For example, would they include the Council of Europe and NATO member, ECHR signatory and EU candidate, Turkey?
Shabana Mahmood
I am not going to provide a running commentary on countries. The right hon. Member will know that I referenced Syria specifically in my statement. Many thousands of Syrians were making claims related to the regime that was in place before, during the conflict, but it has fallen and there is a new regime, so we have already made a small number of voluntary returns to Syria. Other countries are exploring enforced returns to Syria, given the change in circumstances there, and we will of course look at doing the same. In the normal run of things, when it comes to considering whether a country is safe for a person we will keep such matters under review, as I know he would expect us to do.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Yes, we have a broken system, but does the Home Secretary really believe that people having to flee violence, war and persecution means they have won a golden ticket if they are lucky enough to get refugee status here? Does she understand that such rhetoric is deeply offensive and feeds division? Does she accept that shutting down routes for settlement will damage integration in our communities, and will only strengthen Reform, not beat it? Would not a better way of measuring contribution be to allow people to work and pay taxes?
Shabana Mahmood
I gently point out to my hon. Friend that we have a large number of failed asylum seekers—that is to say, people whose claims have not succeeded and who do not have the right to be in this country who are still here, despite their home country being safe. Many people who claim asylum in this country have passed through multiple safe countries across Europe before they end up in the north of France. We have seen claims go down in Europe and increase here in the UK. I would just encourage her to remember that we are opening safe and legal routes. The whole point of the reforms is to disincentivise the journeys that lead to criminals earning a lot of money and people being in the north of France, and to move to a system where we have safe legal routes and we accept people as refugees before they set foot on UK soil. That way, when they come here they can earn, contribute and be fully integrated through models such as community sponsorship, which we know work.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for sharing her experiences earlier and thoroughly condemn the sort of behaviour she described. It is unacceptable in any case.
The Secretary of State described rapid decisions on appeals. Does she also believe, as I do, that rapid decision making on the initial application of asylum seekers should be promoted and highlighted? Will she consider putting a timescale target for decision—a matter of weeks, not years—in place in her Department?
In her remarks over the weekend on our Ukrainians guests, she described them going home when peace breaks out. May I remind her that peace will not mean safety? Please can she assure the House that a more considered and considerate response may be found? Will she meet me and Ukrainian guests to resolve that issue?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me just make a point about Ukraine that I think was not understood fully by those who were questioning me at the weekend. It is a bespoke scheme created only for Ukrainians, with its own rules. It is not subject to what we have set out in the asylum policy statement. The hon. Gentleman will know, as is the position in relation to our discussions with the Ukrainian Government, that those individuals are welcome in our country so that we can keep them safe. They are not classed as refugees, because they are here temporarily on that scheme. We will always uphold our obligations under that scheme—we supported it in Opposition, too.
The hon. Gentleman is right on the point about rapid decisions. It is important that decisions made at first instance, but also through an appeals process, are of high quality. That is one of the ways we have to ensure that they do not get constantly appealed. Our current system means that even though we have made huge progress on decreasing the backlog on initial decisions, the appeals backlog has grown. Over time, as people sit in the appeals queue, more rights are accrued. Unlike with any other type of legal order in this country, the order to leave this country not being complied with still allows people to accrue more rights in the interim. We do not run a good and effective appeals system at the moment, which is why we are going to create a new one, but I can assure him that at its heart will be early legal advice and truly independent adjudicators making the decisions, but doing so in a way that allows them to fast-track claims that have a low chance of success and make sure that the right decision is made quickly— one claim, one appeal—with a certain outcome at the end, not subject to years and years of a merry-go-round around the courts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the next Member, can I just make a plea that we keep questions and answers concise?
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly welcome the measures which I believe will tackle a failure by the previous Government to maintain one of the most basic fundamental functions of government: control of our borders. My constituents are worried and angry about the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation to house asylum seekers in towns and villages that already have significant social and economic problems. Will the measures lead to lower demand from the Home Office for that type of housing for asylum seekers and the return of HMOs over time to use as family homes for local people who need affordable housing?
Shabana Mahmood
The totality of the reforms will, we believe, lead to less pressure on accommodation, so I think the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question on HMOs is yes. I recognise the problems he notes, because HMOs are a big problem in my constituency too.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I really do thank the Home Secretary for her statement. This is a tiny step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. To truly show that the Home Secretary is listening to the British people, does she agree with me that if you enter this country illegally, you should never be allowed to stay?
Shabana Mahmood
We will always abide by our obligations under the refugee convention and we do believe in offering sanctuary, but we make no apology for the fact that those who enter illegally by crossing the channel will have a longer path to settlement. We are deliberately incentivising other safe and legal routes into the country to show that that is the proper way to seek sanctuary in this country—rather than paying criminals a lot of money and put lives at risk.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
When we introduce new legislation and new procedures, it is important that we calculate the implications and where they could lead us. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I have worked—for decades, to be frank—with asylum families, and in particular children. What I find is that the children are extremely traumatised. What we try to do is give them security and peace of mind for the family. Now what will happen is that every 30 months that security could be undermined and they could face removal. Could I ask my right hon. Friend whether she has consulted the Children’s Commissioner, education psychologists or others about the implications of what she is saying today?
The other issue is that in the past, she has mentioned the forced removal of families. I just remind my colleagues that in the past that was happening and families were often detained in Harmsworth detention centre. I used to visit the children. It was one of the most distressing experiences I have had as an MP. Can she give me the assurance that no child will be placed in detention as a result of this policy change?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me tell my right hon. Friend first that there will, in the usual way, be a full equality impact assessment for all these measures. As the consultations take place and as the legislation is drafted and then debated in this House, I am sure all the individuals he mentions will have their say—I would expect them to, as well. I gently remind him that when we are talking about the asylum system today, we are not just talking about those who arrive illegally on small boats; we are also talking about people who arrive on visitor visas, student visas and work visas who, the minute those visas come to an end, immediately claim asylum. We know that the relative generosity of that route—the effective automatic permanent settlement after five years—is one of the things that attracts that behaviour. It is right that we clamp down on that and disincentivise people trying to stay in this country in that way, and instead incentivise people who will come through safe and legal routes. As we get order and control in the system, the safe and legal routes will start relatively modest, but I anticipate them growing more generous over time because this country is fundamentally open, tolerant and generous. [Interruption.]
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the honest and realistic assessment the Secretary of State has made today in relation to the broken asylum system and the division that immigration is causing across the United Kingdom. She has been innovative in some of the proposals she has made. Only time will tell whether the potential loopholes will undermine the honourable objective she has set, namely to cut back on illegal immigration. In my view, the only way of doing that is to make sure that people who enter this country breaking the law get returned immediately. On the ECHR and the expanded interpretation, can she give us an assurance that whatever changes she makes will apply fully to Northern Ireland, where, unfortunately, the previous Government embedded the ECHR in the Windsor framework, which has proven already to be a means of undermining immigration policy?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Minister for Immigration has met his counterparts in the devolved Administrations. We will keep all those conversations going, because this is a reserved matter rather than a devolved one.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can just say that, in case the microphone did not pick up my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on the detention of children, I can give him the assurance he sought in his question.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I urge caution. We are in this predicament because the very people who championed Brexit failed to warn of the consequences of leaving the Dublin agreement. Since then, the EU has moved on and will introduce its asylum and migration management regulations next summer. Instead of creating insecurity, what discussions has the Home Secretary had with the EU on how we can explore working with the regulations to protect our human rights and responsibilities through this progressive and pragmatic approach?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Countries across Europe are tightening up their rules, and it is important that we do not become or remain an outlier. In fact, it is a regular complaint of many of our counterparts in Europe that at least 30% of those who travel across Europe are seeking ultimately to come to the United Kingdom. It is something that has come up in all the conversations I have had with multiple counterparts across Europe, and it is one of the reasons why we have to ensure that we have a system that works and that we get our own house in order.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
A constituent wrote to me asking whether I could get a wriggle on with his EU settlement scheme application. We checked with the Home Office and it turned out that he was subject to a live deportation order. It was issued in 2017, and we did deport him. Somehow he got back into the country and made his application. I said to the Home Secretary’s predecessor that if she was prepared to, with a stroke of her pen, re-enact that deportation order, then I was prepared to drive him to the airport myself. Now that we have a Home Secretary who is going to get a grip of this situation, I offer the same thing again.
Shabana Mahmood
I look forward to welcoming the hon. Member’s application to join immigration enforcement. If he wants to write to me about that specific example, I will look into it. I know that the systems at the Home Office need a lot of tightening. It is work that my predecessor started when she brought a new permanent secretary into the Department to make the necessary changes, and it is work I will continue.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this system is absolutely smashed to smithereens. It is smashed to smithereens because of 14 years of destruction from the Conservatives. Of course we all want to see the control of our borders. We want to stop the boats, and we want to see better and safer legal routes. But I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench this: when the opposition parties—the Tories, Reform UK, not to mention that odious racist chancer who is bankrolled by the world’s wealthiest man—are championing our policies, is it not time to question whether we are actually in the right place?
Shabana Mahmood
I have a lot of time and high regard for my hon. Friend. What I would say is that he should not allow mischief making by those he names to throw him or our party off course, and I hope he has heard the support from our own Back Benchers today who can see that these changes are necessary to fix the broken system that he agrees we have. I would also ask Members to please not keep repeating the name of a man who does not even think I am English. I find that very offensive, and I would ask everyone to refrain from mentioning him. We do not need to do that. We do not need to go there. Do not fall for the mischief that others are making here. We know that there is a broken system, and it is our solemn responsibility as a Labour party and a Labour Government to fix it.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I agree that the asylum system is broken, and I welcome the commitment to safe and legal routes for people to seek asylum, but there is much in these measures that I think is cruel, impractical and will not work. One example is making people have reviews every two-and-a-half years for 20 years. It is cruel because those people are not going to be able to get a sense of security and safety, and it is counterproductive because they will struggle to get good-quality, secure and high-paid jobs and contribute to our society. It will not work.
We know that the Home Office cannot cope with what it currently has to do. My casework is full of people whose papers get lost when they are trying for immigration status. The digital right-to-work system does not work properly, and we have a backlog of asylum claims. How is the Home Secretary going to make this work?
Shabana Mahmood
Let me assure the hon. Member that I am making changes that I will ensure will work. I make no apology for disincentivising routes into this country that basically make people smugglers very, very rich men and fuel other disgusting crimes across Europe and in this country. It is right that we reserve a privileged status for those who get into work and education, as refugees on core protection will be able to do, as well as those who come via safe and legal routes. That should be the proper way that people come into this country and it has better integration outcomes as well.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Earlier the Home Secretary advised that I wait for the detail of the reforms before criticising them. Now the detail is out, and I am afraid it does not reassure me in the slightest. It is hard to know where to begin when so much of what has been announced flies in the face of decency and compassion, but I will focus on family reunion. Limiting access to family reunion for refugees will force children and spouses into the hands of the very people smugglers that the Home Secretary is seeking to smash. It will push them into unsafe dinghies, risking their lives. Would she be comfortable with this?
Shabana Mahmood
I urge my hon. Friend to look at the proposals on protection work and study and on safe and legal routes. It is right that we try to pivot to a more humane system that privileges those who come not via paying people smugglers a lot of money. On family reunification, British citizens at the moment have to meet thresholds and various qualifying tests before they can apply for family reunion. I think it is right that we bring the position in relation to refugees through the protection work and study route to the same level.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members will have seen how many Members are on their feet. I will need to finish this statement by 8 pm, so please bear that in mind, because I want to get everybody in.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I welcome a sizeable amount of what the Home Secretary has said and is trying to do. Earlier this year the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal in the case of IX reiterated the established administrative law requirements that Government decision making in asylum cases be proportionate and reasonable and not expose individuals to prolonged or indefinite uncertainty—something that the Home Office used to criticise, under the Tories in fact, as a lengthy limbo period. Can the Home Secretary clarify how her proposal to require a 20-year period before someone granted asylum may obtain a permanent right to remain complies with these fundamental principles?
Shabana Mahmood
I do believe it complies with those principles. At the moment at the end of the five years there is already supposed to be a safe country review. We will bring that forward and make the safe country review a real thing. As I have said, we will also create, alongside the core protection route, the protection work and study route, because we want to encourage people to make a contribution to this country.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
In a previous life I was a 999 call taker with the ambulance service and had the awful experience of answering a call from a distraught family desperate for help. I could not help them save their loved one because they could not understand the life-saving instructions I was trying to give them over the phone due to the language barrier. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is nothing progressive about defending a status quo where vulnerable people are unable to access emergency services due to an inability to speak our language?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I endorse every word that she said.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The common travel area allows movement across the UK, Northern Ireland and to the Republic of Ireland. It has been reported in the Irish media that a UK Home Office official briefed the Irish Department of Justice in regard to what the Home Secretary is bringing forward. Can I ask her what is the Irish Government’s response to the proposals?
Shabana Mahmood
I am afraid I do not recognise the briefing the hon. Member refers to.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I can recall a predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary describing the Home Office as not being fit for purpose. I have never known a time when there was not a backlog of cases with the Home Office. This set of proposals will require people’s cases to be reviewed every 30 months. Is that a realistic aim, and is the Home Secretary clear that she can make the Home Office fit for the purpose she has set out today?
Shabana Mahmood
We are already supposed to do safe country reviews, and we will ensure that they are done every two-and-a-half years. We will also ensure that wherever possible refugees can move into the protection work and study route instead. I do recognise the phrase “not fit for purpose”. I have been clear that I do not think the Home Office is fit for purpose yet. There is new management at the Home Office, and they are getting on with making the changes that are necessary. I will ensure that it is both fit for purpose and able to enact the reforms I have set out today.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Sivanandan warned:
“What Enoch Powell says today, the Conservative Party says tomorrow, and the Labour Party legislates on the day after.”
Seizing valuables belonging to asylum seekers, making refugees wait 20 years before they can apply to settle permanently, and deporting entire families, including children who have built new lives here, because their country of origin is deemed safe—these measures are straight out of the fascist playbook. The Home Secretary has described herself as a child of immigrants, so I ask her: is she proud to introduce measures that punish and persecute desperate and vulnerable people seeking sanctuary? How does it feel to kick away the ladder and be praised by fascist Tommy Robinson? I must add—
Shabana Mahmood
I will clarify a point of fact. The hon. Member said that I describe myself as a child of immigrants. It is not a description; it is just a statement of fact. Everything else she said is beneath contempt.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Migrants make immeasurable contributions to our communities. In Manchester Rusholme, Wendy, who has Jamaican heritage, is a community health champion; Najma, from Somalia, leads local initiatives to tackle knife crime; and Hafsa, who grew up in the middle east, leads nature improvement projects. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the language we use to talk about immigration must reflect the important role that immigrants play in the functioning of our nation?
Shabana Mahmood
I absolutely agree about the contribution that migrants and refugees make to our country. I am making these reforms precisely because I can see a broken system that is creating deep division across our country, and it is important that we not only fix the system but retain public consent to having an asylum system at all.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Home Secretary said that nothing matters more to her than “holding our country together”. Does she accept that, to succeed, her reforms, including her adjustments to article 8 of the European convention, must apply equally across the whole United Kingdom? If so, how will that be secured in Northern Ireland, given the impeding effect of article 2 of the Windsor framework?
Shabana Mahmood
All the measures in the asylum policy statement are compliant with the Windsor framework.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Deporting families after they have resettled here because their country is deemed safe is simply wrong. Will the Home Secretary tell us how the Government determine what a safe country is? Will she publish the criteria? She mentioned the DRC; is she really saying that it is a safe country? Will she publish all existing returns agreements, so that Members of this House, and indeed the British public, can properly scrutinise them? I have done the reading, and that is not in the detail.
Shabana Mahmood
We already do safe country reviews, and we would seek to continue that. Those reviews, and our position on different countries, are publicly available; in fact, most pass through the House, in secondary legislation. I make no apology for a system that will privilege those who come to this country through a safe and legal route, rather than those who paid people smugglers thousands of pounds to end up in the north of France.
The point on visa sanctions is related to the fact that many countries do not comply with us when we seek to return people lawfully to their country. That is just one of the tools we have at our disposal to ensure compliance from those countries, so that they take their people back.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The UK has historical and ongoing involvement in unlawful military interventions, alongside allies such as the United States and Israel. How does the Home Secretary assess the correlation between these foreign policy actions and wars, and the displacement of populations, resulting in increased numbers of refugees and asylum seekers arriving in the UK? What steps will her Government take towards proactive peace-building initiatives and the restoration of overseas humanitarian aid, which could address the root causes of displacement and reduce the long-term pressures on our asylum system?
Shabana Mahmood
The Government always play their full part in peace processes wherever we can, and we have put our shoulder to the wheel on the delicate diplomatic efforts required to bring conflicts to an end, but that is not relevant to what we are discussing today. We have a broken system today. We have thousands of people stuck in the system today, and thousands of people coming on boats through the north of France, for reasons that have nothing to do with the British Government. We still fulfil our international obligations, and will do so going forward as well, but I make no apology for wanting to move to a system in which we incentivise safe and legal routes instead.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I agree with the Government that we desperately need to tackle illegal migration. I hear that on the doorsteps, and I see it in my mail each week in Birmingham Erdington. How quickly after the changes come into force will the Government ensure that safe and legal routes are in place? That will be key to stopping the boats. How will the Government deal with those who claim to be minors but are clearly not? That is another massive issue.
Shabana Mahmood
We are moving to a system of age verification, based on artificial intelligence modelling, which we believe is effective in verifying someone’s true age. Let me assure my hon. Friend that we will move to consult and legislate on these measures as quickly as possible. I am seized of the need to move quickly to restore public confidence. As we get order and control into the system, we will start opening up the safe and legal routes. They will be modest to begin with, but they will grow and be more generous over time, as we restore order and control.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
The Daresbury asylum hotel in Runcorn has been emptied, thanks to my by-election campaign. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents that the many houses in multiple occupation in Runcorn will be emptied of illegal migrants and criminals under her Government, and that they will be deported without delay, never to be allowed legal entry into the UK?
Shabana Mahmood
It is this Government who are exiting hotels. We will do so—it is a manifesto commitment —by the end of the Parliament, and I intend to bring that forward as much as possible. Let me say to the hon. Member that we will always fulfil our international obligations, but I make no apology for wanting to privilege safe and legal routes over illegal entry into the country.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Every single day that I campaigned in South Derbyshire while a candidate and since becoming an MP last July, immigration has been the No. 1 issue dividing my communities. They—we are talking about Labour voters—have been pushed either to apathy or towards Reform. I cannot thank the Home Secretary enough for the statement, because finally my constituents feel heard. How frequently can they expect an update, so that they can see that the promises being made today will result in delivery sooner, rather than later?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and her question. Let me assure her that I know that the way to build public confidence in the new system is not just to announce the reforms here, but to get on with legislating, and with implementing the reforms, so that her constituents and mine, and people across the country, can see the impact. and how we can fix the system. Then public confidence in having an asylum system at all can be retained.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Stripping people of the very few belongings that they have left after fleeing war and persecution runs contrary to the very principle of asylum, which is rooted in protection and compassion. How do such measures help address the real root causes of displacement and the refugee crisis, which are war, destabilisation and persecution, and dangerous crossings?
Shabana Mahmood
I should not be surprised to see the hon. Gentleman indulging in misinformation. In my statement I gave the example of somebody who has £800 a month from their family, has enough money to acquire an Audi and is not expected to contribute to the cost of his asylum support at all. It is right that we change that. British citizens have to give account of their assets before they access benefit support. I do not think that the individuals we are talking about should be in a privileged position if they have such access to money, or assets of high value. I made it clear that this is not about taking jewellery—wedding rings and so on—off people at the border; that will never happen, but it is right that those who have assets be asked to contribute to the cost of their asylum accommodation.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Under the previous Government, we had hostile policy after hostile policy, from the “go home” vans to the Windrush scandal and Rwanda, all of which failed to deter people from making dangerous crossings and failed to fix the asylum system. What is dividing communities is the constant anti-refugee rhetoric pumped into our politics. That has resulted in the vile racism that the Home Secretary, I and my mother have been subjected to. Let us be clear: some people will never be appeased, and will constantly stir up hatred in our communities.
The new proposals that will force refugees to reapply every two years will just add huge costs and pressure to an already overstretched system. Has the Home Secretary assessed the cost to the Home Office of processing thousands of repeated applications? This is an area of law in which I used to practise. How that will impact an already overstretched system facing huge backlogs?
Shabana Mahmood
What I think is dividing our country, and communities all over it, is an unfair, out-of-control system that is putting pressure on communities across the whole nation. It is incumbent on me as Home Secretary and on this Government to fix that system, and to retain public consent for having an asylum system. It is also my job to make sure that we have the administration capacity and the funding to enact these reforms, which we will.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
If we look at a heat map of asylum dispersals, we see that they tend to be in inner-city London, and then the towns and cities of the midlands and the north-west, which have the least resources to help them. Thankfully, in Stoke-on-Trent, organisations such as our citizens advice bureau and Asha are doing what they can. When the Secretary of State looks at this policy in the round, as she will, will she look at that dispersal mechanism to ensure that everyone is giving the support that they should? Also, the national referral mechanism for modern slavery is one of the most difficult things to access for somebody who has been trafficked into this country, because they need to be referred by a national first responder, through a third party. What will her changes be, and can she give an assurance that those national first responders will not be removed from the process, because they do a very good job in vetting people before they get access?
Shabana Mahmood
I thank my hon. Friend for his two questions. Let me assure him that we already run a dispersal model that is designed to ensure that the burden is spread out across the country, and we will carry on doing so. We have already consulted on modern slavery legislation, and that consultation has closed. I will look carefully at the responses. It is well-intentioned and much-needed legislation, and it is important that we crack down on modern slavery in our country, but it is being used to frustrate the legitimate removal of people from this country. I saw that within my first few days as Home Secretary; I had to change policy very quickly to prevent people from thwarting their removal to France under the “one in, one out” deal. That is what I have in mind, and those are the changes that we will make.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for taking the bold action necessary to tackle the chaos and lack of control that we inherited in our asylum system. Does she agree that these changes are as much about incentivising the right behaviour by creating capped legal routes to asylum as they are about taking tough action to break the status quo, which sees thousands of people crossing the channel in a dangerous, uncontrolled and unfair way?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I endorse every word that he said.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
What measures is the Home Secretary taking to dismantle the criminal gangs that are exploiting both legitimate and illegitimate businesses to facilitate illegal channel crossings? Can she give us details of the regulatory action that is being taken to prevent the use of assets such as shops on our high streets, and to prevent the supply of life jackets, boats and other components needed for dangerous crossings by illegal immigrants and criminal gangs?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are engaging in intense law enforcement work through the National Crime Agency, and we are working collaboratively with our partners in Europe, especially in France. There have already been 350 disruptions of organised immigration crime activity. We have confiscated numerous small boats ourselves, and we are also working with our European partners to do that. The sum total of all those efforts has been to prevent 20,000 illegal crossings across the channel already, and we will grow this work, because we know that it is an important part of how we deal with the problem of small boats.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
This is about fairness. My constituents across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove are good, kind and compassionate people, and we have a proud tradition of supporting those who need our help the most, yet they know, as we all do, that the immigration system is broken. Does the Secretary of State agree that, unlike the previous Government, who were more concerned about campaigning on the matter, we must take action to bring back the fundamental British value of fairness, so that we can resolve these issues at our borders?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with every word my hon. Friend said. Fairness and contribution are Labour values and British values, and they underpin the totality of these reforms.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and particularly for the commitment to new, safe, legal routes. There has been a lot of talk of morality, and there absolutely should be. This is too important to get wrong, so does she agree that tolerating a system where men, women and children are encouraged on to flimsy rubber boats to risk their life in the English channel, when they are already safe where they are, is not a moral choice?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Fixing this broken system is a moral mission for me, because I do not believe that we can look the other way and pretend that it is just talking points from our political enemies that are driving division in our country. The broken system is what is driving division in our country. I am determined to put that right to make sure that we do not divide our country and that we retain public consent for having an asylum system.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement on controlling our borders, which I know will be welcomed by the majority of constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford. In recent months, we have seen our police and enforcement officers, particularly in Crayford, carrying out raids and working to arrest people working here illegally. Can the Home Secretary set out how the measures announced today will continue that work to tackle people who are working here illegally?
Shabana Mahmood
Cracking down on illegal working is crucial to all these reforms, and to ensuring that we can retain public consent not just for our asylum system but for our legal migration system. We have already seen a record number of raids—over 11,000 since this Government took office—leading to 8,000 arrests and over 1,000 removals of those with no right to be in this country. We will build on all that work.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Warrington has one of the largest communities of Hongkongers in the country, many of whom I met this weekend when they reiterated their profound concern that the British national overseas 5+1 scheme was at risk as a result of the Government’s wider agenda on tackling issues in the asylum and immigration system. Will the Home Secretary give a clear commitment to Hongkongers that the UK is their home, that the British state will keep its promise to BNOs and Hongkonger refugees, and that the 5+1 scheme is safe?
Shabana Mahmood
We are committed to, and have always supported, the repatriation of Hongkongers. The consultation on earned settlement will be announced to this House very shortly—later this week, I believe—and I look forward to discussing that in detail with my hon. Friend.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
As a delegate to the Council of Europe, I will always defend the European convention on human rights and its institution and treaties, and that is why it is important to talk about it in the correct context. In the last 45 years, the Strasbourg Court has ruled against the UK on immigration rules only three times, and in the latest year for which figures are available, the number of successful human rights-based appeals represented 0.73% of all sentenced foreign national offenders. The last time article 8 was successfully applied to block a deportation was in 2020, so why does the Home Secretary believe that articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR are blocking the UK from controlling its borders, when the data simply does not back that up?
Shabana Mahmood
I do not think the data relating to the Strasbourg Court is necessarily reflective of what we are seeing in our own courts here at home. My hon. Friend knows that article 8 is a qualified right, and it is absolutely appropriate for Governments to dictate how that right is applied in their individual countries. We will do that by bringing forward second Session legislation. There is a case for reform of article 8, and there is absolutely a case for continuing the discussions with our European partners at the Council of Europe on article 3, because we are not the only country that is seeing the expansion of article 3 having implications for the deportation of, in particular, foreign national offenders. The case for reform is strong and we have the right solutions, but we are signatories to the ECHR and we will always be so under this Government.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I was really proud of how my Beckenham and Penge constituency came together to welcome Ukrainian families after the conflict there, through schemes such as Homes for Ukraine. I am pleased that the Government have announced today that they will expand such safe and legal routes, recognising the UK’s responsibility and desire to support those in need, and removing the need for refugees to make dangerous journeys. Can the Home Secretary set out how quickly we can expect these safe and legal routes to start operating?
Shabana Mahmood
I would hope that we can move very quickly indeed. As I have said, though, we will do so as we restore order and control to the broken system that we have. To be candid with the House, the safe and legal routes will be modest to start with, but they will grow over time. As we restore order and control to the system, we will see those routes grow. We will work with partners from across the philanthropy sector, the UN Refugee Agency and other stakeholders as we design the new community sponsorship models that will in future bear the load of helping to bring refugees into this country, to settle them and, ultimately, to integrate them successfully into this country.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I acknowledge the gargantuan task that the Home Secretary has to regain public confidence in our asylum system. We must ensure that reflected in our asylum system is not only fairness and contribution, but compassion, which is also a quintessentially British value and is reflected in the work of charities like Napier Friends in my constituency, which supports those staying at Napier barracks.
My question is about the appeal reforms. What is the rationale for the professionally trained adjudicators when we already have a specialist judiciary with expertise to decide these cases? What is it about the adjudicator model that will mean that adjudicators are in a better position to decide these cases than those under the current system?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. and learned Friend mentions compassion. The compassion of our reforms will be reflected in the safe and legal routes, through which we will accept refugees into our country under a community sponsorship model and resettle and integrate them successfully; that is what will bear the load of fulfilling our international obligations. I know that people across our country will be proud to do so because, as he rightly says, compassion is a fundamental value of all our people, along with fairness and contribution. Taken together, these reforms strike the right balance.
The appeal system is completely shot to pieces at the moment. It is riven with backlogs and even increasing judicial sitting days will not make the difference. It is absolutely appropriate that we design a new appeal system that is independent and has early legal advice available right at the start, and it is proper for the Government to set the framework for the speed at which cases can be heard, including fast-tracking claims that have no chance of success or are from countries with low grant rates in the first place. My hon. and learned Friend knows that listing within the current system is a matter for the independent judiciary, and we would never seek to interfere with that. With a new appeal system, the Government will be able to set the framework for the speed at which cases are heard, as well as providing legal advice at the start so that we have one claim, one appeal and certainty at the end of the process.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome this statement and can say clearly to the Home Secretary that she will have my complete support in implementing the measures within it and in doing whatever it takes to fix our broken asylum system and secure our borders. One of the consequences of the broken system is what can only be described as the targeting of deprived communities like Hartlepool by private companies charged with providing asylum accommodation. We have started to bring the numbers down. Does the Home Secretary agree that that process must continue to put fairness back into our system?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to bring fairness back into the system and to resolve the problems with supported asylum accommodation. Taken together, these reforms and this Government’s plans on exiting hotels and getting into large sites instead will relieve the pressure in my hon. Friend’s community and across the country.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I take great pride in our country’s track record of offering sanctuary to people fleeing conflict and persecution, and I know Afghans, Syrians, Ukrainians and many others who are now settled here and making great contributions to our economy and society in our hospitals, schools and businesses. I therefore welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to getting the proposed safe and legal routes working urgently. Will she ensure that the right incentives and support are in place so that people arriving in this way can integrate successfully?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have set out, we will seek to encourage those on the core protection route to move on to the protection work and study route so that they can start to contribute and integrate more effectively into this country. That will also get them to a slightly earlier settlement period. The bulk of these reforms will focus on safe and legal routes, which will be the most privileged route to settlement in this country. It is right that that is the case; it is the best way to integrate people into this country. The community sponsorship model is the way forward. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and others in the House as we design that and move forward.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
South Norfolk expects to have a robust and compassionate asylum process. I welcome this statement. One of the aspects that I am most interested in is the penultimate paragraph on page 28 of the document, which states:
“The new model will give greater say to communities and support refugees”
to settle and become self-sufficient. Will the Home Secretary expand on the mechanisms that could be put in place to ensure that that happens?
Shabana Mahmood
In designing the new system, we will take into account all the learnings from the Homes for Ukraine scheme and other models. We will work closely with the UN Refugee Agency and other international partners, as well as philanthropist and community organisations, local councils, universities, businesses and others here in this country. We know that there are people who want to be able to sponsor refugees and play their part in offering sanctuary to those most in need. People recognise that the current system is broken. As we get to grips with the broken system, we will be able to increase the number of people who come here on safe and legal routes in the medium and long term, which is the right future and the right compassionate answer, and will enable us to fulfil our international obligations.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has outlined common-sense measures to ensure that the British public are no longer asked to fund or accommodate foreign national offenders. At the same time, she is right that our country has a proud, long-standing tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Can she therefore confirm that the United Kingdom will send no individual back to a place where they may be tortured, killed or persecuted?
Shabana Mahmood
We will never send someone back to a country where they will be tortured—we will always abide by our international obligations in that regard. We believe that the totality of the reforms I have set out today strikes the right balance between ensuring that we continue to fulfil our international obligations and having an asylum system that retains public support for having an asylum system at all.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Exeter is a proud city of sanctuary and has welcomed communities of Hongkongers, Ukrainians and Afghans over recent years. Many of my residents will be pleased with and welcome this re-establishment of safe and legal routes for refugees, which were long forgotten by the Conservatives. Does the Home Secretary agree that safe and legal routes are an element of a system that has control and order, and can she set out how the system will be flexible when geopolitical factors change?
Shabana Mahmood
We will always retain the flexibility to respond to particular crises, as we have done in the past, which we supported even when the previous Government were in power. We will design these routes alongside international and domestic partners to ensure that the community sponsorship model learns all the best lessons from previous schemes and is a world-class system, so that we can play our full part in offering sanctuary to those who need it most.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement on how the Government will make our asylum policy fit for this country. The broken immigration and asylum system under the Conservatives created an unprecedented backlog, which hindered the Home Office’s ability to process legitimate cases, including those of nurses and care workers working in the NHS and care homes who were seeking to extend their work visas. How will the Home Secretary ensure that the measures she has announced will be properly enforced so that we can restore order to our borders?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend that it will fall to me to ensure that the system we have is capable of implementing all these reforms. We will consult and legislate as quickly as possible, and it will be on me to ensure that the Home Office can handle the work that is coming its way. I assure him that getting the administration right is part of the picture, but getting these reforms passed and implemented across the country is the most important thing that we can do.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The measures that the Home Secretary has set out to restore order and fairness will be very welcome in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, but the overriding sentiment will be that we will believe it when we see it, I am afraid—trust is so low after years of broken promises. What assurances can the Home Secretary give that she will not only talk the talk, but walk the walk?
Shabana Mahmood
I can assure my hon. Friend that I do not believe in doing anything other than walking the walk. I totally hear what his constituents will tell him. It is what I hear from my constituents, too—we will believe it when we see it. It is a low-trust environment; over many years, trust in the immigration system overall has been degraded, which is why it is causing such division today. It is on me to ensure that this package of reforms is implemented and that the Home Office is able to implement them effectively. I ask my hon. Friend’s constituents and people all over our country to judge us on what we deliver through these reforms.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The proposal to raise the threshold for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 20 years is deeply concerning. At a time when far-right groups are exploiting fear and spreading misinformation, our Government should lead with compassion and fairness, instead of forcing some of the most vulnerable in our society to live in limbo for two decades. Will the Minister explain how denying people security and rights for two decades reflects the British values of justice and humanity, and what access to services will look like for people during that time?
Shabana Mahmood
I tell my hon. Friend not to defend a status quo that sees people paying a ton of money—thousands of pounds—to people smugglers in order to get on a boat and make a dangerous crossing of the channel, putting at risk their own lives and those of others. I urge him not to defend a broken status quo, but to engage with the detail of the proposals, which reflect a new protection, work and study route that will be open to those offered core protection in this country. We will also open new safe and legal routes.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary share my concern that the scrutiny from the Conservative Benches is somewhat sparse this evening? On a more serious note, can she reassure my constituents that one of the key outcomes of this statement is that we will finally bring down the taxpayers’ bill for asylum accommodation? Time and again, this concern is raised with me by constituents. Reducing that bill will help many feel that there is far greater fairness in our asylum system.
Shabana Mahmood
I suspect that the lower numbers on the Conservative side are down to the fact that there are not that many of them any more. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the cost. Fairness and contribution are the principles that underpin this asylum policy statement, and I hope that as we bring costs down, we can retain public support for the asylum system overall.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Quite a few things in this statement need to be challenged. First, there is the suggestion that Britain has always been a welcoming, generous and warm place for immigrants and people seeking asylum. There will be many people from an Irish background whose ancestors faced prejudice, as will there be many Jews and Muslims who have been victims of antisemitism and Islamophobia, and let us not forget about the Windrush scandal. With what we have heard today, I am afraid that the Government have surrendered to past discriminations and the vile rhetoric of Reform that we hear today. Does the Home Secretary not see that removing the legal obligation to support asylum seekers who would be otherwise destitute is as far away from Labour party principles and values as we can get?
Shabana Mahmood
Again, I would urge my hon. Friend not to defend a broken status quo and people who commit crimes and are funded by the British taxpayer while they do so.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
Having gangsters control who comes into our country is intolerable. It is not fair, humane or socialist. My constituents say to me that they just want control. They want the politicians they send to this Chamber to make the decisions on who comes into this country, not the gangsters. Can the Home Secretary reassure my constituents that she will not rest until every migrant, refugee or otherwise, comes to this country through a safe and legal route?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is nothing humane or socialist—or, indeed, any other group that people might want to put themselves into—about paying people smugglers a lot of money to get into a boat in the channel. It is a dangerous thing to do. It fuels further crime. It is not the way that people should seek to come to this country, and I will not rest until the way that people come to this country to seek refuge and be granted refugee status is through a safe and legal route instead.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I fully support the Home Secretary’s statement and the need to get the balance right. In Portsmouth North, we have seen how quickly immigration misinformation can spread on our high streets and local forums. It has even forced businesses to put up signs on developments to say who will be living there. This chaos took hold because the Tories never got a grip, gave up on governing and allowed division to reign across our country. Does the Home Secretary agree that our new enforcement plans and streamlined appeals system are essential not only to enabling much-needed action, but to restoring trust and giving clarity to stop refuelling misinformation and division in our communities?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with my hon. Friend and endorse every word she said.
Carla Denyer
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State accused one of my Green colleagues of hypocrisy when in fact she had been objecting to the warehousing of asylum seekers in military barracks, which is a position in line with Greens in the Chamber and, in fact, all major refugee rights organisations. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to withdraw her grossly misleading remarks and baseless accusation of hypocrisy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Adnan Hussain, who I understand also has a point of order that relates to remarks made by the Home Secretary.
Mr Adnan Hussain
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After my earlier intervention, the Home Secretary stated that she “should not be surprised to see the hon. Gentleman indulging in misinformation” in here. I take my responsibilities in this House extremely seriously. I am confident that every point I have raised was made in good faith, based on publicly available information, and was neither misleading nor inaccurate. May I therefore seek your guidance on how a Member may respond, or have the record clarified, when a Minister makes such characterisation without providing any evidence, clarification or correction, in particular where it risks implying dishonesty on the part of a Member who had no opportunity to respond further at that moment?
Shabana Mahmood
I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that it was not misleading; it was just wrong, so I can clarify that for the record.
I say to the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) that I think it is a fair point of debate to point out that the Green party often indulges in hypocrisy. I shall look carefully at what her colleague has said in relation to the large military sites, but I say to her that the Green party never seems to offer any solution, only commentary that does not work.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank both Members for their points of order. Their comments are now on the record.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:06 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 143 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:20 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 147 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman” are also acceptable.
Clause 1
The Agreement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss to following:
Clauses 2 to 6 stand part.
Amendment 4, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
“A single report may be submitted for the purposes of sections 5(2)(c) and 6(3)(c), provided that any such single report meets the requirements in sections 5(3) and 6(4).”
This amendment would permit a single report to be provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of fulfilling reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6.
Clauses 7 to 11 stand part.
Amendment 5, in clause 12, page 9, line 2, at end insert—
“(aa) relating to the charging of fees under section 11(3)(c),”.
This amendment would require that any regulations enabling the Minister to set fees are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.
Government amendment 1.
Clause 14 stand part.
Government amendment 2.
Clauses 15 to 23 stand part.
Government amendment 3.
Clauses 24 to 26 stand part.
New clause 1—Powers of the Secretary of State: review—
“(1) Within three years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of powers conferred on them by virtue of this Act.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) a description of the powers used,
(b) the purposes for which they have been used,
(c) an assessment of how effectively they have been used,
(d) an assessment of how their use accords with the objectives of the Agreement.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the exercise of powers conferred on them by this Bill.
New clause 2—Reporting requirements relating to the Act—
“(1) Before the end of the period of two years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, and at least once every two years thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the implementation and enforcement of the Act.
(2) The report must include—
(a) data on access to samples;
(b) information relating to the number and nature of DSI views and downloads;
(c) information about the amount and nature of enforcement actions taken;
(d) an assessment of the impact of the Act on business, scientific research, and the fishing industry;
(e) a summary of any regulatory changes made under the Act;
(f) an assessment of the impact of any such regulatory changes.”
This new clause would require the secretary of state to lay a report before Parliament every two years on the effect and enforcement of the Act.
Schedule.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair, and to open this debate in Committee of the whole House on the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.
Before turning to the detail of the clauses and of the amendments that stand in my name, I want to underline why it is so important that this House sends a clear signal today by progressing this legislation. This Bill will, along with subsequent secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to implement obligations in the United Nations biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement into UK law, and enable us to move towards ratification of this historic agreement.
The House may also have seen that the BBNJ agreement was recognised by the Prince of Wales’s Earthshot Prize Council last week, which is a testament to the broad support for it. The BBNJ agreement is the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiations. The agreement covers roughly two thirds of the world’s ocean, which is home to ecosystems that regulate our climate, support fisheries, drive weather patterns and sustain the livelihoods of millions around the world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is such an important subject, and I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question on behalf of those I represent who are involved in fishing. The Bill and the international treaty it implements will affect the fishing industry primarily through the creation of marine protected areas and through the imposition of stricter environmental impact assessments. Does the Minister agree that this means engagement with our fishing sector is essential, and can she confirm that the viability of fishing and food security will be a priority for this Government?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member will know from previous conversations that we continue to engage with the fishing industry on all areas of policy. Fishing falls outside the scope of the Bill, but it is important that the Government maintain that dialogue.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I welcome and support the Bill, which is an important step forward. It is a shame that it was not passed before the election so that it could have been dealt with in the wash-up of the previous Parliament. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will provide the necessary resources, and that the UN agencies are sufficiently funded, to ensure that this law becomes an effective protection for the natural world and the oceans that we all rely on?
Seema Malhotra
As the right hon. Member will have seen—I know that he has studied the Bill closely—we are looking to implement our obligations in line with many existing obligations. It has been important for us to hear from scientists and other involved parties that there should be no extra burdens and that we should consider how to move forward together. When we ratify the agreement, we will be party to the Conference of the Parties and able to participate in how future decisions are made. That will be important to understanding how the UK can incorporate decisions efficiently, effectively and with the fewest possible resources.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill’s enhancement of biodiversity and the protection of our oceans and natural world. How will the Bill help to unlock innovation in marine science?
Seema Malhotra
I will come to that later in my remarks. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Ratifying the agreement will also make it easier to share the benefits of research more widely and efficiently. That will allow those who might not be able to carry out such research themselves to use it and consider where innovations might be made. That is an important benefit of the Bill.
The Bill is the culmination of nearly two decades of international negotiations. The agreement represents a once-in-a-generation step forward in ocean governance, to ensure that areas beyond national jurisdiction are managed sustainably, transparently and equitably. Through the Bill, the United Kingdom will be able to play its full part in that effort. It will allow our scientists, companies and research institutions to participate confidently in the new frameworks on marine genetic resources, to contribute to the development of area-based management tools, and to meet international standards on environmental impact assessments in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Royal Assent early next year—subject to time in the House—will place the UK in a strong position to ratify the agreement and to take its seat at the first Conference of the Parties, which is expected to be in the second half of 2026. It is vital that the UK is at that table.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as she speaks about the importance of the UK taking global leadership. I welcome the Bill, but will the Minister complement it and show global leadership by announcing a new international taskforce dedicated specifically to protecting at least 30% of the Atlantic ocean by 2030?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Lady will know that that is outside the scope of the Bill, but the measures will protect the world’s oceans—as I have said, the agreement covers roughly two thirds of them. Indeed, in all areas of our international work, we do all we can for the environment around the world.
Seema Malhotra
I will make a bit of progress—I thank my hon. Friend for his patience.
The Bill is divided into five parts. Parts 2, 3 and 4 align directly with three operational pillars of the BBNJ agreement: marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, and environmental impact assessments. I will address the Government amendments and clauses stand part now, but I will address the Opposition amendments in my closing remarks, so that I have had an opportunity to hear the shadow Minister’s contribution.
Part 1 sets out the definitions that underpin the rest of the Bill. Given that those definitions will be discussed at some length today, I say for the benefit of the Committee that “areas beyond national jurisdiction” comprise the high seas—waters beyond exclusive economic zones—and the area, meaning the seabed and subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and “marine genetic resources” are defined as any marine material containing functional units of heredity of actual or potential value. Those definitions mirror the agreement and ensure consistency between domestic law and our international obligations. Clause 20 provides definitions for terms that are used in the Bill but not defined elsewhere in it.
In part 2, clauses 2 to 10 implement the provisions of the agreement relating to marine genetic resources. The provisions promote transparency in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction and associated digital sequence information, and provide the building blocks for benefit sharing.
Clauses 2 and 3 create reporting obligations for individuals collecting marine genetic resources using UK craft and for those utilising those resources and associated digital sequence information. Information must be provided to the Secretary of State before and after collection, and information about the results of utilisation should be provided in accordance with the schedule. Clause 4 provides that the Secretary of State may transmit to the BBNJ clearing house mechanism the information provided on collection and utilisation, unless it is protected from disclosure under domestic law. Those clauses are designed to implement the UK’s obligation on information sharing, with the clearing house mechanism facilitating transparency and helping us to deliver on our obligations while protecting information that is not to be shared.
Clauses 5 to 7 impose duties on those managing repositories that hold marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction, or databases of digital sequence information on those resources. They must ensure that samples or data can be identified as originating from areas beyond national jurisdiction, provide access, and submit biennial reports. Clause 8 sets out exceptions from the requirements of part 2 in respect of fishing and fishing-related activities, military activities, and military vessels and aircraft, as well as anything done in Antarctica, the marine genetic resources of Antarctica, and the digital sequence information of such resources. The Committee will be aware that this is because the Southern ocean is governed by the Antarctic treaty system, which was part of the debate we had on Second Reading.
Clause 9 provides the Secretary of State with regulation-making powers, including those necessary to implement the UK’s future obligations under part 2 of the agreement. Given that the conference of the parties may adopt further measures once the agreement enters into force, those powers are essential to ensure that the UK can respond in a timely and appropriate manner. The clause also allows for provision for any enforcement of those requirements imposed by or under part 2 of the Bill. We will ensure that there is ample time for scrutiny of additional measures that may be brought in under secondary legislation.
Finally, clause 10 requires guidance to be published in relation to the above-mentioned provisions on marine genetic resources. Those will be prepared by the national focal point in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and will provide practical illustrations to help institutions and researchers understand the requirements placed on them. The guidance developed will also be laid before Parliament. Taken together, these measures create a clear, proportionate and internationally aligned system that allows UK researchers to continue their world-leading work with confidence, meeting the requirements of the Bill and, in turn, allowing the UK to meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Antarctic treaty, which was long and hard fought for in this House and other places, has been important and, generally speaking, very successful. But there are issues about the increasing access to the Antarctic, the pollution that this causes and the need to clean up after the substantial number of visitors that go there at present. Is the Minister confident that the resources will be available to ensure that the Antarctic treaty is fully adhered to?
Seema Malhotra
The right hon. Member will be aware that the UK also made a declaration upon the signature of the BBNJ agreement stating that the Antarctic treaty system comprehensively addresses the legal, political and environmental considerations that are unique to that region, and provides a comprehensive framework for the international management of the Antarctic. It is important to recognise that it is also about the international management of the Antarctic, to which we are committed as part of the international community. I thank the right hon. Member for his comments.
In part 3 of the Bill, clauses 11 to 13 implement the provisions relating to area-based management tools, including areas beyond national jurisdiction designated as marine protected areas. Clause 11 contains provision for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations to implement decisions adopted by the BBNJ conference of the parties under part 3 of the agreement. Many activities under UK jurisdiction or control in areas beyond national jurisdiction, such as fishing, are already regulated domestically, and where existing powers suffice, the clause 11 power will not be needed. However, where new measures are adopted by the conference of the parties, where they require additional controls or restrictions, the clause ensures that the UK has the necessary legislative mechanisms to comply. Clause 12 sets out the parliamentary procedure for regulations made under clause 11.
Clause 13 provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue directions to UK craft, without the need for secondary legislation in order to implement emergency procedures adopted by the conference of the parties. As emergency procedures may require immediate action to prevent serious harm to marine biodiversity, regulations alone may not provide sufficient responsiveness. The clause enables swift operational steps, such as directing vessels to avoid a particular area. Clause 13 is modelled on existing direction-making powers available to the Secretary of State’s representative under schedule 3A to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Given the nature of any scenarios that could arise, it is power-limited in scope and emergency in nature.
Part 3 of the Bill ensures that the UK can meet its obligations and exercise leadership in protecting ecologically important areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Matt Rodda
The Minister is making an excellent speech, and I pay tribute to her work and that of the Government in showing UK leadership in this important environmental area. Could she also briefly touch on the importance of working in a multilateral way with partners from around the world, and—perhaps she will move on to this point later in her speech—could she outline how the UK will work with other countries to protect these areas and carry out other important work?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is an area where obviously no nation can work on its own. It has to be done through being influential on the world stage, working through and with the UN, and with our international partners and other nations. Indeed, through the course of all of our conversations, be that in the FCDO, DEFRA or other Departments, we maintain dialogue on this and other important matters in relation to our environment and climate impact around the world. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because it is another example of where being outward facing as a nation, as this Government have chosen to do, is incredibly important for not just what we achieve at home but our responsibilities on the world stage.
I will make some progress on part 4 of the Bill. Clauses 4 to 19 implement the environmental impact assessment provisions of the agreement, where relevant to marine licencing, and ensure that UK marine-licensable activities and areas beyond national jurisdiction are subject to the appropriate level of scrutiny. Clause 14 amends the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to ensure it can be used effectively to regulate planned UK activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Government amendment 1—a minor amendment—has been tabled to omit the heading “on the continental shelf”, which will adjust the 2009 Act so it more accurately reflects the content of this section, including the section that is amended by clause 14 in part 4 of the Bill.
Clause 15 updates the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 to bring them into alignment with the BBNL agreement. Government amendment 2 would add “or person” to subsection (5)(b) as a minor clarificatory amendment to the regulations. Clause 16 allows regulations to be made to implement the standards and guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties under article 38 of the BBNJ agreement. Clauses 17 and 18 ensure that equivalent provisions exist for Scotland, amending the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, and enabling Scottish Ministers to make regulations where it is a devolved competence, and to implement environmental impact assessment obligations for Scottish regulated marine activities.
Clause 19 amends the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, to ensure that any future environmental outcomes reports can apply to licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The BBNJ environmental impact assessment provisions closely replicate our existing domestic arrangements for marine licensing, which operators are familiar with. These are minor technical changes to align our existing regime with BBNJ processes. Together the provisions deliver a coherent and modernised framework for assessing and mitigating the environmental impact of activities linked to the United Kingdom on the high seas.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I welcome this Bill. As chair of the Channel Islands all-party group, I was interested that the Minister tabled an amendment that covered just the Isle of Man. Before the Bill goes to the other place, could her officials please consult the Channel Islands one last time to make sure that they do not also need to be included in the Bill?
Seema Malhotra
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and yes we will continue those conversations with the Channel Islands.
To conclude, provisions in the Bill would be extended only to British overseas territories and the Isle of Man with their agreement. Clause 25 sets out when most of the Bill’s provisions come into force, and gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations to appoint entry into force and dates for other provisions. In summary, the Bill provides the legal foundation for the United Kingdom’s participation in the new global regime for protecting biodiversity on the high seas. It will enable us to fulfil our international commitments, provide certainty to our scientific and research communities, and demonstrate once again the UK’s leadership in marine conservation. I commend the Bill to the Committee, and look forward to engaging with hon. Members during the debate.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Minister.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Thank you Madam Chair. It is a privilege, as always, to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and to those of His Majesty’s Government. I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation of the Bill, which we will all agree has been extremely helpful.
The Bill is a significant measure and commands broad support across the House. In plain English, if implemented correctly, the measures in the Bill could play a major part in protecting the two thirds of our planet that lie beyond any one nation’s control.
As I said on Second Reading, the United Kingdom has a proud record of global leadership in ocean conservation. Our island nation boasts the greatest maritime explorers and conservationists in history. I believe that we have always seen the oceans, which have been key to our national and international success story, as treasures that require protection.
However, as with all international frameworks, even those that are without controversy and especially those that confer upon our Ministers prerogative powers, the details really matter. The amendments proposed by His Majesty’s Opposition are by no means intended to undermine the Bill. Instead, they seek to strengthen it by ensuring that Parliament remains properly informed, ministerial powers are exercised accountably, and the new regulatory burdens placed on British science and industry are managed in a proportionate way.
The first of the amendments in my name relates to clause 7, which deals with reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill. Those clauses concern, respectively, priorities of marine genetic resources and databases of digital sequence information. As drafted, clause 7 requires a separate report to be provided to the Secretary of State every two years from each repository and each database, detailing the number of times samples or data have been accessed, viewed or downloaded. Our amendment, simple though it may seem, would allow those two reports to be combined into a single report, provided that all the necessary information is fully included. It is a modest step to reduce duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy.
Many institutions, whether they be our universities, the Natural History Museum or the National Oceanography Centre, among many other institutions in this country, will operate both repositories and databases. It makes no sense to require two separate reports when a single consolidated report could serve exactly the same function. The scientists of our island home lead the world in marine biodiversity research. We should ensure that compliance with this new regime is as straightforward as possible, while still meeting our obligations under the agreement. The amendment, therefore, aims to strike a sensible balance between upholding the requisite protections prescribed by the treaty, while ensuring that we do not unnecessarily hinder our researchers, especially those belonging to smaller enterprises or university projects. I hope that the Minister will view it in that way.
Our second amendment introduces new clause 1, “Powers of the Secretary of State: review”, which would require the Secretary of State, within three years of the Act coming into force, to lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. The report would describe how those powers have been used, for what purposes, and, crucially, how effectively they have been implemented. It would also assess whether the use of those powers has aligned with the objectives of the international agreement itself
We live in a nation where Parliament is sovereign. While I respect that this is not a unique case, nevertheless Parliament is owed the right to proper scrutiny. The Bill grants extensive powers to the Secretary of State: powers to make regulations that could amend primary legislation, impose civil sanctions and even create new offences. Clauses 9 and 11, in particular, confer broad regulatory authority to implement future decisions of the international conference of the parties. It is entirely appropriate that Parliament should have the opportunity, after a period of operation, to review how those powers have been used. We have seen in other fields that delegated powers can expand far beyond what Parliament originally intended, so a statutory review clause would ensure that we learn from experience and recalibrate if necessary.
New clause 2 would enhance trust and, I think, trust in the treaty itself. The general public and Parliament want assurance that international obligations are implemented in the interests that have been set out by international agreements and, importantly, in our own national interest, and that the Government remain answerable to this House for the way in which they do so. I believe a report after three years is hardly an onerous expectation. It would create a constructive means of evaluating whether the mechanisms in the Bill are working as intended and strengthen rather than hinder the effectiveness of this legislation.
Amendment 5 concerns clause 12, which sets out the procedure for regulations under clause 11. Clause 11 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations in response to decisions taken by the conference of the parties under the agreement, including in relation to area-based management tools, such as marine protected areas, and emergency measures under article 24. Clause 11(3)(c) specifically allows the Secretary of State to charge fees in connection with the exercise of functions under those regulations. However, as currently drafted the Bill does not require those fee-setting regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Our amendment would correct that and ensure that any regulations enabling the Minister to set fees are subject to a level of parliamentary scrutiny.
Fees are in effect a form of taxation. They may affect universities, research institutes and private companies engaged in marine science or biotechnology. The sums may not be vast, but they are nevertheless material. It is only right that Parliament should have the chance to debate and, if necessary, amend or reject such regulations before they take effect. The affirmative procedure is a reasonable safeguard, and I hope the Government will agree.
Finally, I turn to new clause 2, which would require biennial reporting on the implementation and enforcement of the Bill. Under this proposal, the Secretary of State would be required to lay before Parliament a report every two years, beginning within two years of enactment, detailing how the Bill is being implemented and enforced. The report would include data on access to samples and digital sequence information; information on the number and nature of the enforcement actions; an assessment of the impact of the Bill on business, scientific research and the fishing industry; a summary of any regulatory changes made under the Bill; and an assessment of the impact of those changes. The intention of the new clause is to keep Parliament and the public informed about how this complex framework works in practice.
This Bill touches on sensitive and wide-ranging interests, such as environmental protection, scientific innovation, intellectual property and economic activity on the high seas. It is right that we protect biodiversity, but we must also ensure that the UK remains a place where science and enterprise can flourish, as they always have done before. Regular reporting would help us to understand whether the balance is being struck correctly.
Are our scientists able to conduct research without being bogged down in excessive paperwork? Are our marine industries able to operate competitively while meeting environmental standards? Those questions need to be answered. Are our enforcement agencies adequately resourced? That is another important question the Minister needs to reassure the House on. These are legitimate questions that will inevitably deserve answers. I believe that such transparency would demonstrate leadership internationally. The UK has always prided itself on being a model of good governance. By voluntarily reporting on our own implementation of the agreement, we can encourage other nations to do likewise.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I want to speak on this Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill both as the Member for a coastal community, and as someone who is truly fortunate to have dedicated environmental campaigners locally. I want to thank one constituent in particular, Viola. Her emails cover everything from ocean acidification to regenerative farming and the health of our chalk streams. Although I cannot always provide the answers that she needs, I thank her for her valued, informed and tireless campaigning.
Much of what Viola raises is exactly why this Bill matters. It matters for the important issues of pollution, harmful algae blooms in Langstone harbour, and the need to protect local bird species and our drinking water. We must be proactive on ocean heating, bottom trawling and the worrying tipping points we face in ocean acidification, as well as on regenerative farming, reducing pesticides, and protecting soil health, so that rivers, seas and pollinators can recover. Although this Bill focuses on biodiversity beyond the national jurisdiction, the principle is the same. What happens in our oceans—from the south coast to the high seas—affects us all. That is why the Government have tabled amendments to strengthen the Bill and provide clarity and accountability.
I particularly note Government amendment 1, which updates section 81 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 so that it accurately reflects the extended conservation responsibilities created by this legislation. This may seem technical, but accuracy matters, especially when we are embedding in law stronger protections for vulnerable marine ecosystems, including those far beyond our waters. Through this Bill, we will ensure that the UK plays a serious, leading role in implementing the high seas treaty, tackling the over-exploitation of shared oceans, and improving transparency and reporting. Government amendment 2, which tightens the environmental impact assessment provisions, will help to ensure that the framework that we set up is robust, enforceable, and capable of delivering real biodiversity gains beyond our borders.
While stakeholders may not always agree on how best to align planning reforms with environmental goals, we have a shared mission to restore nature, not merely preserve what is left. This Bill is one part of that mission. By strengthening the UK’s hand in protecting biodiversity on the high seas, the Bill reinforces the protection we all want to see everywhere from Langstone harbour to Antarctica. It demonstrates leadership and this Government’s commitment to restoring nature on every scale.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am honoured to support the passage of this Bill, along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues. It is a real pleasure to see people across the House who have been long-time champions for the ocean. Many people would have liked to have been here tonight, but are forced to be absent by COP30. They will be watching from afar and wishing us well.
I thank the Minister for taking us in detail through the provisions of the Bill, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for setting out his amendments. It perhaps falls to me to remind those in the House and beyond of just how significant a step this Bill takes. It may not be enough to save the oceans from their catastrophic decline in health, but it is certainly a big step in the right direction.
The oceans cover two thirds of the planet. The high seas—the areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdictions —make up nearly half the world’s surface and much of its liveable volume. Up until now, they have existed in a legal grey zone, vulnerable to exploitation, and they certainly have been egregiously exploited. The high seas are essential to life not just in the seas, but on dry land, too. With this Bill, the UK finally places itself in a position to uphold the new global agreement to protect ocean biodiversity. It is long overdue and much damage has been done, but it is none the less deeply welcome.
We often speak about forests and land ecosystems, yet the ocean is the Earth’s most powerful driving force, regulating our climate, generating oxygen, absorbing carbon and heat, feeding billions, sustaining cultures and anchoring our weather systems. As anyone who has spent much time out there knows, the ocean’s power is matched only by its fragility. During my crossings of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, I came to understand the sea in an intimate way. Alone in a small boat, weeks or months from the nearest coast, you are immersed in the rhythms of the ocean, with its long rolling swells, the astonishing wildlife that appears from the deep, and the immense silence that settles when the wind drops away to nothing. At times, the ocean felt overwhelmingly powerful, and at others unexpectedly tender.
The lessons that I learned on the ocean have stayed with me, especially the lesson that survival depends not on domination, but on partnership. It is not survival of the fittest; it is about the species that fits in best with its surrounding ecosystem. Humans would do well to remember that. That is why I am particularly heartened to see that today we have genuine cross-party alignment. When Parliament chooses collaboration over confrontation, we show what is possible. It echoes the spirit that I felt when I first introduced the Climate and Nature Bill earlier this year, and I give huge credit to my co-sponsors, a genuinely cross-party group of Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs. That consensus across the House was based on the understanding that long-term environmental policy works only when it transcends party politics, rather than being used as a political football. I am proud that the Climate and Nature Bill campaign contributed to the ratification of this treaty, and I commend the Government on following through on their promise to all the hard-working campaigners.
We must recognise the headwinds internationally and domestically. Some voices are questioning climate ambition, watering down commitments or treating environmental progress as optional. We cannot afford that drift. Climate and ocean policy must be future-proofed against short-term politics. Nature does not bend to electoral cycles.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
As my hon. Friend well knows, 94% of the UK’s biodiversity lies within the waters of our overseas territories. Just north of the Falkland Islands is the so-called blue hole, an area of unregulated fishing beyond national jurisdiction. It is an area where trackers are turned off and illegal fishing takes place. Does she agree that the ratification of the BBNJ agreement may provide the opportunity—the common cause—to tackle intractable geopolitical issues that have led to that lack of regulation, and may point to a way forward for the international co-operation of which she speaks?
Dr Savage
I agree with my hon. Friend that the treaty can help to provide clarity about previously unregulated areas. Many countries have already ratified it, which shows that ocean conservation really can unite us where, in the past, there has been disunity.
While I welcome the speed with which the Government have introduced the Bill following the Climate and Nature Bill, thus giving us a seat at the table at the first ever ocean COP next year, it is a little disappointing that the UK was not one of the first 60 nations to ratify the agreement. We hope to be a country that leads on climate diplomacy, so we should not arrive late at the crucial environmental treaty of the decade. While many of our colleagues are in Belém, and with the world preparing for that first ocean COP, the UK must demonstrate not only that it supports global ocean governance in theory, but that it is prepared to deliver it in practice. It is also vital to recognise that the health of our oceans depends on the health of our land-based environment; one cannot heal without the help of the other. We need to decrease our carbon emissions on land if we are to slow ocean acidification, which threatens plankton, ecosystem health, and the millions of people whose lives and livelihoods depend on the ocean.
This responsibility starts at home. That is why the Liberal Democrats have long been pushing for the strongest possible marine environmental targets, both domestically and internationally. If we want credibility internationally, we need coherence domestically. Our own marine protected areas must live up to their name, which means ending destructive practices such as bottom trawling and implementing a clear, science-driven ocean strategy that rises above and goes beyond departmental silos and party-political lines. A strong stance on the high seas will ring hollow if our waters remain vulnerable. The public understand that, the environmental community understand it, and I know that many Members on both sides of the House understand it too. I join my Liberal Democrat colleagues in calling for a coherent oceans policy that joins up our commitment to international waters with stronger protections at home.
As I draw to a close—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am getting there! Let me just say this. If we choose to pursue a strategy of high ambition, the UK can once again be a leader in global ocean protection, championing the first generation of high-seas sanctuaries, pushing for robust monitoring and enforcement, supporting small island states, and ensuring that the benefits of marine science are shared fairly. So yes, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. It enables the UK to participate fully in the new regime for marine scientific resources, for marine protected areas, and for stronger environmental impact assessments. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The work that follows will determine its true legacy, and I trust that the Government will continue to draw on the support and perspectives of Members on both sides of the House to secure the wellbeing of the oceans for generations to come.
Jeremy Corbyn
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage). Every time she describes her ocean journeys, I think of that wonderful poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” by Coleridge, which she must have repeated to herself dozens of times while pulling on those oars.
I repeat, very briefly, my welcome for this good Bill, which will hopefully lead to much greater protection for the oceans. However, I want to ask the Minister to respond to one question. Over the years, we have been through all kinds of arguments about Antarctica, from the original Thatcherite concept of mineral extraction to, much later, the protection of the whole continent and the seas around it. On the whaling industry that was, is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient protections, including for the whales that have survived, and for the growth in their numbers? There are still endless reports of illegal whaling on the continent, particularly by Japan but also by other countries.
The hon. Member for South Cotswolds rightly raised the issue of plastic pollution. There are many wonderful schemes to try to clean up the plastic island in the Pacific ocean and ensure that the plastic is recycled in a proper manner. That is good, and we hope that it will be clean by 2040. The problem, as I understand it, is that two thirds of the plastic is actually under the ocean and not on the surface. Therefore, something else has to be done, but crucially, it is up to us to decide how much plastic flows into the oceans through our rivers, through dumping and through illegal activities. It is the responsibility of our water industry and sewage disposal system to ensure that plastic does not flow into the ocean.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important things the Government can do at COP1 when it meets next year is to establish a regime with the other members of the conference of the parties on how enforcement of the new treaty will take place?
Jeremy Corbyn
Absolutely. That is a very good intervention, and I completely agree with the hon. Member on that point. We have to bring into the enforcement regime those countries that are the worst polluters, the ones that are most guilty of overfishing and those that are most guilty of turning a blind eye to fishing companies that do that. It is not an easy gig, but it is very important to do it. If we do not do it, fish stocks will reduce, biodiversity will reduce and pollution will get worse. Ultimately, those who eat fish will be eating plastic fish.
Seema Malhotra
In the interests of time, I will do my best to come back to Members on the amendments they have spoken to. The contributions from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) showed the importance of a healthy marine ecosystem that underpins global fisheries and climate regulation. The BBNJ agreement is an essential step towards protecting marine biodiversity and the creation of marine protected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
I will speak briefly about the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and our reasons for not supporting them. I recognise his point about reducing burdens, which is on all our minds, and I thank him for tabling his amendments. However, the Government consider that amendment 4 is not necessary, as the ability to provide a single report already exists. If the person who controls the repository on which a report is required is the same person who controls the database on which a report is required, there is nothing in the Bill that prevents them from providing a single report covering both elements. I hope that is of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
On new clause 1, I think it would be helpful to say that as we do not currently know when or if the powers in the Bill will be used, we believe that our approach of a post-implementation review after five years provides the necessary flexibility to review the implementation of the Bill at a more appropriate point. We therefore do not think that new clause 1, tabled by the shadow Minister, is needed.
On amendment 5, the purpose of the enabling provision for the charging of fees under clause 11(3)(c) is to allow for the recovery of costs associated with the carrying out of functions. This is standard practice to ensure effective use of public money, as set out in the Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidance. Regulations made under clause 11 that amend an Act of Parliament, create a civil sanction or vary the maximum amount of a monetary penalty, and so on, are regulations that also contain provision for the charging of fees, which are already made by the affirmative procedure. The shadow Minister may not have been aware of that detail, but I hope it will reassure him.
On new clause 2, we believe that the consequences of the various reporting requirements it would introduce would be disproportionate to the value it would provide. There is also a risk that it would duplicate existing processes, misalign with the international reporting cycle and increase the burden on entities providing information in the reports.
Finally, it may help to reassure the shadow Minister if I say that engagement with scientific stakeholders suggests that the notification and other requirements are unlikely to impose a significant burden. Indeed, the BBNJ agreement will benefit the scientific community by encouraging information sharing and supporting scientific and technological development. I hope that reassures him that we have considered his amendments and that we have reason for not supporting them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Supplementary provision
Amendment proposed: 4, page 5, line 4, at end insert—
“A single report may be submitted for the purposes of sections 5(2)(c) and 6(3)(c), provided that any such single report meets the requirements in sections 5(3) and 6(4).”—(Andrew Rosindell.)
This amendment would permit a single report to be provided to the Secretary of State for the purposes of fulfilling reporting requirements under clauses 5 and 6.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
If there is one message that Members should take from today’s debate, it is that this Bill is essential—essential to protecting the ocean, advancing marine science and ensuring that the UK continues to lead ocean protection efforts on the international stage. This is a landmark piece of legislation. It will, along with the subsequent secondary legislation, enable the United Kingdom to ratify the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement to protect marine biodiversity in the two thirds of our ocean that lie beyond any one nation’s control.
The Bill means that the UK can play its full part in shaping a fair, science-based international system for areas beyond national jurisdiction, one that balances conservation, sustainable use and global collaboration. It delivers on our international commitments and ensures that British scientists, institutions and innovators remain at the forefront of ocean research and biotechnology.
Let me take this opportunity to thank Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions and scrutiny of the Bill at every stage. The work of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean and of environment Committees has been crucial to keeping the Bill high on the agenda. I am grateful to those who spoke on Second Reading, have taken part in the Committee of the whole House and have engaged constructively throughout. I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Water and Flooding for her support throughout the passage of the Bill.
I also thank officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport, whose expertise, along with that of parliamentary draftspeople and other officials across Government, has underpinned the Bill. I thank, too, the devolved Governments for their engagement on the Bill and legislative consent processes. Finally, I acknowledge the scientific community, from the National Oceanography Centre to the National History Museum, and our universities, which have been pivotal in presenting the need for this legislation.
Let us be clear why this Bill matters. The ocean regulates our climate. It sustains global fisheries. It provides half the oxygen on Earth. Protecting it is not just an environmental choice; it is an economic, scientific and moral imperative. The previous Government began this process by signing the BBNJ agreement in 2023, but they delayed bringing forward legislation. This Government are now finishing the job, taking the necessary steps to implement their obligations in UK law and to ratify the treaty.
By passing this Bill, the House will send a clear message that the United Kingdom will continue to lead the world in the protection of our shared ocean, that we stand with our partners to deliver a healthy, sustainable ocean and that we will do so grounded in science and international co-operation. This is our responsibility today and for future generations. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for guiding the Bill through Parliament and echo her thanks to all those involved in its passage. I am pleased about the cross-party agreement on the Bill—that is as it should be.
On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I state my support for the core purpose of the Bill. It is right that we act to safeguard the biodiversity of the high seas, promote the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from marine genetic resources, and establish clear assessment and management tools to prevent harm to the ocean environment. It was on that basis that, as has been acknowledged, the previous Conservative Government played a key role in negotiating the treaty in the first place. The United Kingdom should meet the obligations prescribed in the treaty, with the leadership for which we are known around the world. As an island nation with a proud maritime heritage stretching back centuries, we understand better than most nations the value and the vulnerability of our oceans.
However, although the Bill enables us to fulfil our treaty commitments, it also assigns wide-ranging powers to Ministers to implement future decisions taken by international bodies—decisions that could, in time, have significant implications for British science, industry and innovation. Parliament must retain the ability to scrutinise, question and, where appropriate, challenge the use of those powers. That was the spirit behind our amendments, reflecting the fundamental principle that international co-operation must never come at the expense of proper democratic oversight by this House.
The United Kingdom’s long-established record as a custodian of the seas is strengthened by the extraordinary biodiversity of our overseas territories. The Blue Belt initiative—which includes many of our territories, including Pitcairn, Anguilla, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the Falkland Islands and the British Indian Ocean Territory—has rightly made Britain a global leader in marine protection. I therefore welcome the Bill’s application to the overseas territories under clause 20—and now, through the Government amendment to clause 24, to the Isle of Man—but proper consultation with those territories and dependencies, which is essential, has been starkly absent from the Government’s shameful handling of the Chagos Islands. Our overseas territories are part of the British family and deserve to be treated with the respect and consideration that such a relationship demands.
The challenge of protecting the oceans is neither partisan nor subject to open conflict between nations. Our seas sustain every nation, and the success of such co-operation on the high seas will depend on the integrity of domestic implementation. If we are to lead internationally, we must first put our own house firmly in order, as we are doing in passing the Bill.
As we send this Bill to the other place, I hope that the Government will reflect on the constructive contributions made from across the House and ensure that the final Bill upholds our environmental responsibilities and our democratic principles. Britain can and must lead by example. We owe it to future generations to get this right. As Sir David Attenborough said:
“If we save the sea, we save our world.”
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Clive Treacey Safety Checklist
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is an honour and a privilege to lead this debate on Government support for the Clive Treacey safety checklist. I secured this debate in Clive’s name, and I want to start by telling the House a little bit about him. I did not have the pleasure of meeting Clive, so I am drawing here on the words of his family, who knew him best. Clive’s sister, and his father Michael, are in the Public Gallery this evening, and I am really glad that they are able to see proceedings. They have been tireless advocates for Clive, making sure that his voice is heard, and I hope that I can do their efforts justice tonight.
Clive was born in Lichfield, in my constituency, in 1969. He was soon diagnosed with a learning difficulty, and, between the ages of 8 and 10, with epilepsy. I will cover both those factors today. Sadly, they are important to understanding Clive’s death and the failures in care throughout his life, but they do not define what Clive’s life was. I want to ensure that the House hears who Clive was. Clive was a talented artist and gardener, gifted with a brush and able to make plants spring seemingly from nothing. He loved music, especially Elvis Presley, and was often singing and dancing—his family remember him as the life of the party. He wanted to work in a garden centre, helping to raise plants; to have his own home, close to family; to own a cat; to learn to drive; and to go on holiday to Blackpool and Somerset. Clive was as devoted to his family as they were to him. He was known as the family calendar, never forgetting a card for a birthday, Christmas, Easter or any other reason. Clive’s sister Elaine says that her brother was
“engaging, humorous, gentle, and loving”.
His parents, Pauline and Michael, have said his heart “knew no bounds”, and describe their son’s “magical qualities” throughout his life. In all the accounts of Clive, his love and optimism shine through.
Clive passed away in 2017 at just 47 years of age, after a seizure caused by his epilepsy brought on cardiac arrest. This is known as SUDEP—sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. Clive had been living in residential placements for years up until that point, moving often. Before he died, Clive’s family had become worried about his deteriorating health—and, tragically, so had Clive. He left a message on his dad’s phone, which was not received until some days after his death, saying that he was dying and needed an ambulance. Clive was not listened to, and his family were not listened to, and the consequences were devastating.
After that terrible event, Clive’s family had to fight hard for answers. They had to fight to secure an inquest into his death, and later to secure an independent review. When that review was completed in 2021, four years after Clive died, it confirmed what they had suspected all along: the independent review found that Clive’s care fell far short of what should be expected for somebody with drug-resistant epilepsy, and it identified multiple system-wide failures in delivering his care and treatment, which put him at greater risk. It found that his death was potentially avoidable, and that he had been failed both in life and in death.
What did that mean in practice? It meant that the management of Clive’s epilepsy was fragmented, and the link between his epilepsy and the sometimes challenging behaviours that he could exhibit when stressed, such as not taking his medication, withdrawing to his room, or not communicating, were often overstated. Those behaviours disproportionately impacted the generally held view that Clive required a hospital setting, and despite the fact that he had long expressed a wish to live in his own home, care in the community was discussed with him and his family only towards the end of his life. That is where Clive’s life was, and if we move on past his death, it is important to pay tribute to Clive’s family. Throughout all the suffering, they have been relentless in their focus on ensuring that other families do not go through what they had to. That is why we are here today, and for me, that is entirely what this debate is about.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate and thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. His choice of words, his tone, and the compassion in his voice are a real tribute to Clive Treacey, and to his family in the Gallery. The hon. Gentleman has paid a wonderful tribute to Clive, and it is right to put that on the record. I am an Elvis Presley fan as well; he could probably sing better than I can, but that is by the way. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although nothing can bring back the life of this young man, his legacy can be life-changing for so many others? This checklist, rather than being best practice, must be rolled out as a recommended tool to each trust and area of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as a tribute to Clive Treacey.
Dave Robertson
I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is my first intervention from him. He raises an important point, and when he asked that question, I thought back to a couple of weeks ago, when I was asked at a community event, “What gives you hope, Dave?”. I thought for a while. So often, we hear in this place stories of people who have gone through unimaginable hardship, but who somehow find the strength within themselves not to turn that into anger. They do not turn inwards; they turn outwards, and campaign to make sure that the same does not happen to other people. That is an example of what we have here. It is the very best testament to the human spirit that we see so many people who are able to do that.
Like a quarter of people with a learning disability, Clive had epilepsy. By contrast, one in 100 of the general population has epilepsy. Coupled with that, epilepsy is the second most frequently reported preventable cause of death for people with a learning disability, so not only are people with a learning disability more likely to have epilepsy, but the risks they face from their epilepsy are higher. The risk of SUDEP—that is what killed Clive—is more than three times higher for those with epilepsy and a learning disability than for those with epilepsy and no learning disability.
Tragically, Clive’s case is not an isolated example of these failures; this is a story that is far too common across the country, but there are things that we can do to change the story. Research suggests that annual health checks can significantly reduce the chance of premature death in people with a learning disability and autism who have epilepsy. Indeed, the chances of death were reduced by 84% for people with a learning disability and epilepsy who had a review of their epilepsy in the past 12 months.
That brings me to the Clive Treacey safety checklist. The checklist is a tool developed after Clive’s death, and an important part of his legacy. I place on record my thanks to Professor Mike Kerr and Professor Rohit Shankar for their work on the checklist, alongside the charity SUDEP Action, NHS England Midlands, and the Cornwall partnership NHS foundation trust.
The checklist was designed for commissioners and service providers, whether the care is provided in a specialist hospital setting or out in the community, and it outlines the steps that should be gone through annually, as well as whenever a patient moves between services or has a big change in their care, such as a new team looking after them. It recommends up-to-date health plans, genuine consultation with parents and families—not box ticking, but genuine consultation—and proper epilepsy training for staff. The Clive Treacey safety checklist is not a document that should be put in a drawer somewhere in an integrated care board, left alone and looked at once every so often when someone asks a question about it. It is a practical tool and the accompanying guidance, at just 24 pages long— for the NHS, a short story at best—is packed with information, and it is a document that can save lives.
Since Clive’s death, a number of NHS regions have reviewed the way that they care for patients with learning disabilities and epilepsy using the checklist. That includes the NHS in the midlands, where 11 integrated care systems carried out a detailed appraisal using the self-assessment tool developed by the charity Epilepsy Action, based on the work of Professor Shankar, to find the weaknesses in their services and take concrete steps to improve them. More recently, six integrated care boards in the north-west, north-east and North Yorkshire have done the same. It is detailed work, bringing health and care services together, and using joined-up thinking, which we do not hear enough about in Whitehall, to tackle the problem and normalise best practice. That best practice, like the Clive Treacey safety checklist, should be more widespread. I again pay tribute to Elaine and to Clive’s family more broadly for the work that they have done to drive this entire piece of work forward.
The problem is that we still have a postcode lottery. Different parts of the country do and do not follow the checklist; different parts of the country have and have not gone through that detailed work to update their practices. In this House, we cannot tolerate a situation where local outcomes are so varied, so I hope that we hear from the Minister what more we can do, both here in this place and through the Department of Health and Social Care, to ensure that people with learning disabilities are not dying of preventable causes, and to see the very best practice, as set out in the Clive Treacey safety checklist, adopted up and down the country, so that we can end this perverse postcode lottery.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for securing this important debate. I recognise the efforts of Clive’s family, particularly Elaine and Michael who join us today in the Gallery.
As my hon. Friend described in his wonderful speech, Clive Treacey was a caring, gentle and humorous man, who liked to paint and who enjoyed gardening and listening to music. As we have heard, Clive also had a learning disability and epilepsy, and sadly he died in 2017, at the age of just 47, following a seizure. His loss, I am sure, is still felt very deeply by his family and loved ones. I pay tribute to all the work that they have done by channelling the tragedy they have been through, and the work that they continue to do in advocating for change following Clive’s death.
The independent review into Clive’s death highlighted that there were multiple system-wide failures in delivering his care and treatment that together placed him at a higher risk of sudden death. It was found that Clive experienced sub-optimal care and support throughout his life and death, and that he was not always placed in settings that could meet his needs, in terms of both epilepsy care and support for his disability.
I am pleased that since Clive’s death, meaningful changes have been made. Following the publication of the independent review into his death in December 2021, organisations directly involved in Clive’s care developed high-level actions in response to its findings and there was an overwhelming commitment from all organisations involved to address the systemic issues raised in the report. NHS England midlands region set up a group that became known as the Clive Treacey conscience group and last year it published “Clive’s Way: A Conscience Manual”, outlining in detail the progress the midlands region is making in taking forward and implementing the learnings from the independent review.
We know that around 30% of people with epilepsy have a learning disability and that the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy is much higher for those with a learning disability, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The latest annual LeDeR—learning from lives and deaths—report found that epilepsy was one of the most common underlying causes of death for people with a learning disability between 2021 and 2023. That highlights how crucial it is that information and support for patients with epilepsy who have a learning disability are tailored to their individual needs. We welcome the development of the Clive Treacey safety checklist; it is an important part of Clive’s legacy. We encourage commissioners and service providers to use the checklist and its accompanying guidance as a key tool when designing services for their local populations and to ensure that the steps outlined in the checklist are followed whenever a patient experiences a significant change in their care.
Since Clive’s death, a number of NHS regions have reviewed the way that they care for patients living with a learning disability and epilepsy—
Dr Ahmed
It is a very positive development that a number of integrated health boards in the midlands, the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire have carried out detailed appraisals to identify any weaknesses in their services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield raises an important point about how we can go further, including how annual health checks can significantly reduce the chance of premature death in people with a learning disability who have epilepsy. NHS England has developed a quality framework to set expectations for annual health checks for people with a learning disability and accompanying health action plans, which are vital to identifying needs early, providing the right support and mitigating the risk of sudden death.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on epilepsies in children, young people and adults recommends that people with a learning disability should have monitoring reviews at least annually. The NICE guidance on epilepsies also includes a number of recommendations on how information should be tailored and adapted for patients with epilepsy who have a learning disability. It sets out that patients with a learning disability should have access to specialist care and should receive co-ordinated care using a multidisciplinary approach. For young people with a learning disability who are transitioning to adult epilepsy services, transition planning should begin early. This Government expect commissioners and service providers to take NICE guidelines fully into account when making decisions about how to best meet the needs of their local communities.
We are rolling out mandatory training on learning disability and autism to health and adult social care staff. Support for people with a learning disability is also a key area of focus for the NHS RightCare epilepsy toolkit. The toolkit includes a number of actions that systems should take to support people with epilepsy who have a learning disability, such as ensuring that specialist epilepsy services are upskilled and make reasonable adjustments to support the needs of people with a learning disability, including working in partnership with staff trained in how to manage learning disability. The toolkit also sets out that services should ensure that community specialist nurses in learning disabilities have the right training in the management of epilepsy.
I recognise the important work of organisations such as Epilepsy Action and SUDEP Action. Epilepsy Action has produced the “Step Together” toolkit, which describes what good-quality integrated services for people with a learning disability and epilepsy should look like. SUDEP Action has developed an epilepsy self-monitoring app, which is a digital tool designed to help patients understand their own personal risk of seizures and to track that risk. SUDEP Action has played a key role in the development of the Clive Treacey safety checklist.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield for securing this important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution. It goes without saying that Clive’s death must not be in vain and that we must learn the lessons to ensure that this does not happen again. I believe we also need to commit further that no longer in our national health service should a tragedy be the only way to make things better for the patients and citizens we serve and to save their lives.
Finally, the patient voice must be our guiding star when designing services and safety checklists and keeping patients safe in the community and in hospital. I believe that through the actions we have taken in our 10-year health plan and the actions that I have taken as the Minister responsible for patient safety, we can undertake today to Members of this House that that shall be the case going forward in this Government’s approach to patient safety.
Question put and agreed to.
Rules for making health claims about food supplements
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
Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences
(1 day, 10 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
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 728715 relating to penalties for offences arising from social media posts.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, let me say that it is always encouraging to witness public participation in politics. With more than 100,000 signatures, it is evident that this petition has engaged a large number of people all across the country.
This e-petition was created by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). This is the first time that an elected Member of the House of Commons has the e-petition system in this way to garner enough support to secure a debate, making this a unique instance. He explained to me that he believes that this Government have taken a two-tier approach to policing, which needs to be urgently reviewed.
When I use the phrase “two-tier”, I am referring to the belief that police in this country are overtly lenient towards protestors in favour of progressive causes and racial minority protestors, compared with others. To put it simply, those who subscribe to this criticism of our justice system do not believe that citizens are being punished fairly or impartially. That is why the signatories of this petition believe the system needs to be reviewed. Specifically, they are calling on the Government to urgently review the possible penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, including the use of prison. During our meeting, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth explained that it is his belief that, when it comes to punishing individuals for something they have posted on a social media platform, previous sentences issued for offences under this Government have risked encroaching on the individual liberty of the defendant, particularly their freedom of speech.
Freedom of expression has always been a cornerstone of our democracy. In the UK, people are free to demonstrate their views regardless of any discomfort caused to the majority. However, the freedom to express these opinions does exempt any criminal motivation behind them from being prosecuted. Just as we are a country that takes pride in our citizen’s liberties and freedoms, we also take pride in a criminal justice system that protects our citizens from harm. The former will never override the latter.
Under section 22 of the Online Safety Act 2023, a statutory duty to consider free expression protects the rights of users within the law. Crucially, the Act explicitly defines “freedom of expression” in terms compatible with the European convention on human rights. That is the right
“to receive and impart ideas, opinions or information…by means of speech, writing or images”.
However, section 59 of that same Act makes it clear that the boundary of that freedom extends only as far as the legality of the content. In other words, content is judged not just by whether it is unpopular, offensive or controversial but, crucially, whether it violates criminal law. Examples of such violations include—to name but a few—types of intimate image abuse, harassment or the incitement of hate crimes.
That brings us to the question of criminality and prosecution for such an offence, which I believe is the very crux of this petition. When I spoke to the Sentencing Council, it made it clear to me that intent matters a lot in many of these offences. The Sentencing Council’s definition of intent ranges from the highest culpability, for a deliberate intention to cause harm, to lower levels of culpability, for recklessness, knowledge of risk or sheer negligence.
The council considers an offender’s intent to be a key factor in determining the seriousness of an offence and the appropriate sentence, which will often be based on the level of harm that was intended even if it was not actually caused. In our modern age of social media, where communication is instant, rapid and far-reaching, the question of culpability, intent and widespread dissemination does indeed hold serious weight. It is reasonable to assume that all citizens realise that when using sites such as X, Instagram or Facebook.
When it comes to calling on the Government to review the penalties for non-violent offences arising from social media posts, it is imperative to clarify the particulars of existing sentencing guidelines. In the UK, the Government on their own cannot simply change criminal penalties, because the power to set or alter penalties is controlled by Parliament and the courts, not Ministers. Any change to maximum or minimum penalties for an offence must be made through primary legislation. That means that a new law or amendment must pass through the full parliamentary process: drafting, scrutiny, debate and, of course, approval by both Houses—the Commons and the Lords. The Government may propose changes, but they absolutely cannot impose them without Parliament voting them into law.
Even after Parliament sets the legal penalty ranges, the Government still cannot decide individual sentences, because those are often carried out independently by judges, who must follow the Sentencing Council’s guidelines and not—absolutely not—the preferences of Ministers. The Government also cannot order judges to give harsher or more lenient sentences in specific cases, because judicial independence, as we know, protects courts from political interference; indeed, I would suggest that it is a crucial pillar of our political and justice systems. Neither the courts nor Parliament stand alone; that ensures that balanced decisions are made independently in the public interest.
All of that is seriously complex, and addresses a large scale of harm and, in some cases, prejudice. That is to say that I am absolutely certain my colleagues will debate this question with respect, rationality and indeed nuance this evening. I can see that lots of them hope to speak, so I will bring my remarks to a close to allow as many as possible to participate.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
There appear to be other attractions in the main Chamber today, and a number of Members who indicated that they wished to participate are not present. For that reason, I have no need, I think, to put any time limit on contributions.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.
The first duty of Government is to keep their citizens safe. We do that with the police and our court system; and, although they are not perfect, we could not do it without them. The online space is an integral part of our modern lives, and we need to treat it as such, because what happens online does not stay online.
Online safety naysayers want us to think that regulating the online space is a conspiracy to end freedom of speech. Some, such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), try to make that case, while his online followers send women and members of minorities death and rape threats when they speak freely, and that includes Members of this House—like many women MPs, I receive at least one a week.
Rather than taking away free speech and democracy, we are ensuring that everybody has a voice, so that people, including the alleged victims of Andrew and Tristan Tate, can one day have an online profile again, without getting their home addresses splashed all over the internet and being doxed, as young people like to call it.
Democracy should be about ideas and debates, yet the online environment that some Members of this House want is one where people can make deepfakes, misleading the electorate; where they can threaten women with rape, to shut up those they do not agree with; and where they can make £300,000 by making 128 Facebook pages, spreading racist and AI-generated misinformation, which is then amplified by members of the Reform party—monetising hate, as the piece in The Times exposed this morning. Without an extension of our election laws to online spaces, single platforms or platform owners with specific political or financial agendas can continue to spread lies and misinformation, even going so far as to incite violence in another country. That is not democracy; that is not free speech. It is up to this Government to ward against it and ensure that our laws and sentencing are appropriate. As I said, the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe.
In real life, a 12-year-old cannot go to the cinema to see a film if it is rated 15, and pornography is put on the top shelf at the newsagents, out of reach. Kids cannot buy a video game that is adult-only rated without identification. Online, however, our kids can find any kind of graphic or sexual content, of any level of extremity, as easily as they can text their friends.
The Online Safety Act is there to protect everyone. It is there to put porn back on the top shelf and out of reach of kids. It works to prevent 10-year-olds from finding graphic depictions of violence, being encouraged to become violent themselves or being groomed by strangers. Those who want to scrap the Act and the sentencing that goes along with it actually put at risk our free speech—the free speech of those who are intimidated every day for trying to express their views online—and, even more so, they put at risk our democracy. Let us bring back common sense and protect this country.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, this is the first time that an e-petition debate has been instigated by a Member of this House, so it gives me great pleasure to call the culprit, Rupert Lowe.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for granting time for this extremely important debate, following our successful petition. Most importantly, I thank the more than 190,000 British people who signed the petition that we initiated, which calls for an end to the creeping use of prison as a punishment for what people say online. We would not be here today without their support, which is a credit to the petitions system, one of the better-functioning arms of Parliament.
I welcome Lucy Connolly and her husband, who are here today. She is one of the many ordinary citizens who has been swept up in the chaotic and inconsistent enforcement of our online speech laws. Her courage in speaking openly about her experience has helped to expose a growing problem: namely that the British state is now more willing to imprison somebody for a social media post than for a rape. That is not justice, that is not proportionate and that is certainly not the mark of a free country.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this petition to the House. On what analysis does he base his comment that people are more likely to be in prison for a social media tweet than for rape?
Rupert Lowe
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard of the Pakistani rape gangs, which are currently the subject of my crowdfunder. When he reads the report that is coming out in March, I am sure he will agree with me.
We are witnessing the steady expansion of what are essentially speech crimes—offences where there is no violence, no real threat of violence and, often, no identifiable victim at all. Yet people face dawn raids, criminal records, ankle tags and even lengthy prison sentences—for words, for arguments, for opinions that somebody somewhere claims to find offensive.
I had my own experience: a late-night police raid, initiated by false allegations from former Reform party colleagues, relating solely to words I had allegedly spoken—the party of free speech, indeed. The Reform leadership’s bitter attempt to see me in prison failed, but too many others do not escape the consequences of such vile misuse of the system. We now have laws being used to punish subjective offence, based on the most fragile interpretation of “harm” and enforced through discretionary and—far too often—politically skewed policing. A post that is deemed sharp criticism one month somehow becomes grossly offensive the next. It is arbitrary, it is inconsistent and it is fundamentally incompatible with a healthy democracy.
I receive multiple death threats, yet the police take no action. To take just one example, online influencer Shola Mos-Shogbamimu recently posted on X:
“I’m against the death penalty but for you @RupertLowe10 I’ll gladly make the exception.”
This post currently has 2 million views. The Met police have said no action will be taken. I do not want people in prison for social media posts; I also do not want such obvious two-tier policing. Shola walks free, yet Lucy Connolly was imprisoned for one foolish social media post, soon deleted. Where is the fairness in that? If these ludicrous laws are to be implemented, it must be done fairly, with no political bias. Evidently, that is not currently happening.
Is our prison system so efficient, so functional and so unoccupied that we have the capacity to put a young mother like Lucy in prison for more than 300 days? I think not. When rapists and murderers are walking free—even being released early—there is zero justification for imprisoning Lucy and the many others like her, particularly when the influence of such questionable legal aid is so heavily involved.
We must be clear: no free society can survive with a people afraid to speak. Democracy depends on robust argument, dissent and the ability to challenge orthodoxy. As George Orwell so presciently stated:
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
Parliament needs to draw a deep line in the sand: in Britain, nobody should ever be sent to prison for an offensive social media post—full stop. That requires legislative reform. We need clearer thresholds in law, a robust statutory requirement that prosecutorial decisions consider freedom of expression, and a prohibition on custodial sentences for pure speech cases.
The poison of two-tier justice must be forensically extracted from our judicial system. This debate is not about whether we are prepared to live in a country where liberty exists only for those who never cause offence—an impossible and undesirable standard. To Lucy and to every other person who has found themselves dragged through the system for a post online: you deserve better from your Government, and I sincerely hope today marks the beginning of a serious rethink in this House.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I will come as no surprise to you, Sir Roger, to hear me say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship.
I want to be transparent: I do not believe that the law has always got it right in these cases—there have been failures, and there must be room for scrutiny and reform. But I am compelled to speak in this debate because of the hypocrisy and double standards perpetuated by many on the Opposition Benches—those who brand themselves as defenders of free speech, yet who seem to confuse freedom of speech and freedom from consequence.
Something I taught my children from when they were very young was, “You are free to use your words, but you must be prepared to face the consequences of them.” People may think that writing an offensive post—which takes only seconds and is quickly forgotten—is inconsequential, but as we have seen over the past year, and especially in recent months, such words can have devastating effects. They can fuel radicalisation, target minority communities and make individuals feel unsafe in their own homes, schools and streets. Although some demand the right to speak without restraint, they ignore the reality that others lose their freedom to live without fear—a freedom that was hard fought for by those we pay tribute to on Armistice Day.
I find it genuinely astounding that parties such as Reform UK, and many in today’s Conservative party, espouse the importance of personal responsibility and accountability, yet are fundamentally unable to stomach it when individuals on their side of the political argument are held accountable for their words. My personal position —and, I think, that of many of my Labour colleagues—is clear: hate speech is hate speech; words have consequences. No matter whether someone passionately disagrees with someone else politically, if they use social media to call for the death of or harm to another, they should be held accountable by any means the law deems fit.
Regretfully, I do not believe that the same clarity exists on the Opposition Benches. It has been astonishing to watch some Members tie themselves in knots—on one hand decrying Britain under Labour as a return to Soviet-style communism, while on the other hand demanding the removal of the Oxford Union president-elect for comments made in a private group chat, not on social media. It seems that, for the right wing, free speech is not a two-way street: it is Schrödinger’s version of free speech.
Nowhere has the hypocrisy and knot tying been clearer than in the case of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who rightly disavowed, and welcomed the imprisonment of, an individual who used social media to threaten his life, but readily platformed during his party conference a woman who said:
“Mass deportation now, set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care...If that makes me racist, so be it”.
I am genuinely intrigued as to whether free speech is deemed acceptable only if it is used to threaten the lives of refugees and not the Reform party leader.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
Will the hon. Member give way on that point?
Mr Quigley
No.
My point is this: it is completely wrong to call for the death of the hon. Member for Clacton, just as it is completely wrong to call for hotels housing refugees to be burned down. In both cases, the law rightly intervened, and justice was served. What is deeply concerning is the warped suggestion that the law should be applied differently depending on who says something rather than what is said. That is not justice; it is politicisation. Our legal professionals are not the enemy. Our justice system, widely regarded as one of the foundational models of fairness and due process, is not the enemy. And our police, who enforce the law but do not create it, are not the enemy. We must defend the principle that the law applies equally to all, regardless of political affiliation, background or platform.
That should not be controversial. It is in fact one of the oldest principles in our democracy. Magna Carta, the cornerstone of our unwritten constitution, states:
“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”
That commitment to fairness and equality before the law is not just historical; it is foundational. Ultimately, if we in this Parliament believe that the law needs to change, we have the power and the responsibility to change it through the proper democratic process. Those who seek to twist justice, who argue that the law should be applied differently depending on who says something rather than what is said, should ask themselves this: are they defending the spirit of British democracy, or are they defending a warped version of it, shaped not by principle but by popularity on X?
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
Freedom of speech is a vital right, but it must end where harm to another begins. Online freedom cannot mean the freedom to exploit, to encourage self-harm or to destroy lives. I appreciate that I am taking the debate in a slightly off-piste direction, but this is relevant to the debate we are having today, because suicide forums and other user-to-user platforms are also part of what Ofcom counts as social media. If this debate is about the proportionality of penalties applied to offences arising from social media posts, we must address the stark reality that the most harmful content online is actually the least likely to attract enforcement. Nowhere is that clearer than in the case of unregulated suicide forums, which The Telegraph recently described as a terrifying online world where users share methods, encourage one another to die, and prey on the vulnerable.
The Molly Rose Foundation, founded by bereaved parents after losing their daughter Molly, has exposed the scale of the threat. Its report “Missed chances, lost lives” links at least 133 UK deaths to a single pro-suicide forum that operates overseas. On that site, young people—many just teenagers—are encouraged, instructed and groomed into taking their own lives. The forum hosts detailed methods, promotes poisonous substances, shares advice on bypassing UK regulations and even enables suicide pacts between strangers, which facilitates the abuse of vulnerable women. That is not free speech, as the site moderators claim; it is the deliberate facilitation of harm—fatal harm.
I first became aware of the foundation’s work when I met a local family who had lost their daughter, Hannah. She had been on that forum, where she found links to poisons and guidance on how to obtain them outside UK restrictions. Her father, Pete, warned me that harm is out there waiting to be found by teenagers. No parent should ever have to bury their child because of an unregulated user-to-user forum or social media.
What makes this even harder to accept is how many missed chances there were to act. Coroners issued 65 prevention of future deaths reports to three Government bodies—65 formal warnings that the site and its content were putting people at risk. Had those warnings triggered action when they should have, many of those 133 people might still be with us today.
Ofcom eventually opened a formal investigation under the Online Safety Act, but only in 2025—long after families had begun sounding the alarm. Its own letter acknowledges serious risks to UK users, including children, yet despite that Ofcom initially accepted a voluntary geoblock, which could be easily bypassed with a simple VPN. It took the discovery of a mirror site, and determined, unrelenting pressure from bereaved families, to escalate the case to priority.
That goes to the heart of today’s debate: if we are examining how penalties are applied for offences arising from social media posts, we must ask why the quickest and toughest enforcement does not fall on those creating the greatest real-world harm. The Online Safety Act creates strong penalties for encouraging suicide and serious self-harm—up to 14 years’ imprisonment and up to five years’ imprisonment respectively. Those penalties must not be weakened; they must be used, and they must be supported by regulators who treat the loss of life due to online harms with the urgency it demands.
I have met too many parents, siblings, friends and loved ones whose lives have been shattered. Their message is simple: protect young people, target the real harms, and use the penalties to save lives. If proportionality is the principle, let it be proportional to harm, because our young people deserve a system that protects them, not one that leaves the deadliest corners of the internet untouched.
I thank the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), in part, for the debate today, which has enabled me to raise this part of the important conversation about penalties for offences arising from social media posts and user-to-user platforms.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for so ably introducing the debate. Although the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) described her speech as being a little off-piste, I thank her for raising an important subject—she is welcome to raise it in any debate I am part of.
The only two-tier justice system I know of in the UK is between the rich and the poor, and between the powerful and the powerless. That is why I am so pleased we have been able to introduce the Hillsborough law. What we are not talking about here are posts that arise from differences of political opinion: whether rail should be nationalised, or whether we should invest more money in the NHS. What we are talking about are posts that contain elements of racial hatred, which is completely unacceptable and is not a political issue—unless we are arguing that somehow racial hatred is a political philosophy.
Last summer, we saw tragic violence right across the UK. I think Edinburgh was spared only through the hard work over many years of the Edinburgh Interfaith Association. We saw British people attacked because of their faith or the colour of their skin—utterly reprehensible. I spoke to parents who were worried about their children —of all ages—going to school or going to work. It was an horrendous time, and the violence was being amplified and accelerated online.
Many of those who carried out those violent acts argued that their actions were solely in response to the tragic events that occurred in Southport. But it is clear that the fury we witnessed was encouraged by online instigators, who stirred racial tensions and spread false information before the public had a true and complete understanding of what had occurred that awful day—just as we saw a couple of weekends ago after the attack on the London North Eastern Railway train, when people online were quick to link it to immigration and also to Islam, which I found utterly unbelievable. By the time a statement was made to the House of Commons, we knew there was no link to immigration or Islam, so there were no Reform MPs in the Chamber to talk about it—an utter disgrace.
As MPs, we have all had our fair share of online abuse and unpleasant comments, although I absolutely recognise the point made earlier about women attracting much more of that abuse than men. We know that the internet is a challenging and complex place, but when posts tip over into threatening communications, inciting violence against specific groups, provisions must be in place for prosecution. Opposition Members argue that prison sentences are given for comments that were maybe mistaken or intended as humorous. But we know that for some of the people who were imprisoned, this was merely one of many racially motivated comments that they had made over a period of time. Opposition Members called these posts foolish, clumsy or misunderstood, yet many of those people actually pled guilty to inciting racial hatred.
Let us be clear: the posts that led to prosecution were an incitement to violence and outright racial hatred, which is why those people pled guilty. The Crown Prosecution Service is clear that the state must act when there is a clear threat to public order and safety—online or in the real world. Employment law applies to online. Thankfully, we have procedures in place to protect children from online harm. Fraud is a crime online, as is defamation of character. So I do not understand why people argue that racially motivated hatred should not be covered by a law online, when it is in the real world. Why should we be able to say something online that we would not say in the pub? It is utterly unbelievable that people put that argument forward —it is unacceptable. It is right that these things apply across our society. The recent case of the man imprisoned for making threats towards the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) shows that our judiciary act when faced with criminal online threats of violence. Does anybody want to say that they oppose that gentleman being jailed for five years? Of course not.
Freedom of speech is central to our democracy. I understand that all our police forces face stretched resources, but those who incite violence on our streets against vulnerable people can never go unchallenged, whether it is online or in person.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.
The text of the petition makes specific reference to “posts on social media”, as if this modern medium is somehow separate from every form of speech that came before. Social media posts take seconds to write and publish, and then they are everywhere. They are seen by our parents, grandparents and kids, with no fact check and no filter. Terrifyingly, a 2025 Ofcom study found that three quarters of 18 to 24-year-olds use digital platforms and social media to get their news.
The sort of reach once available only to professional journalists, filtered through editors and media owners, is now available to anyone with a phone. We can post with a moment’s thought during our morning coffee break, with the same ease as world leaders with armies of speechwriters, fact checkers and lawyers to craft their statements. One impulsive tap on an app can land in the timelines of tens, thousands or millions of people.
Let us be honest: who has not posted online something they later regretted? I know I have, and I challenge anyone these days to have an unblemished record online. The incredible reach that modern social media has enabled, compared with the guardianship and control of legacy media sources for centuries, has rightly been compared with the unleashing of the evils of the world from Pandora’s box. We must recognise that attempting to reverse the exodus is as futile for us as it was for the Pandora of myth.
To keep with an historical allusion, the story of the sword of Damocles described how a single hair of a horse’s tail held a sword over the head of King Dionysius, threatening to take away all that he enjoyed as a king, without notice. A second’s misplaced rage, or a misjudged reaction to somebody else’s message, can cause the thread to break and the sword to fall, with the nationwide media sent to a person’s doorstep, their career and life torn apart. That is the reality of casting our thoughts into the social media forum.
The fragility of the risk cannot be used to diminish the impact, and hence the responsibility that must be held by users who can reach millions around the world in seconds. The ease of posting cannot be allowed to dilute the seriousness of the impact. I return to my earlier argument: I invite us to replace “posts on social media” in the petition with “words in a national newspaper” or “speech on national television”. Would there be the same uproar or calls for clemency if a journalist or TV presenter had urged their audience to set fire to hotels full of people? I suggest not.
In the case of Lucy Connolly, her post inciting violence against a hotel full of people, as riots raged throughout the country, was seen by more than 300,000 people in the three and a half hours before it was deleted. That is roughly the same number as the combined daily circulation of The Daily Telegraph and The Times newspapers. I cannot agree with treating social media differently from incendiary violence elsewhere. There were 9,000 followers and it was viewed more than 300,000 times in three and a half hours.
We cannot keep pretending that what happens online stays online. The digital world is now shaping how people think, speak and act, and the consequences are now impossible to ignore. The very power that social media holds is exactly why so many people wield it with such vigour.
Let us not forget that it is a nice little earner for some, too. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has earned over £40,000 from Twitter since his election, showing the huge potential of the site, and potentially why he is incentivised to defend so enthusiastically people’s right to say inflammatory and shocking things to drive engagement, clicks and views. The online world has become a place where hate speech—or, as the petition puts it, “opinion…speech”—is allowed to spread like wildfire. Too often, social media platforms shrug their shoulders and walk away from the responsibility of monitoring it or, worse, they actively encourage disinformation.
Twitter is the most obvious offender. I am told that, for those who still do, scrolling through Twitter feeds feels like stepping into the wild west. Abusive comments and dangerous posts are left to fester without consequence. A factual error is twisted and retold as the gospel truth before anyone has had time to draw breath. Communities are put at risk by conspiracies that proliferate like a virus.
Twitter must do far more to tackle the surge of hate speech that we see on our phones and tablets every single day. Since Musk took control of the company in 2022, Twitter has rolled back on safeguards designed to prevent misinformation and dangerous rhetoric. The same Elon Musk suggested that America should liberate the people of Britain and overthrow our democratically elected Government. Incidentally, the US customs and border protection guidelines for allowing non-citizens to enter the USA state that if an immigration officer knows or believes that someone would be entering the country to attempt to overthrow the US Government, they are inadmissible. If we applied that reasoning to Mr Musk’s next trip to our country, I wonder whether he might have complaints about his treatment. There is free speech, but not without consequences. This is a foreign billionaire, armed with his global megaphone, fanning the flames of division and calling for the overthrow of our democratically elected Government. We call that treason here.
We cannot allow tech oligarchs to set the rules for British society. Instead of allowing the world’s richest man to decide what toxic content floods national conversation, the Government must wake up and intervene. We Liberal Democrats call on the Minister to properly equip Ofcom to enforce tough regulations to clamp down on the spread of misinformation online. Online safety cannot rest solely on the shoulders of individual users, as algorithms push controversial content for views and shares. Legislation must be tightened to hold social media platforms accountable for the dangerous rhetoric they allow to thrive.
Social media is simply the latest chapter in humanity’s long history of communication, and vectors for incitement, from clay tablets to the printing press to broadcast news. Because it is so accessible, it arguably needs more accountability from its users and operators—not less, as the petition proposes.
Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society. We have always, and will always, stand up for freedom of speech. However, that does not mean no accountability for hate speech or speech that incites violence. Those who use violence, racist abuse or hate speech must face serious consequences. We do not support the suggestion in the petition that social media posts should be treated any differently from any other types of speech.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening it. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who launched and promoted the petition. Like others, I thought it was the first time I had come across a petition from a Member, and it turns out that it is. The number of signatures that the hon. Member managed to secure shows that this issue is of great interest to our constituents, and it is right that we, as elected representatives in Parliament, debate these matters.
I want to begin by talking about something that was not given sufficient focus in the debate: priorities and choices. Police officers cannot and have never been able to investigate and solve all crimes, all the time. They will never be able to do that, so choices and priorities have always been at the heart of policing since it was introduced in this country. The Opposition would rather that our police officers prioritise catching burglars, car thieves, shoplifters and violent offenders, and it seems clear to me that the public agree.
It also seems clear that this is an issue on which the police, the CPS and the courts do not get it right all the time. As always, we cannot be led entirely by the worst examples, but they inevitably raise public concern. I will not focus overly on individual cases, many of which have been well publicised and often, thankfully, not taken forward in the end, but that begs the question: what would have happened to less high-profile individuals, or in cases that were less well publicised? The outcome may have been different, so this issue clearly needs our attention. That is not to say that there should never be any restriction on what people can put online. We need to find a balance akin to the one that we manage, as a whole—although certainly not perfectly—to keep more consistently in what we might call the real world.
The criminalisation of hate speech and incitement is not new; what has changed is the scale and immediacy of communication in the digital age. Social media allows anyone with a mobile phone to reach potentially millions of people within seconds, and their words are essentially permanent and traceable. It exposes individuals to a constant stream of content, often stripped of context, and sometimes designed to provoke. Social media also strips away the manner in which something is said and the demeanour of the person—details that are often key to the prosecution of these sorts of cases in the real world.
We have a responsibility to ensure that the law keeps pace with technology but remains fair, proportionate and grounded in common sense. Those who use social media to clearly and obviously promote hatred, threaten individuals or genuinely incite violence must not be able to act with impunity. But we must also ensure that sentencing reflects the seriousness of each case, that it distinguishes between genuine threats and offensive opinion, and that it maintains public confidence in both justice and freedom of expression.
The judiciary has discretion to consider the context, harm and intent behind each offence, and proportionality is key. Sentences must be transparent, consistent and seen by the public to be fair. We know that the vast majority of people in this country value free speech deeply, but they also expect accountability for those who cross the line into criminality. The balance is delicate and must be protected. Social media has created new forms of harm, but also new forms of expression, and the justice system must navigate these novel complexities carefully. However, when the response appears to some to exceed what is necessary to deter or rehabilitate, it is right that Parliament examines whether the framework that guides decisions remains appropriate.
There have been increasing anecdotal reports of the police arriving in disproportionate numbers to arrest children, parents and older people who may have said “the wrong thing”—as they might describe it—online. One example, widely reported in the press, was the arrest of Graham Linehan by five armed police officers at Heathrow in September. His alleged offence was a series of social media posts in which it seemed apparent to most dispassionate observers that he joked about punching transgender women in the genitals if they refuse to leave female-only spaces. That is a good example of the sort of joke that would not be welcome, and that many people would think was displeasing or inappropriate, but it should have been carefully considered before it was put forward as a possible crime. It was hardly worthy of the time of five armed police officers.
Such use of police time and resources was completely disproportionate when officers’ efforts could be focused on dealing with the crimes that our constituents care more about—such as knife crime, shoplifting and burglary—that regularly go unsolved and do not have the same level of attention in all circumstances. I welcome the fact that in response—and in clear support of the fact that there is an issue—the Metropolitan police announced that they will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents. I direct those who think there is no issue to the decision by an independent police force to make a major change in how it polices these sorts of things and to
“focus on matters that meet the threshold for criminal investigations”.
We need to see that approach applied across the whole country. The Conservatives put that idea to a vote in the Crime and Policing Bill Committee earlier this year, but sadly the Government voted it down.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council, supported by the College of Policing, has reviewed the use and effectiveness of non-crime hate incidents. Subsequently, in September, the NPCC and the college wrote to the Policing Minister urging her to immediately scrap non-crime hate incidents in their current form, but the Government have not acted. They have ignored the authors of the review that they commissioned, and kicked the issue into the long grass. Will the Minister work with the Home Office to implement the recommendations of the NPCC and the College of Policing?
More broadly, the Government are not being transparent about this issue. They do not collect data on non-crime hate incidents and they do not publish data on the number of arrests made for online malicious communications offences. Accurate quantitative data on arrests and prosecutions for offences on social media are therefore hard to come by. Does the Minister agree that the Government should do more to assuage concerns by collecting and publishing data that might help to illuminate the issue?
We do have some data. In April, The Times published an article using data collated from freedom of information requests, setting out the number of arrests made in recent years under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The newspaper reported that police officers are making more than 12,000 arrests a year under the legislation, equating to more than 30 a day. I remind hon. Members about the issue of priorities: police officers are going out and making 12,000 arrests a year for these sorts of offences. The paper also claims that the number of arrests in 2023 represented an almost 58% increase from before the pandemic, and that forces recorded 7,734 arrests in 2019.
Dr Arthur
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s summing up; he is doing a great job. Those numbers invite some further investigation. Thirty per day does sound like quite a lot of arrests, but in how many cases was the communication the sole reason for the arrest? Was it just a matter of there being many other factors combined, and that was just one point in the arrest schedule?
Dr Mullan
That is a good example of the sort of question we cannot answer. We have had to rely on a media organisation putting forward FOIs to get some information. If the Government took ownership of the issue and published proper data, which might be able to pick out the nuances, we could have a more realistic debate. The hon. Gentleman is right that that could be the explanation, but we are none the wiser.
We cannot simply blame this spike on rank-and-file officers. They are often only following orders from their superiors, who point to guidance from the NPCC and the College of Policing. Another key issue is that many people I have spoken to who perhaps thought that people such as Lucy Connolly had done the wrong thing and should be punished, but were concerned about the length of the prison sentence. At the same time as the Government will not budge on this issue, they are passing legislation that will let thousands of violent sexual offenders out of prison early. Very many thousands of them will serve only a third of their sentences. The Government say that there is not enough prison space, yet their proportionate response is to say that we have plenty of prison space to arrest other people.
Emily Darlington
Does the shadow Minister recognise that when his Government were letting out rapists and violent criminals, they put in place no protections whatsoever, whereas this Government have brought in protection orders and domestic violence orders to ensure that victims are protected in these cases? Does he also recognise that the prison crisis was caused under his Government?
Dr Mullan
It may come from a man, but it is just an explanation. The early release schemes that we used, and that the Minister was previously using, excluded all sexual offences. We excluded sexual offences, and the early release schemes that continued excluded sexual offences. The Sentencing Bill makes no exclusion for sexual offences—none. We would not let out rapists earlier, and the Labour Government initially would not let out rapists, but they are now going to do so. We would not let out people who raped children, and initially the Labour Government would not let out people who raped children, but they are now passing a Bill that will let out people who raped children.
Some people say that the scheme addresses a short-term crisis, but, again, there are existing schemes that could be used for short-term prison capacity issues, such as the ones that I have talked about, which exclude sexual offences. We agree that those should be excluded. Instead of carrying on using those schemes, this Government are legislating to let rapists, child rapists and paedophiles out of prison earlier on a permanent basis. Ninety per cent of people who go to prison for child grooming will be serving a third of their sentence. If that is something that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) thinks is defendable, I encourage her to go away and read the detail.
As I said, the Sentencing Bill will let out thousands of violent and sexual offenders, even if Government Members pretend that that is not what is going to happen. I would also point out that some Labour MPs understand that and would not vote for it. They understand what their Government are persuading them to vote for. They really should not vote for it. I hope the Minister will commit to looking again at the sentencing framework to ensure it better reflects the concerns that colleagues have laid out today. Otherwise, this will be a missed opportunity.
We are clear that we can restore democratic accountability to sentencing only through the abolition of the Sentencing Council and the restoration of its activities to the Lord Chancellor’s office. That is the sort of wholesale reform that is needed. We introduced an amendment to the Sentencing Bill to enable that, but Labour voted it down, proposing instead a halfway house that will not achieve anything like the radical change we need.
The right choices are there and a better way forward is available. It is true that this is a new area for our law and for society; perhaps we were always going to take time to get this right. I welcome the campaigners and individuals affected driving politicians of all parties to do so. We have had some clear proposals for reform, which are a start, but in the meantime it will sadly take more cases, more public concern and more demands for change for the Government to get this right.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We are here to debate whether to review the penalties for social media posts, as put forward by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our democracy, but so too is the right of every citizen to live free from abuse, intimidation and harm. The role of Government and Parliament is to uphold both—to protect rights and responsibilities online and offline.
It has long been a principle in this country that people are free to express their views even when those views are uncomfortable, unpopular, challenging or even offensive. However, we must also recognise that freedom of expression must be balanced against the need to uphold public safety and ensure that our laws are equipped to deal with the realities of modern communication. That balancing act is not set in stone or fixed; it is a constant challenge for our society, as it should be. Any tension or conflict between these principles must be carefully considered and monitored. This debate plays an important and symbolic role in doing that, and I welcome contributions from all different perspectives.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I will always defend freedom of expression, but one feature I am concerned about is the proliferation of disinformation content online—particularly by hostile states—that is designed to divide us and undermine our democracy. Will the Minister comment on that, and the approach the Government will take to tackling and enforcing against it?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Technology and social media have become more complex and difficult, but that does not mean we should shy away from attempting to ensure the principles that we hold so dear, including democracy. I will deal with that important point later in my speech.
This Government are committed to ensuring that penalties for these types of offences are proportionate and uphold freedom of expression. Sentencing is and must remain a matter for the independent judiciary. We all—particularly Government Ministers—have a responsibility to take extreme care when discussing individual cases. I will not be commenting on any, although we all take our own personal views on cases that capture the public imagination. But a sentence in the court of public opinion is not as rigorous as those imposed by courts of law. Each case is different, and the full circumstances are often not reported widely. Media stories of cases rarely convey all the information that the court had before it when deciding on its sentence.
Where an individual is convicted for an offence related to online speech, the independent judiciary is responsible for determining appropriate sentences, based on the facts of each cases and the relevant sentencing guidelines. An independent judiciary is vital to the rule of law and the functioning of a democratic society. It ensures that justice is administered fairly, impartially and critically, without political interference.
The independence of our judiciary from political influence is a vital part of our constitution, and I for one am determined to protect that in my role. The proposals by the Opposition to simply scrap the Sentencing Council amount to constitutional vandalism and have been described by previous Conservative Attorneys General as completely absurd.
Dr Mullan
Does the Minister accept that our proposals, which were not just to abolish the Sentencing Council but to create a number of bodies that advise the Department, are essentially exactly the same proposal that existed before the Sentencing Council was introduced by the Labour Government. Did he think there was constitutional vandalism prior to Labour’s reforms?
Jake Richards
The shadow Minister is completely incorrect. The Conservative party’s current proposals are not what was in place before the Sentencing Council was established. They propose to bring the sentencing of every type of criminal case into the Executive. That is a completely new, innovative and wholly dangerous proposal that has been criticised by Conservatives themselves. I remember when Conservatives used to stand up for our constitution and the separation of powers, rather than simply following the populist flame.
The sentencing framework is important, because it provides courts with a range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders in addition to imprisonment, including through discharges, fines, community sentences and suspended sentences. The law also makes it clear that imprisonment should only be imposed as a last resort and where no other sentence would be appropriate.
When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. They have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless they are satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice for them to do so. Therefore, differences in sentencing outcomes will be the result of a number of factors, including whether the offender has previous convictions or whether an early guilty plea was entered, as well as any particular aggravating and mitigating factors. They may also include circumstances surrounding the offence, as well as circumstances personal to the offender.
It is right that courts have the discretion to consider these factors and to tailor sentences accordingly, but that does not mean—and none of my argument should give the impression—that sentencing is not subject to democratic accountability. Parliament is sovereign. The Sentencing Bill, which we are taking through the House, makes changes to ensure that the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice agree to new guidelines before they come into effect, which is a new mechanism for bolstering accountability. We do not want politicians handing down sentences on each given case, leading to wild inconsistencies and unfairness. But of course, sentencing has a democratic function, and in my submission this change strikes the right balance.
The Government commissioned a comprehensive review of sentencing powers through the independent sentencing review, chaired by David Gauke, the previous Conservative Lord Chancellor. This was wide-ranging and evidence-led, examining the full spectrum of sentencing options. The aim of the independent sentencing review was to ensure that the framework is robust, proportionate and fit for purpose. The review was guided by three core principles: sentences must punish offenders and protect the public; sentences should encourage prisoners to turn their backs on a life of crime; and we must make greater use of punishment outside of prison.
The Government accepted the majority of the review’s recommendations in principle, many of which are now being delivered through the Sentencing Bill, which is currently progressing through the House of Lords. Our focus remains on ensuring that the justice system protects the public, upholds fundamental rights and uses custodial sentences only where they are necessary and proportionate.
The Government have made it clear that we need to focus our law enforcement efforts on preventing crime in our communities—more police on our streets, rather than more policing of our tweets. But the Government do not feel that there is any case for a change in legislation at this stage, as proposed by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth.
Freedom of expression is a right that must be protected, but it is not an absolute right; it carries a responsibility to use that freedom honestly and decently. Freedom used irresponsibly corrodes democracy; responsibility without freedom weakens it. The Government’s job is to protect both, and the Online Safety Act and our wider sentencing framework reflect that balance. They are designed to protect individuals, uphold justice and preserve the freedoms that define our society.
The Online Safety Act has been designed to safeguard legal free speech, uphold privacy and support innovation. It does not prevent adults from accessing legal content, nor does it restrict people from posting content that others may find offensive. It involves the regulation of systems and processes that platforms have in place for tackling illegal content and, critically, protecting children. There are also protections against the over-removal of content, where platforms take down content that they should leave on their sites.
As use of the internet has expanded, there has been an increasing awareness that online content and activity can cause serious harm to users. From disinformation to targeted harassment, what happens online now shapes lives offline. The public are right to expect protection online from abuse that would never be tolerated on our streets. There are some circumstances where the criminal threshold is met for genuinely harmful and dangerous material, whether that be online or through other forms of communication. That is why the Online Safety Act introduced three modern communication offences—harmful communications, false communications and threatening communications—ensuring that our legal framework is fit for the digital age.
We have now seen that the new offences introduced by the Act are being applied proportionately and effectively. Earlier this year, an individual was convicted under section 184 of the Act for encouraging a child to undertake serious self-harm through online grooming—the first case of its kind. We have heard about the real dangers that exist online for children, and we must clamp down on them. The case demonstrates the importance of having modern, digital-age offences that are capable of protecting the most vulnerable from genuine life-threatening harm.
The Act also delivered Zach’s law, named after a young epilepsy campaigner, which rightly makes it a criminal offence to send malicious flashing images intended to trigger seizures. It is a clear, common-sense and compassionate example of how the law can evolve to protect people with disabilities from cruelty and real, demonstrable harm online. We should remember that the Online Safety Act is not the only legislation that can lead to custodial sentences for online speech: recent convictions, including that of the individual jailed for issuing death threats against the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), show that existing laws on threats and harassment are being applied robustly where speech crosses into criminal intimidation.
Democracy cannot function when intimidation replaces debate. That is the balance we seek to strike in regulating an increasingly influential online world to protect the public—between freedom of expression and the safety of individuals and communities. I thank all Members for their contributions. This is an issue that is important not only to this House but clearly to many people across the country, and it is vital that we allow, and indeed encourage, rigorous debates about the relevant legal framework.
Jamie Stone
As colleagues are aware, the Chair of any Select Committee is elected by the House. Therefore, this evening I am rather more the servant of the House than of my party. I therefore speak, I hope, impartially— as I should as Chair of the Petitions Committee. We have heard some verbal jousting in this debate, but it is no bad thing to air an issue out in the open and in our democratic forum.
I thank the petitioner himself, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe); it is indeed a historical first—it has never happened before, that I am aware of, in the history of this place—that the petitioner is a Member. I also thank you, Sir Roger, and all the Members who have spoken.
I also want to thank the members of the public in the Gallery. I do not know whether they have felt this too, but I have felt a rather chilly draught behind me—I think we ought to offer Parliament a shilling for the meter, to get heating turned up a wee bit. But I thank them for coming; I think they have witnessed something rather special that we do in this place.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 728715 relating to penalties for offences arising from social media posts.
Parkinson’s Disease
(1 day, 10 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 Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 713714 relating to funding and care for people with Parkinson’s.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. The petition calls on the Government to increase funding for people with Parkinson’s and to implement the five steps of the Parky charter. With more than 113,000 signatures, the petition is not just a call for change; it is the collective voice of a community that has waited too long for meaningful action.
Parkinson’s is one of the fastest growing neurological conditions in the world. It affects more than 116,000 people in the UK, and that number is expected to rise to 173,000 by 2030. These are not just statistics; they are our neighbours, friends and family members. Behind each number is a story of resilience, daily struggle and hope.
The Parky charter is a powerful five-point plan created by the “Movers and Shakers” podcast group. It is backed by Parkinson’s UK, and aims to improve the lives of those living with Parkinson’s. It calls for faster access to specialists; clear and immediate information; a Parkinson’s passport to ensure joined-up support; comprehensive support across health and social services; and renewed investment in research for a cure.
Paul Davies
There is a competition. I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore).
Baggy Shanker
Initiatives such as Derby County Community Trust’s Parkinson’s walking football programme are doing fantastic work to boost physical health and build a community for people with Parkinson’s. Does my hon. Friend agree that, by coupling investment in the Parkinson’s support workforce with such community initiatives, we can help every person with Parkinson’s to live with the dignity and support they deserve?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. The strength of the community around investment and specialist support is of key importance.
Chris Bloore
As the son of someone suffering from Parkinson’s—both my uncles have Parkinson’s and my grandad sadly died of Parkinson’s complications—I was struck by the fluctuating nature of the condition. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best parts of the Parkinson’s passport is that people will not have to go through reassessment, when we know that this degenerative condition will only get worse for many people?
Paul Davies
I will refer to that later, but I absolutely agree. The fluctuating nature of the illness means that we have to provide that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Paul Davies
Oh, go on, before I start again—I will only lose my place otherwise.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is being incredibly generous, and I thank him for his excellent introduction. Given that the condition is often degenerative and that, tragically, people do not get better from it, it is not outrageous that a number of integrated care boards—including mine, Lancashire and South Cumbria—are reassessing people with Parkinson’s for continuing healthcare, and that many of them are losing that care? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is wrong, and that people with such conditions should be able to guarantee that they will get the support and healthcare they have had for many years?
Paul Davies
I agree. I will refer later to ICBs, which clearly have to ensure the full, necessary support, particularly for this community. I understand the pressures they are under—we all do—but taking away support from people is a much bigger issue than people not getting support in the first place. I am sure that all of us across the House would like to work on that issue.
This plan is rooted in lived experience and offers a practical road map for change, including renewed investment—I say that to give some context; otherwise we will lose track of where we are. In April, during World Parkinson’s Day, I attended the Big Sing for Parkinson’s. That uplifting event was quite amazing and inspiring; it was full of energy, music and community spirit. It was organised by the same “Movers and Shakers” group I referred to earlier, and brought together people living with Parkinson’s, and very importantly their families, in both London and Huddersfield.
I had the pleasure of speaking to Mark Mardell, the former BBC political journalist and the lead petitioner—he is sitting at the back of the Public Gallery, and I thank him very much for the petition and for the work he is doing. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He shared his personal journey with me and emphasised the urgent need for reform. Like the charter, the Big Sing is a celebration of resilience and a call for action.
Since July 2024, the Government have taken the following steps. The autumn Budget last year included a £600 million increase in social care funding and an £86 million boost to the disabled facilities grant. In April 2025, the Government reaffirmed their commitment to improving outcomes for neurological conditions, through initiatives such as the RightCare toolkit, the Getting It Right First Time programme and the neurology transformation programme. Spending review 2025 also pledged £29 billion in additional NHS funding by 2029, including £10 billion for technology and GP training. This is just the start in addressing the needs of those living with Parkinson’s.
An estimated 253 people with Parkinson’s live in my constituency of Colne Valley. That is as per the previous constituency boundaries, but there will be revised figures in line with the new constituency boundaries, although they are hopefully not revised upwards. West Yorkshire NHS ICB plans and delivers care for people with Parkinson’s in the ICB area. In 2023-24, the spend on admissions to hospital in that area increased by 4.9%, and the cost of each admission was just over £6,000.
However, we face extremely serious challenges. The UK ranks near the bottom in Europe for the number of neurologists per capita. Neurology services meet the 18-week referral target only about half the time. Only 44% of patients in England have access to an occupational therapist, only 62% have access to a physiotherapist and just 40% have access to a speech and language therapist. Those professionals are essential; they are not optional. The Government are addressing that issue through the broader NHS workforce strategy, which includes expanding the number of training places and reforming medical education pathways to address shortages in specialist areas such as neurology.
However, the Parky charter also highlights the importance of timely medication. For people with Parkinson’s, receiving medication within 30 minutes of the prescribed time is not a convenience; it is an absolute necessity. Yet more than half of hospitalised patients report delays. The NHS’s medicines safety improvement programme, which runs from 2024 to 2027, is a step forward, but implementation must be consistent across all trusts.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Lewell. Earlier today, I was at the Parkinson’s event in the Palace, and I spoke to a surgeon who treats Parkinson’s patients every week. He told me that if more people were seen earlier, he could ensure better outcomes. Does the hon. Member agree that this battle is partly about funding that is needed now, rather than later down the line?
Paul Davies
Once again, I absolutely agree. I will certainly refer later to funding, which is a key issue. This is about resources and about making sure that that help is there as quickly as possible. Obviously, the longer it takes to provide that support, the more this disease hits people—the impact is far greater.
The Parky charter also addresses the personal independence payment system. As we know and as was said earlier, Parkinson’s is a fluctuating condition, and assessments often fail to capture its complexity. The Government are now working with Parkinson’s UK and individuals with lived experience to reform the PIP assessment, aiming to make it much more reflective of fluctuating conditions. The review is expected to report in autumn 2026, and the Minister has pledged that the voices of the Parkinson’s community will be central to the process. The Government have expressed a desire to return to routine face-to-face assessments, but have also indicated that for those with very severe conditions, full assessments may be waived if sufficient medical evidence is provided.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
In terms of treating those suffering from Parkinson’s, does the hon. Member agree that best practice should be shared across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so that everybody gets the best treatment right across our United Kingdom?
Paul Davies
I could not agree more. I will speak later about the postcode lottery, although it is not just a postcode lottery; it is across the whole nation. The hon. Member is absolutely right: we should be doing everything we can to ensure consistency of support and adequate support across the nation.
Innovation also offers hope. Produodopa—I think I probably said that better today than the last time I was here—was approved for NHS use in 2024. Earlier today, I was at an event organised by Parkinson’s UK and I was talking to a specialist—a neurologist—who was talking about the impact of medication and how much difference that will make. It was fascinating, and that five minutes was of huge value in helping me to understand the impact.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
On the question of innovation, the University of Wolverhampton, in my constituency of Wolverhampton West, recently launched a new course, in collaboration with the British Judo Association, to enable those suffering with Parkinson’s to remain active and to increase their confidence with physical activity. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a multidisciplinary, comprehensive approach to Parkinson’s care, that this kind of support is crucial to supplement the specialist medical care he has spoken about, and that that is the best way to support those who are suffering from this awful disease?
Paul Davies
Again, I absolutely agree. I know from talking to one of my constituents, Liz Ryan, that that physical support and that ability to do something, get involved in activities and have help are of immense value. We absolutely have to have a holistic view of this issue; it is not a simple case of just medication or taking people into a clinical environment. We have to look at what we can do within communities, as was mentioned earlier, and at how we can support people with their lives and ensure that they live their lives to their full potential.
Some of the innovative medicines can certainly be life-changing for those with severe symptoms, but staffing and funding constraints mean that many hospitals cannot offer those solutions. Access to new treatments must not be a postcode lottery.
I want to take a moment to share some encouraging news from my constituency. We currently have a neurology registrar based in Leeds who is spending a significant amount of time seeing Parkinson’s patients in Huddersfield. He works alongside a dedicated doctor who also travels from Leeds to support patients at Huddersfield Royal infirmary. Just last month, they met the operations director at Huddersfield Royal infirmary, who shared some good news: in December, the trust will be advertising for a consultant neurologist with a special interest in Parkinson’s.
The role will be based in Leeds but will include a significant commitment to patients in Huddersfield. That is a direct result of our local campaign, and in particular the tireless work of our local Parkinson’s community group, led by Liz Ryan MBE and Dr Chris Ryan. It shows what can be achieved when patients, families, clinicians and elected representatives work together.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for leading today’s debate, and the Movers and Shakers for promoting both the debate and the Parky charter. My hon. Friend talks about working together. One of the issues I have heard from constituents in Stevenage is misdiagnosis at the outset, where GPs have not identified the condition or referred patients to the right pathway. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about funding, but about training as well?
Paul Davies
Certainly. In the discussion I referred to earlier with the neurologist specialist, we talked quite a bit about that as well: the difficulty with diagnosis and the similarities between Parkinson’s and other neurological illnesses and issues. My hon. Friend is right: there is absolutely a need to ensure that GPs at least recognise some triggers or areas so that patients can get specialist support. Without early diagnosis, many people suffer unnecessarily for many years, and the support that could help to alleviate some of these issues is not getting to them.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
On early diagnosis, this is not just about GPs’ ability to diagnose, but about patients getting neurology appointments. Does the hon. Member agree that more people would be able to get the clinical care and support they need if they were able to get such an appointment within the first 18 weeks?
Paul Davies
Absolutely. One of our calls in the Parky charter is for that additional support. It is crucial that those specialists are available. We recognise that there is a shortage across the country, but we have to work hard to fill that gap as soon as possible. I totally agree with the hon. Member. Going back to the work being done in my constituency, I want to say a heartfelt thank you to everyone who has supported that effort.
Parkinson’s demands our attention, compassion and action. The Government have made some progress, but clearly the petitioners would like to see more done. I urge the Minister to work with the Parkinson’s community, particularly the petitioners, to implement the Parky charter, especially in the following areas: invest in the Parkinson’s workforce; ensure timely access to medication and specialists; and expand access to innovative treatments. I welcome the commitment shown by the Minister, who has recognised the urgency of improving care and support for people with Parkinson’s. Now is the time to turn that commitment into concrete change through funding, reform and compassion.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I will need to put a two-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will keep my remarks brief because the debate is so well attended. It is a real privilege to speak in this debate on behalf of so many people in my constituency who have campaigned tirelessly to improve care and support for those living with Parkinson’s. Parkinson’s UK tells me that in Bexhill and Battle, around 377 people live with Parkinson’s.
I pay special tribute to my constituents Linda, Helen and Vivienne, who join us in the Public Gallery today. They are part of a fantastic local Parkinson’s group, which campaigns with energy, determination and an unwavering commitment to the community, and their advocacy has brought the realities of living with Parkinson’s to the forefront, highlighting not just the challenges but practical solutions. Their work has also been key in raising awareness locally around the Parky charter petition. I am immensely proud that Bexhill and Battle recorded 576 signatures, the highest number anywhere in the UK. That is a testament to the strength of feeling in our area and the dedication of campaigners who ensured every voice was heard.
The charter aims to highlight delays in diagnosis, fragmented care, failed benefits assessments and underinvestment in research as key areas where we need to do better. Delays in diagnosis can have irreversible consequences. Around 21,000 people in the UK currently live with Parkinson’s undiagnosed. Access to a full multidisciplinary team is another central pillar of good care, yet only 44% of people have access to an occupational therapist; 62% to a physiotherapist; and 40% to a speech and language therapist. Research is needed to create a brighter future for Parkinson’s sufferers. Currently, there is no cure and treatment options are limited. With someone diagnosed every 20 minutes in the UK and 25 million people affected globally, the need for new therapies is urgent.
Closer to home, we have seen some encouraging steps in local Parkinson’s services. Our local trust has signed up to Parkinson’s Connect, allowing direct referral at the point of diagnosis. The trust now supports around 800 patients and the specialist team has grown from one to four staff members over the past two years. Home visits and outreach clinics are planned, which could make a meaningful difference once fully operational, but progress remains uneven.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, it is my privilege to take part in this debate. In May this year I was delighted to secure the first substantive debate on Parkinson’s held in the Chamber. It is fantastic to see that as a result of that tenacious campaign we have not had to wait long for this next opportunity. I want to start by noting the incredible feat of securing over 100,000 signatures on the petition raised by Mark Mardell on behalf of the Movers and Shakers.
In Scotland there are around 14,000 people diagnosed with Parkinson’s, and every single day another seven people are told they have this disease—one of the fastest-growing neurological conditions in the world. In my constituency there are 235 people living with Parkinson’s, each of whom are supported by carers, both paid and unpaid, family members and clinicians who work tirelessly to ensure they can live their very best quality life. But when we look at the health economics of Parkinson’s, people living with the condition are seven times more likely to be among the very highest users of health services, falling into a category defined as high-cost, high-need patients, along with approximately 5% of the general population. Meeting the needs of that accounts for more health spending than the remaining population put together.
We would expect that this group of people are able to access consistent gold standard care and support, yet they face some of the starkest postcode lotteries anywhere in the UK. In the NHS Forth Valley local authority in my constituency, people referred for neurological support are typically seen quickly, but in NHS Fife the median wait for the first neurology appointment is 31 weeks, stretching to 87 weeks for some. You can imagine not knowing that something is wrong and having to wait for almost two years before a specialist can help you to understand what is happening to you. Can you imagine the impact on your loved ones? We must always remember the emotional and social cost to people.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, while tackling Parkinson’s and highlighting the issue today is critical, we also have to make sure that we look at Parkinson’s with dementia and all the other challenges that come with such a complex set of health issues.
Graeme Downie
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the complexity of Parkinson’s itself and the other conditions it presents with is another reason why this is something we must tackle immediately. I want to make sure I am not using up other people’s time by repeating some of the information in the Parky charter. However, I think there is a need for speedy care and instant information, and I echo the point raised earlier about the Parkinson’s passport and making sure that that involves the devolved Administrations, so that touchpoints are truly connected and best practice is delivered wherever possible.
The financial cost of living with Parkinson’s is immense. On average it costs a household £21,986 per year, and people with Parkinson’s are 9% more likely to be incorrectly assessed for PIP or adult disability payment in Scotland, something I hope that the Minister will address in her closing remarks as well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will show people how to do a 30-minute speech in two minutes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on setting the scene, and thank him for that. I am the DUP’s health spokesman, so I know many people in my constituency suffer from Parkinson’s and I know about the devastating effects it can have on aspects of their lives. I give a big thanks to Parkinson’s UK. Many of them are in the Gallery today, and I thank them for all the help that they have sent to us.
I want to present some stats on three questions in the short time I have. In my constituency of Strangford there are 272 people living with Parkinson’s and a further 694 people in the South Eastern trust area. We expect that this year 98 more people will have Parkinson’s. Shockingly, around one in five people do not have proper access to a Parkinson’s specialist nurse—1,328 people in Northern Ireland. It is lovely to see the Minister in her place; I thank her for being here. My first request to her is to ensure that, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) said, the four regions—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—work together. We can do it better together and we should always try to do so.
They say that, with adaptations, travel costs and additional energy payments, it costs almost £22,000 a year to have Parkinson’s. That is a salary. I want to highlight the issue of Parkinson’s and personal independence payments, which I deal with all the time in my office. I say this with respect: I am not quite sure whether the person who does the PIP checks has the knowledge to understand what Parkinson’s is and how PIP should be involved. That is my second ask to the Minister. There is no doubt that change is needed.
My third ask is research. We are aware of the motor and non-motor symptoms that come with Parkinson’s. We must have more research. Let us find a cure in our lifetime. They say that in 10 years’ time, they will find the cure for cancer—well, let us find a cure for Parkinson’s as well. That is my hope. Timely diagnosis, specialist care and community support remain inconsistent across the region, leaving many individuals and families navigating the condition without the full resources they need.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this debate. I have had the honour in the past of being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, which is very forceful, and rightly so.
I want to address a couple of things, starting with the workforce. It is crucial to situate the point about shortages within the context of the forthcoming refreshed workforce plan. The Government have a golden opportunity to fix problems that have blighted Parkinson’s diagnosis and care for years. As with many other conditions, people rely on Parkinson’s diagnosis to access vital support. However, recent research by Parkinson’s UK suggests that up to 21,000 people are undiagnosed. The neurology waiting list stands at more than 226,000, and only half are seen with the 18-week target. At the root of that is our lack of neurologists.
However, for many patients, receiving a diagnosis is only part of the battle. Around one in five do not have access to a specialist nurse. There are also alarming shortages of occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech and language therapists. Adequate access to specialists and multidisciplinary care is crucial for managing such a complex condition and preventing unplanned hospital visits.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In advance of this debate, my constituent Tony contacted me to say that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2019 but has only seen a specialist three times in the six years that have followed. Does the hon. Lady agree that access to a specialist is vital, not least for quelling anxiety, but also to help those with Parkinson’s to develop plans to help them to live independent lives?
Mary Glindon
The hon. Gentleman has eloquently described the very real problem of what happens after diagnosis.
Sitting alongside the Government’s workforce plan, a new, modern service framework for neurological conditions would set clear, evidence-based objectives and standards for care delivery.
Mary Glindon
Sorry—I do not know that I have time to give way. Too many people want to speak.
A framework would drive faster diagnosis and treatment, boost access to multidisciplinary teams and improve secondary prevention. I urge the Minister to consider introducing a framework for neurology in the Government’s first wave of national service frameworks in 2026. Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to meet Parkinson’s UK and the Neurological Alliance to discuss how the framework could help to improve patient outcomes?
On financial support, Parkinson’s comes with a significant financial cost. People with Parkinson’s spend over £7,500 a year on average just to manage their condition. However, the personal independence payment system has failed the Parkinson’s community since its creation 12 years ago. Inaccurate assessments are far too common, and too often people must bear the physical and emotional strain of the appeals process. In the previous debate, the Minister offered to relay concerns about PIP to the ministerial team and the Department for Work and Pensions. Against the backdrop of the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, and now that the Timms review has been launched, will the Minister make representations in the strongest possible terms that any reform of PIP must deliver fair and accurate awards for people with Parkinson’s?
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
In the interest of time, I will concentrate on PIP. The evidence of the past 10 years tells us that the PIP system copes very poorly with fluctuating neurological conditions. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I constantly hear of people being denied PIP even when diagnosed with some of the most severe conditions.
Reports suggest that people with Parkinson’s are more likely to be inaccurately assessed than people with any other condition. I have seen that close up. One of my constituents in Horsham had Parkinson’s for 30 years, yet continued to be denied PIP. Nationally, over 430,000 people are stuck waiting for PIP reviews, causing delays of £24 million a month in essential support payments. We are seeing the opposite of overdiagnosis: almost 302,000 PIP decisions have been overturned on appeal in just two years. That is not an occasional error; it is evidence of a system failing on an industrial scale. I very much hope that the forthcoming Timms review will operate in a genuinely collaborative way, as promised, to put this service on a stronger footing.
When support is denied, people lose their mobility, their independence and their ability to keep working; they fall into crisis, end up in A&E, or even worse; and all of that comes at a far greater cost to the state than if we had supported them properly in the first place. Cutting support does not necessarily save money; it simply shifts the burden on to hospitals, social care, carers and families. People with Parkinson’s deserve dignity, independence and a system that understands their condition. Let’s give it to them.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak for Worthing West, where support for the Parky petition has been strong, particularly in our amazing local Parkinson’s group. Parkinson’s is one of the fastest-growing neurological conditions. Behind the statistics are many people coping with tremor, rigidity and “off” periods—and carers holding everything together. Too many constituents face long waits for diagnosis, inconsistent annual reviews and patchy access to specialist nurses and community rehab.
In West Sussex alone, more than 4,000 people are living with Parkinson’s. Most of them are over 65 years old, but there are also many younger people who have Parkinson’s and are trying to work and support their families. The Government have acknowledged the challenges, and we have already heard about the RightCare toolkit and the neurology transformation programme, but without targeted workforce and implementation funding, the guidance will not translate into timely care for patients, especially given the plan to restore the 18-week referral-to-treatment standard by 2029.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She mentioned the Parkinson’s group in her constituency. In my constituency, the wonderful Mervyn Dunkley, Jane Hua and their team run brilliant weekly Parkinson’s move and shout classes at the Fairfield leisure centre in Dartford for people living with Parkinson’s disease. Does she agree that every community deserve a Mervyn and Jane and a roll-out of such classes? They are of huge benefit to people suffering from Parkinson’s across the country, and more people could benefit.
Dr Cooper
It is incredibly timely that we are talking about this issue in the context of the NHS 10-year strategy, which will provide a shift from treatment to prevention. A lot can be done in the preventive space for those with Parkinson’s, as with so many other neurological disorders. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I can slow down slightly now.
The Parky charter asks for speedy specialists, instant information on day one, a cross-condition health conditions passport, comprehensive multidisciplinary care close to home, and a sustained quest for a cure. Alongside that, I ask the Minister to consider a near-term date to deliver 18-week neurology referrals for suspected Parkinson’s; to ensure annual specialist reviews for people with diagnosed Parkinson’s; to expand specialist nurse and multidisciplinary team posts in each area of the country—no more postcode lottery; to pilot the cross-condition health conditions passport, although I appreciate that there are links there to the upcoming NHS App work; to publish access standards and dashboards—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. I call Gregory Stafford. My apologies; we were having issues with the clock. It should be okay now.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on introducing this debate.
Every hour, two more people in the United Kingdom hear the life-changing words, “You have Parkinson’s.” As I have said before, for me, this is personal. A close family member was first diagnosed with Parkinson’s and later with progressive supranuclear palsy, a more aggressive condition, but my family’s experience is far from unique. Numerous constituents have contacted me about this debate—including Ellie from Farnham, who is in the Public Gallery today—and they all speak plainly about their daily reality, including mobility issues, speech challenges and the emotional strain that falls on individuals and their families. Their stories show extraordinary resilience, but also the gaps in support that remain.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the current pathway for innovative technology to be licensed is both costly and time consuming, meaning inventions that would help his constituents, such as BeechBand, which uses vibrotactile stimulation to decrease symptoms, face delays in testing and potential introduction, and that we need to find a way forward?
Gregory Stafford
I have also been approached by BeechBand. I hope the Minister agrees that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Government must ensure that where there are new, innovative technologies that could help sufferers of Parkinson’s or any other disease condition, they can get to the frontline to help people as quickly as possible.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that early detection is key to fighting this disease? Is he, like me, encouraged by research from Moorfields eye hospital and University College London that found that a scan of the retina—the back of the eye—can detect Parkinson’s disease seven years before any symptoms present?
Gregory Stafford
I bow to the hon. Member’s experience on that. I hope the Minister is listening carefully, because these types of innovative technologies can make a significant difference and should be rolled out as quickly as possible.
Living with Parkinson’s brings real financial strain. On average, people spend more than £7,500 each year managing their conditions. That rises to £22,000 when lost earnings are included, so support is not just a clinical need, but an economic one.
In my Farnham and Bordon constituency, which includes Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, 289 people are currently living with Parkinson’s. The fact that we are—I believe—the only constituency served by three integrated care boards of different sizes brings with it not only challenges but a chance for comparison. Despite their different sizes, some of their challenges are the same, including the increasing number of emergency admissions across all three ICBs. Those numbers lay bare the scale of need and the pressure on services, and underline the urgent requirement for earlier access to specialist care. I raised these concerns in May as the shadow Minister, but I sadly remain unconvinced that the current Government have identified Parkinson’s as a strategic priority.
The new 10-year health plan imagines neighbourhood teams of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists and social workers. It is a positive vision, but it will work only if Parkinson’s specialists are part of those teams. In the Health and Social Care Committee, we often hear about artificial intelligence, remote monitoring and wearable devices, all of which have the potential to transform care through early intervention and better monitoring. The Government must look at those things as well.
I will end with three clear questions. First, in May, the Minister committed to discussing support from the point of diagnosis with Parkinson’s Connect, the Parkinson’s UK programme designed to equip NHS professionals. Have those discussions taken place, and what actions will follow? Secondly, the Minister has said that Parkinson’s nurses are
“worth their weight in gold”—[Official Report, 1 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 493WH.]
and I agree. What practical measures have been introduced to strengthen training and development for those nurses, particularly those who support patients with the most complex needs?
Thirdly, will the Minister commit to working closely with charities such as Parkinson’s UK to ensure that the 10-year plan gives patients, carers and frontline staff the support they urgently need? Members on both sides of this Chamber share one goal: to get better diagnosis, better treatment and better support for people living with Parkinson’s. Action is what brings progress, and action is what our constituents need and deserve.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for the way he introduced the debate. Given the time, I will focus on the particular challenges that the Parky charter, which I strongly support, addresses.
Parkinson’s brings additional financial challenges for people with Parkinson’s and their families. In particular, I want to highlight the prescription charges faced by many people with Parkinson’s. England is the only part of the UK where people with Parkinson’s still pay for their prescriptions because the NHS medical exemption list has barely changed since it was created in 1968. To put that in context, that is the year that the Beatles’ “Hey Jude” was the UK’s biggest-selling single, and it was before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. Medical knowledge was far behind what it is today, and it was a long time yet before I would be born.
I gently suggest to the Minister that this is a very serious issue. People with Parkinson’s who cannot afford their prescription sometimes reduce their dose or skip medication, risking hospital admission and irreversible damage to their health. Many people with Parkinson’s already hesitate about taking medication—I think of my father, who had Parkinson’s—because they are worried about the side effects or have difficulty accepting their diagnosis. Having to pay for prescriptions simply creates an extra barrier or a reason not to start medication, but taking that medicine can significantly help with the day-to-day management of symptoms, and can prevent falls and hospital admissions.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I pay tribute to my constituent David Reid, who has done a huge amount of work to promote this petition, including by wearing his Parky charter T-shirt around the Scottish Borders. I met him most recently at the Border Union show, where he spoke about the petition’s importance and his hope that it would get enough support for us to have a debate, and here we are.
Parkinson’s impacts every aspect of people’s daily lives, from making a cup of tea to getting dressed, spending time with friends and family, and much more. According to Parkinson’s UK, around 14,000 people in Scotland have a diagnosis of Parkinson’s. Parkinson’s UK does outstanding work to support people with this terrible condition. In the Scottish Borders, I have met its teams many times, including recently in Galashiels, and have learned more about the helping hand it gives to people living with this terrible disease and to their families. I encourage anyone who is affected by Parkinson’s to attend one of its events if they need someone to talk to, need a bit more support, or simply want to get out and about to socialise. I thank everyone who volunteers for Parkinson’s UK in the Scottish Borders and across the UK. They do so much to ensure support for people living with the disease.
One in three people diagnosed with Parkinson’s are of working age, and more than 10,000 are under 50. We owe it to everyone with Parkinson’s to ensure they have the support they need and the best life they possible can.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I want to thank my constituent Ruth, who attended my recent drop-in surgery and asked me to speak today about an issue that is personal not only to her, but to my family and thousands of other families in my constituency and across the country. Ruth was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in March 2023 after a long, fragmented and exhausting journey. She went from GP to GP, and from test to test, waiting months and years for appointments. As her symptoms worsened, she felt that she had no choice but to seek a private neurologist, and she finally received the diagnosis that changed her life.
Community, information and honesty are the things that have helped Ruth since. That is why the “Movers and Shakers” podcast and organisations such as Parkinson’s UK are so important. Public figures speaking openly about related issues such as depression, the fear of falling and navigating care have cut through the stigma and reached thousands who felt unseen.
The Parky charter sets out clear, reasonable asks: faster access to consultants and follow-up care; clear guidance on diagnosis; a Parkinson’s passport to ease access to support; and timely access to physiotherapies, speech therapies and wider services. Parkinson’s is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. We need Parliament to act now. Families are asking for a system that does not leave them waiting, fighting or falling through the cracks.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Ms Lewell, and many congratulations to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing the debate.
As many Members have already said, a huge number of families have acquaintance with Parkinson’s. My old dad, who served in this House until 1997, lived with Parkinson’s and I am hugely honoured to be the patron of the Royal Sutton Coldfield and North Birmingham Parkinson’s Group, which does so much good and hard work in the royal town and elsewhere.
I pay special credit to Movers and Shakers, which is led by people living with Parkinson’s. Some of them are in the Public Gallery today. Movers and Shakers was started by Rory Cellan-Jones and Sir Nicholas Mostyn. The “Movers and Shakers” podcast has made a huge difference to so many people, and I am extremely grateful to Sir Nicholas for agreeing to come to Royal Sutton Coldfield next April.
There are just two key points that I want to emphasise today. The first is that we need more specialists and better access to specialists. We do not have enough neurologists in this country. People are supposed to have to wait for only 18 weeks to see a neurologist, but there is clear evidence of people waiting for between one and two years to see one, and of course most of those people will not have any medication in that period. There are 720 neurologists in the UK. There are 4,400 neurologists in Poland, which has half the UK’s population.
The second point is that we need more support for research. Inevitably, that is about funding. We need to harness the private and public sector together to maximise that funding. These two points seem to me to be two of the five key points that we are discussing in this debate.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
Imagine being told that you have a progressive, incurable condition and then waiting over a year just to see a specialist. That is the reality for so many people with Parkinson’s and the number of people with Parkinson’s is set to double by 2050. When my constituent Carol was diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2009, she was only 46 years old. Consultants told her then that they hoped a cure might come within a decade, but 16 years later there is nothing.
At this point, I must declare an interest. My daughter Molly is a PhD researcher with a brilliant team at the University of Southampton that is working to understand Parkinson’s, so that better treatments and cures can be found. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, I know that great work is also happening elsewhere, particularly through the Brain Bank at Imperial College London. However, research alone is not enough; people living with Parkinson’s need care now.
Just before the general election last year, the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, then in his shadow role, admitted in the “Parky Politics in the Pub” podcast that there were not enough neurologists and committed to fix it. He said:
“We campaigned hard on workforce to get the last Government to commit to doubling the number of medical places so we can train up staff—especially in neurology, where we have shortages.”
He said he would deliver that workforce plan, yet today waiting times are unacceptably long—not just for initial appointments, but for ongoing care.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I pay tribute to the 459 constituents of mine who have signed this important petition. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as swift access to neurologists, access to specialist nurses is absolutely vital, as is having a named GP for long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s disease? One of my constituents who wrote to me said that her father has just had his medication changed and is having real problems with it, but he will not get to see anybody until March. We could reduce unplanned admissions by improving support.
Vikki Slade
I am so pleased that my hon. Friend has made that intervention, because I am just coming on to tell people about my constituent in Wimborne. He said that he, his brother and his nephew have all been diagnosed with Parkinson’s. When he was first diagnosed, he saw a Parkinson’s nurse every six months and then saw one annually. However, because there is now just one specialist Parkinson’s nurse covering my constituency, he has seen nobody for two years.
Karen, who is also from Wimborne, emailed me and said that she had an appointment with a neurologist and then one with a nurse, but now faces a 14-month wait for her next appointment. Across England, as we have heard, only half of patients meet the 18-week target, even though we know that early support—physiotherapy, speech therapy and clear information—keeps people healthy for longer.
If the Government are serious about transforming the NHS, they cannot allow people with progressive conditions who need a multidisciplinary approach to be forgotten. The NHS workforce plan is due in the spring. What assurance can the Minister give that neurology and Parkinson’s care in particular will feature strongly? It is great that the Government have expanded medical places, but what assessment has been made of how that will translate to neurology services? Given the training time required to generate such expertise, what is being done to bring consultants here from abroad to tackle the crisis now?
In my constituency, 333 people are living with Parkinson’s. On average, each one will be admitted to hospital at least once a year, two-thirds of them in an emergency, which will mean spending a week, unplanned, in an acute bed. That is simply not acceptable and we need to do better now.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
In Stroud, 295 people have Parkinson’s disease, yet we had 960 admissions for it. Although we have a good turnout for the debate today, I believe that Parkinson’s gets less attention than other degenerative diseases. That must change, because it is much more common. As a GP, I would say that diagnosis for the disease is difficult. It can present in a huge number of ways—40 different symptoms, often with rigidity. The tremor can be due to other things such as essential tremor. It can even present with constipation or depression, and indeed with dementia, where it is called Lewy body dementia, which is associated with Parkinson’s. A GP cannot make the diagnosis; they have to wait for the outpatient specialist to make it, which is why the wait is so criminal.
We need comprehensive and co-ordinated care. I believe that neighbourhood health centres will be fantastic at delivering this care. Parkinson’s specialist nurses are absolutely crucial, as are multidisciplinary teams with physios and occupational therapists. Social prescribing—signposting and getting the right benefits—is also incredibly important. Indeed, there is good evidence that dancing is really good for Parkinson’s disease—that is something a little innovative. We need timely diagnosis of patients with Parkinson’s disease, and a co-ordinated and comprehensive care plan; and most of all, we need to give them back their dignity.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. As we have heard today, Parkinson’s is a life-changing, degenerative and deeply debilitating condition. I am grateful that we are taking the time to debate the issue and give voice to people living with Parkinson’s—people such as Matt Eagles, who lives in my constituency. Unlike many Parkinson’s sufferers, Matt has lived with the condition for more than 50 years. He was diagnosed at just seven years old. Parkinson’s, however, is not the defining thing about Matt; what truly stands out is his positivity. He speaks openly about the vulnerability and heartache, along with the courage, resilience and optimism that has helped him to navigate life with Parkinson’s. Matt has done a brilliant job of promoting the petition today, and is a passionate advocate for improving Parkinson’s care. Today’s debate is not only about recognising and championing people like Matt, who face the adversity of Parkinson’s with such optimism; it is a call to action for us as parliamentarians to engage seriously with how we can improve access to care and work towards a cure.
The Parky charter highlights some important changes to consider. Ensuring that everyone suspected of having Parkinson’s can see a specialist promptly and then have regular follow-ups is vital for timely and effective care. We need to provide people with immediate access to clear, relevant information when they are diagnosed, while the ongoing quest for a cure offers hope for a future where Parkinson’s no longer imposes such a heavy burden on those affected. Hope, support and dignity are what people with Parkinson’s deserve. I am deeply grateful to the 313 constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury who signed the petition, and to all those working towards a better future for those with Parkinson’s.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell, in this very important debate. I thank Parkinson’s UK, Parkinson’s Care and especially the “Movers and Shakers” podcast, whose dedication and campaigning led to the huge number of people signing the petition. I am sure the Minister has seen how many MPs are in the Chamber and how many people are in the Public Gallery today. Lots of people will be watching at home as well.
In Putney, 163 people have Parkinson’s disease. Across the South West London ICB, 2,540 people were admitted with the disease in 2024-25. Overall, the NHS spends £325 million a year on unplanned admissions of people with Parkinson’s. This is a very big issue, which rightly deserves the attention it is getting today. I hope for some great answers from the Minister about what the NHS will be doing. First, we need more specialists for faster diagnosis. Many Members have mentioned the delays in diagnosis today, which is true in my constituency, but also in Northern Ireland, where one in 20 people wait more than five years for a diagnosis. Has the Minister spoken to the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Mike Nesbitt, about this issue? What steps are the Government taking to solve the Parkinson’s diagnosis crisis? Secondly, we need instant information. St George’s University has the vital Parkinson’s Connect resource, and it is using it, but can that be rolled out throughout the country?
Thirdly, we need the Parkinson’s passport on social security. As many Members have mentioned, it is a fluctuating condition. The PIP system is failing people with Parkinson’s and their families and carers. Has that been raised with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms)? Comprehensive care and more funding will allow us to deliver care, dignity and hope to everyone living with Parkinson’s and their families.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I pay tribute to everyone in Wales and across the United Kingdom who has campaigned so hard for people living with Parkinson’s. In Wales, we expect the number of people living with Parkinson’s to rise to more than 9,000 by 2030. Yet too many people trying to access the most basic elements of care, from diagnosis to rehabilitation, still face a postcode lottery. Welsh health boards do not have reliable plans to replace specialist staff when they leave, which means long gaps in access to expert care. Given the ongoing shortages in neurology, people can wait far too long to see anyone with the right expertise. For a degenerative condition that demands regular and specialist review, that is simply unacceptable.
Wales saw some of the worst disruption to rehabilitation services during the pandemic, and many of those pressures have not fully eased. People with Parkinson’s still report difficulties accessing physiotherapy, speech and language therapy and occupational therapy. When rehabilitation breaks down, people deteriorate physically, mentally and socially, and carers are left to carry an enormous burden—many are older spouses whose health is already fragile, and they deserve a system that recognises and supports them. We must also fix the basics. In Wales, 73% of people with Parkinson’s in hospital say that they do not receive their medication on time. A delay of just 30 minutes can make the difference between going home or staying another week on a ward. That should not be happening.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on his excellent opening speech. In June this year, my father-in-law, Adrian Lawther, died after living with Parkinson’s for more than a decade. Adrian was a smart, decent and unassuming man, and very much lived the lessons of “two eyes and one mouth”. He did not miss a trick and spied everything, but only ever spoke when he needed to—a lesson he never managed to teach me, but one that I suspect quite a few of us around here would benefit from. He had an interest in the world around him and the world far overseas, and was incredibly kind and welcoming to me—which is no guarantee when marrying someone’s daughter. But for all the memories, the love, the grief and the sadness, we also saw up close the cruel impact of Parkinson’s on a person’s dignity and their quality of life, and on those around them.
Graeme Downie
I thank my hon. Friend for the moving way he has talked about his father-in-law. Does he agree that what he has said emphasises the need to make sure that families are also supported during Parkinson’s care?
Adam Jogee
I could not have put that better myself.
In Newcastle-under-Lyme, hundreds of local people live with Parkinson’s, and that number is rising. It is a life-altering disease that destroys personal autonomy; it affects someone’s ability to talk, swallow, move and write. Cruel is not the word. For those who are suffering and need treatment now, the lack of care provision and the inaccessible treatment is simply unacceptable.
I think of my friend Alderman Lizzie Shenton, a former leader of Newcastle-under-Lyme district borough council, who I saw just last week. She has been diagnosed with the early onset of Parkinson’s in her 50s. She is very healthy and still has much do to. Lizzie had to wait 10 months for a consultant appointment to make a formal diagnosis, and she has been waiting for her DaT scan for five months, without which no medication or treatment can be prescribed.
I pay tribute to the fantastic work being done by the North Staffs Parkinson’s UK branch—the chair, Lorraine, the treasurer, Councillor David Grocott and the whole committee who do wonderful things week in and week out. I thank the Dubb family from the Westlands in Newcastle-under-Lyme for their annual fundraising 5k run and a massive cookout at their home—which smelled very good—all raising money for Parkinson’s UK. My constituent Julie Hibbs has long campaigned to add Parkinson’s to the medical exemption list. The Minister knows that I support those calls—I have raised them with her and others, and I will continue to do so.
The funding and availability of care for Parkinson’s patients do not match the severity of this disease and the desperate need for proper treatment. Getting those suffering from Parkinson’s the right care at the right time is critical to ensuring that their quality of life is as high as it can be, and that the cost of providing that is used as efficiently as possible. As more and more of us get Parkinson’s, those who will suffer from it and their loved ones deserve to know that the question of getting the right treatment is not one they will ever have to worry about.
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
I am terribly sorry; we are not able to take any more Back-Bench speeches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I would like to begin by thanking the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this debate and for making such a well-articulated case for why more needs to be done to support people with Parkinson’s. I also thank him for mentioning the Big Sing, which brought to mind a brilliant event I went to in July: Picnic in the Park, hosted by the Parkinson’s UK Mid Sussex group. Their choir and their band were there, and we all had a brilliant singalong. I very much enjoyed it, and I pay tribute to the group for what it is doing—bringing people together and reducing isolation, both for those with Parkinson’s and their loved ones.
There are people like my constituent Sophie, whose mum Janet was diagnosed with Parkinson’s six years ago. Janet was active, spoke multiple languages and had an impressive career in business, but Sophie says that Parkinson’s has robbed Janet of much of who she is. Despite raising the loss of her sense of smell with her GP several times, as well as other symptoms such as increasingly small handwriting, it still took more than five years for Janet to get a diagnosis.
We know that Parkinson’s predominantly affects men, but much less is known or understood about Parkinson’s in women, including how symptoms might interact with menstrual cycles and the menopause. Sophie worries that the dismissive response Janet received when trying to get a diagnosis may be a very common experience for women across the board, and I think Sophie may be on to something here.
The e-petition bringing forward the Parky charter matters profoundly, and it makes a lot of sense. I will not spend time repeating many of the points that hon. Members have made in the past hour.
Rachel Gilmour
Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenges faced by those living with Parkinson’s are far from isolated, and that across neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, ME or chronic fatigue syndrome, there are calls for a joined-up neuro-optimal care pathway? A coherent national strategy is what is required.
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend makes her point very well, and I agree with it.
Rather than repeat what other hon. Members have said, I will move to identifying the three or four main areas that the Liberal Democrats want to highlight, hopefully giving the Minister more time to address the many points that hon. Members have raised so far in the debate. Those issues are mental health, social care, work and medicines availability.
On mental health—and I think this is a critical point—nearly half of people with Parkinson’s experience anxiety or depression, and up to 60% will experience psychotic symptoms as the condition progresses. Yet mental health support remains inconsistent and inadequate generally, and specifically for people with Parkinson’s.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the importance of mental health support for people suffering from Parkinson’s disease. Will she join me in paying tribute to my constituent Peter Cook, who is doing great work as a trustee of the Parkinsons.Me charity, and also to Paul Mayhew-Archer MBE, who, as well as having written “The Vicar of Dibley,” is now doing fantastic work campaigning for people suffering from Parkinson’s disease?
Alison Bennett
Of course I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Peter Cook and to Paul Mayhew-Archer for their campaigning.
The Liberal Democrats believe that people deserve regular mental health check-ups, access to walk-in mental health hubs and timely specialist dementia care. No one should have to fight the system while they are already fighting their condition. Social care is a crisis that cannot be ignored any longer. Parkinson’s is a progressive and fluctuating condition that affects every aspect of daily life, yet people are too often left without the support that they need to live with dignity.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that diagnosis is just the beginning, because too many people tell us that after receiving that life-changing news, they just feel abandoned? Nearly one quarter receive no information about Parkinson’s services and no adequate information about their condition, so does my hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure that they receive that?
Alison Bennett
I am happy to agree. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and it also applies to the loved ones of people receiving a Parkinson’s diagnosis.
We need better social care for all people when they are faced with a disability. We need there to be more respite breaks, paid carer’s leave and a system that recognises the specific needs of people with neurological conditions.
On work—here I am thinking in particular of my friend Rob, whom many of my hon. Friends will also know—we must ensure that people who have Parkinson’s and are of working age can live and work and participate in work with independence and dignity wherever possible. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are fighting for a new right to flexible working, and the right to work from home for every disabled person unless there is a significant business reason otherwise.
The Liberal Democrats also want to adopt a new accessibility standard for public spaces and embed in UK law the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. We want to ensure that support moves with the person and does not just stay with the original employer. That is why we are calling for adjustment passports—records of the modifications, equipment and adjustments that a disabled person uses—so that when they change jobs, their support goes with them. That seems to be plain common sense.
On medicines and their availability, we must speed up access to new treatments. It is simply unacceptable that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has seen its workforce cut.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I want to commend the Poole and District Branch of Parkinson’s UK but also, on that particular point, tell the story of Carla, whose husband was affected by a lack of access to time-critical medication. Does the hon. Member agree that it is critical that the Government do everything they can to speed up access?
Alison Bennett
I agree wholeheartedly.
The MHRA workforce has been cut by 40%, and that has slowed down the arrival of new therapies for people who desperately need them. We should be halving the time it takes for new treatments to reach patients, not lengthening it.
None of this is impossible. It requires us to listen to people living with Parkinson’s—really listen to their fears, needs, hopes and experiences. The Parky charter sets out a clear and achievable path. It demands dignity and fairness, and that the Government finally deliver the timely, specialist, compassionate care that every person with Parkinson’s—like Sophie’s mum, Janet—should be able to count on. Today, let us send a message to everyone living with Parkinson’s: we see you; we hear you; and we stand with you. I want to send an equally clear message to the Government and the Minister, whom I thank for being here today: the time for half measures and for excuses is over. The time to act—seriously, decisively and with compassion—is now.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this debate and I thank the charities and organisations including Parkinson’s UK and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine for meeting me and sharing the insights into Parkinson’s that they have as patients and clinicians.
In the UK, 166,000 people have Parkinson’s. It is a progressive neurological disorder that can start with a tremor or muscle stiffness, sleep problems or a whole range of symptoms, and end in complications such as swallowing difficulties, falls and bone fractures. Like all degenerative conditions, it impacts not only the individual but their family. It is vital that our NHS has the neurologists and therapists to care for people with Parkinson’s, because they depend on them for world-leading care. Unfortunately, this is an area in which we could do better. The UK was ranked 44th out of 45 European countries for the number of neurologists per head of population. The UK has only one neurologist per 100,000 patients, compared with one for every 25,000 patients in France and Germany, and one in five patients here has no access to a Parkinson’s disease nurse.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The real-world experience in North Norfolk is very much like that. It is a struggle to secure the care that people need. We have a shortage of specialist care and Parkinson’s nurses, and those are just some of the things that our rural health system struggles with. Does the hon. Member agree that those living with Parkinson’s in rural communities such as North Norfolk need support and care provided in a way that is equally accessible to them?
Dr Johnson
As I am a rural MP myself, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I agree with him.
The problem is with wider specialisms, too. According to the 2022 audit by Parkinson’s UK, just 40% of people with Parkinson’s had access to a speech and language therapist, 45% had access to an occupational therapist and 62% had access to a physiotherapist. I want to particularly highlight that to the Minister because there are no treatments that slow down the progression of Parkinson’s disease, but evidence published last year suggests that exercise might do, so physiotherapy—making sure that people are doing the right exercises to help them—is important. What plans does the Minister have to recruit, train and retain the NHS Parkinson’s health workforce? For the benefit of charities, hospitals and patients, will she shed any light on how her delayed long-term workforce plan, when it is published, might assist in that mission?
As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), Parkinson’s disease patients can live for many years, often with huge positivity. I was inspired to read of Neil Russell, a 65-year-old gentleman who ran from London to Barcelona—almost 1,000 miles—to raise money for Parkinson’s disease research. One in three of those living with Parkinson’s is of working age. It is crucial that they can get support, because many work as doctors, nurses, chief executives, scientists, journalists and in other professions. I was inspired by a meeting that I was privileged to have with Dr Acheson last week. He is not only working as an A&E consultant, after being diagnosed with Parkinson’s almost 10 years ago, but is leading work on a time-critical medicines project.
We have already heard that medicines for Parkinson’s are time critical. If people with Parkinson’s do not get their medication within 30 minutes of the prescribed time, it can lead to them being unable to walk, talk or swallow. Research by Parkinson’s UK has found that 58% of people with Parkinson’s—a clear majority—do not get their medication on time every time when in hospital. That will not only cost hospitals £65.8 million in excess bed days and readmissions, but cost over 150 people their lives this year. That is inexcusable.
Just half of NHS trusts provide staff with training for time-critical medication, and one in four trusts in England does not have policies allowing people with Parkinson’s to take their own medication in hospital. That leaves patients capable but unable to take their medication, and they suffer detriment as a result. I was pleased that last week—following repeated questions to the Minister, both in the Chamber and outside—that the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), met me, Dr Simin Nikou from the RCEM, and Dr Acheson to talk about self-administration of medicines. I am pleased that the Minister was able to commit that the chief pharmaceutical officer will work with those individuals to ensure that there is a protocol for self-administered medicines in A&E for those who are capable of taking them, and to ensure that the protocols for time-critical medicines are enhanced.
NHS England launched a three-year national quality improvement initiative on time-critical medications that is not yet complete. I worried that the Minister’s eagerness to merge NHS England and her own Department may cause such ongoing initiatives to be simply lost. I encourage the Minister to correct me if I am wrong but, from conversations with her ministerial colleague, I understand that NHS England’s three-year initiative on time-critical medicines will be completed.
Research is important because, at the moment, treatment for Parkinson’s is symptom-relief treatment, not disease-modifying treatment. In fact, some of it is not symptom-relief; it is treatment to relieve side effects of the treatments that are providing symptom relief. Ramping up research is an important step towards finding better treatment, and hopefully chasing down a cure for Parkinson’s.
Between 2019 and 2024, the last Conservative Government invested almost £80 million into research for Parkinson’s disease, on top of a £375 million investment over five years for research into neurodegenerative diseases. Will the Minister confirm whether that funding commitment will be renewed as part of her Government’s spending review? What assessment has the Minister made of companies pulling out of billions of pounds of life sciences investment in the UK? How does she think that will impact critical research into conditions such as Parkinson’s? Is she working with her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to resolve matters for the health sector?
Within the treatments that we have so far, Produodopa was approved in February 2024, and made available on the NHS, under the last Conservative Government, to around 900 people with Parkinson’s. As people with Parkinson’s often struggle with taking numerous tablets to manage fluctuating symptoms, delivering a continuous dose of medication 24 hours a day by a canula under the skin can be ideal to manage symptoms day and night. What assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of Produodopa so far? What steps is she taking to make sure that more people with Parkinson’s have access to that potentially life-changing treatment? More broadly, what is she doing to mitigate the supply issues for some Parkinson’s medications?
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, particularly because I had a magnificent speech I was not able to make. She is speaking about health-related issues, but I want to draw attention to the personal independence payment assessment process for people with Parkinson’s, and to reference the adult disability payment in Scotland. Does the shadow Minister agree that there is a much better system for assessing people’s needs, and would she recommend it to the Minister?
Dr Johnson
The debate today is about the Parky charter. I am sure the Minister will answer that question in her speech—at least I hope she will.
The Government established the Neuro Forum, which was designed to address the gaps in treatment and care for people affected by neurological conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, but its achievements so far are unclear. Progress in this space demands clear action, not just empty roundtables, so will the Minister confirm how many times the Neuro Forum has met in the year since it was established, what budget and resources have been allocated to it, and what its successes have been so far?
The Government want to shift towards technology. New, affordable technology is available: focused ultrasound can help with tremor; at the most invasive, there are deep brain stimulators. There is also very simple technology. I recently met the former MP Steve Double, who gave me a device that shakes to put on my wrist for a few minutes. Apparently, people find that it helps with dyskinesia, rigidity, walking problems and speech difficulties. What assessment has the Minister made of the benefits of technology as a treatment pathway for people living with Parkinson’s in the UK? What is she doing to facilitate research so that, when someone has a good idea that may benefit patients, it is brought to the fore as quickly as possible?
I note the Minister’s response to a written question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). Will she clarify whether NHS England’s neurology transformation programme will indeed be concluding at the end of this financial year? Will she reassure us that the conclusion of the programme, which includes Parkinson’s disease treatments, is not related to the Department’s abolition of NHS England? What will she replace it with?
The linchpin of the e-petition is that it asks the Government to consider implementing the Parky charter, which encompasses faster diagnosis, better support, welfare support, access to multidisciplinary care and investment in research—all things that I and others call on the Minister to give answers to today. Given the Government’s decision to do away with the major conditions strategy, I am concerned that Parkinson’s disease will not get the research and workforce it requires.
People can live with Parkinson’s for very many years. For the quality of life of the patients and their families, greater consistency is urgently required in the administration of time-critical medicines in hospitals. Parkinson’s is a condition that is time-critical by its neurodegenerative nature; the Minister’s actions must be equally urgent and time-critical.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the debate, as well as everyone who signed the petition for raising this important issue and the many hon. Members who contributed.
I acknowledge each one of the 18 Back-Bench speeches and numerous interventions, and particularly all the constituents and campaigners that hon. and right hon. Members mentioned. We also have a packed Public Gallery, which goes to show just how important this issue is. I will attempt to answer as many questions as possible. I am unlikely to answer all of them, but my officials have noted every question asked; anything that I do not cover in my speech will be covered in writing to the hon. Member involved.
Parkinson’s disease presents one of the most complex and growing challenges for our health and care system. Given an ageing population and the condition’s rising prevalence, Parkinson’s demands not only specialist clinical expertise, but co-ordinated social care, community support, and innovative approaches to treatment and management. The impact on those affected is profound, and addressing their needs requires a system that is integrated and responsive to both current pressures and future demands.
The Parky charter is a five-point manifesto created by the Movers and Shakers to tackle what are described as “systematic failings” in care. It calls on Government to deliver five commitments: speedy access to specialists, instant information for patients, a Parkinson’s passport to streamline support, comprehensive and co-ordinated care, and a renewed quest for a cure. The charter aims to ensure timely diagnosis, dignity and better quality of life for everyone affected by this fast-growing neurological condition. I had the pleasure of meeting some of the Movers and Shakers only a few weeks ago, along with Parkinson’s UK. I recognise the urgency of their calls. I shared with them my commitment to improving outcomes for people with Parkinson’s and their families.
I acknowledge the need to improve access to Parkinson’s specialists. Through the elective recovery plan, the aim is for 92% of patients to start consultant-led treatment within 18 weeks by March 2029, supported by millions of additional elective appointments across specialties, including neurology. Our recently published 10-year health plan for England sets out a vision for neighbourhood health services, bringing multidisciplinary teams closer to communities and ensuring that Parkinson’s expertise is embedded in care pathways. We will also publish a 10-year workforce plan, which will ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places with the right skills for patients when they need them, including patients with Parkinson’s. Those measures, combined with digital consultations and integrated care models, aim to reduce waiting times, tackle workforce shortages and deliver timely, personalised care for people living with Parkinson’s.
As of August 2025, there are over 2,000 full-time equivalent doctors working in the speciality of neurology in NHS trusts and other core organisations in England. That is over 90—nearly 5%—more than in 2024. It includes over 1,000 full-time consultants, which is almost 50—over 5%—more than in 2024. We will soon publish a 10-year workforce plan to create a workforce ready to deliver a transformed service.
Sadly, Parkinson’s cannot currently be cured, but it can be managed effectively with the right interventions. That is why we have embedded Parkinson’s care with broader neurological strategies, including the neurology transformation programme and the RightCare progressive neurological conditions toolkit. Those initiatives aim to reduce variation in care, improve safety and deliver integrated services across the NHS. They set out what good treatment looks like and support integrated care systems to provide the right service at the right time.
We are also taking steps to ensure that people have better access to information. In the 10-year health plan, there is a strong emphasis on using technology and community-based services to provide joined-up care and practical advice closer to home. Initiatives such as Diagnosis Connect, partly inspired by Parkinson’s UK’s referral programme, will help newly diagnosed individuals to receive instant information and support from trusted sources. We are expanding access to digital health tools so that patients and carers can manage symptoms, access guidance and connect with specialist teams without delay.
Consistent and timely access to medicines is key to maintaining a good quality of life and good symptom control for people with Parkinson’s, as well as preventing the complications that could otherwise lead to unnecessary hospital admissions. A focus on time-critical medicines is a key priority for NHS England’s medicines safety improvement programme, which is seeking to reduce severe, avoidable harm associated with medicines. Work is currently under way involving 80 NHS trusts, with 48 of them receiving active support for innovation and improvement. Practical tools such as the RightCare toolkit and resources from Parkinson’s UK’s “Get It On Time” campaign are also helping staff and patients to plan for hospital stays and optimise medication schedules.
While we currently have no plans to offer automatic entitlement to benefits, reforms to the welfare system are intended to improve support for people with long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s. Proposals in our “Pathways to Work” Green Paper mark a significant step in that regard, by moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach, so that people receive the tailored help needed to live with dignity and independence, and to work if they are able to do so.
For those who cannot work, we will guarantee a strong safety net, so that those with the most severe lifelong health conditions have their incomes protected through an additional premium and are exempt from future reassessment. We have recently published our consultation response to the Green Paper recently, and we will set out detailed policy proposals in due course.
Any changes to personal independence payment eligibility will come after the Timms review—an ambitious and inclusive review that aims to ensure that we have a system that supports disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through employment. To ensure that lived experience is at the heart of that work, the review will be co-produced with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts.
There is currently no plan to review the medical exemption list of conditions. However, I assure all Members that I am acutely aware of the list, and that it has been added to only once since its inception in 1968, which was to add cancer in 2009. However, approximately 89% of prescription items are currently dispersed free of charge, and a wide range of exemptions from prescription charges exist, including free prescriptions for everyone under the age of 19—or 16 if they are in full-time employment—and over 60.
Innovative treatments are transforming the outlook for people with Parkinson’s disease. The NHS has recently rolled out—let me try to say it now—Produodopa. No, I did not do well on that, but it is helping patients with advanced Parkinson’s to achieve more stable symptom control and to improve quality of life. The technology uses a small, wearable pump to deliver medication under the skin, managing symptoms more steadily through the day and night than traditional oral tablets. The 10-year plan commits to make wearables standard in preventive, chronic and post-acute NHS treatment by 2035. We will provide devices for free in areas where need and deprivation are highest. Alongside such research, we are driving breakthroughs in cell and gene therapies, and large-scale trials testing multiple disease-modifying drugs.
Of course, future progress depends on research, which is why my Department invests more than £1.6 billion each year on research through its research delivery arm, the National Institute for Health and Care Research. In the financial year 2024-25, the NIHR has committed £6 million to Parkinson’s disease projects through its research programmes. In addition, last month, the world’s largest clinical trial for treatments to stop or slow the progression of Parkinson’s opened for recruitment. I encourage researchers to keep applying for funding through the NIHR. We would love to see more proposals.
We have set up the UK-wide Neuro Forum to work across the four nations. I will ask officials to explore a conversation specifically on Parkinson’s and how better to share practice across the four nations.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for opening the debate, and all Members who have contributed to the actions I have outlined. The reforms echo the priorities set out in the Parky charter. By aligning policy with the charter’s five key asks, we can build a health and care system that delivers dignity, certainty and hope for every person with Parkinson’s and their families.
Paul Davies
I will be brief, Ms Lewell. First, many thanks again to the Movers and Shakers group—the work it puts in is absolutely fantastic and amazing. I also thank all hon. Members for their contributions; it has been an excellent debate. The Minister will have seen that the consensus across the Chamber is very clear on what we need to do.
During the debate, I was thinking of my constituent, Liz Ryan, whom I mentioned. She suffers from Parkinson’s, and she is an amazing individual. She just wants to have her independence, to be treated with dignity and to live life to the fullest she can with this condition. She is not alone, and I know from talking to other sufferers that that is exactly what they want too. Let us adopt the Parky charter. Let us do the work we need to do to give those people that chance.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 713714 relating to funding and care for people with Parkinson’s.
Cabinet Office
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way; it is much appreciated. Just briefly, those standards are very much welcomed, particularly in my constituency. Does he agree that they must be applied at parish and town council level too? We want expectations aligned across all public services.
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend raises a very good point, although I should remind him that I think parish councils are about to be abolished in the local government reorganisation so we might have to look at that, but I take his point, which is a fair one.
[Official Report, 12 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 286.]
Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward):
School Funding
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Publication of provisional funding allocations for mainstream schools and local authorities in 2026-27, through the schools, high needs and central school services national funding formulae, has been delayed from the usual timetable due to the timing of the spending review and the need to ensure that rigorous quality assurance processes have been completed in full.
The Department for Education has received a number of requests for clarification of when the allocations will be published. Finalisation of the NFFs is being pursued as a matter of urgency. Our priority will be to publish the schools NFF shortly in order to allow local authorities to proceed with preparation of their local schools formulae.
[HCWS1059]
Hydro Benefit Replacement Scheme
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I am tabling this statement to inform Members of the outcome of the statutory review of the hydro benefit replacement scheme and the common tariff obligation, which help protect consumers in the north of Scotland from inherently high costs of electricity distribution in this region.
Electricity network charges are paid primarily by suppliers and then passed on to consumers. These charges are split into those for the high voltage transmission network, and the low voltage distribution network. It costs significantly more to operate and maintain the electricity distribution network in the north of Scotland than elsewhere, due to its large and sparsely populated terrain. Under the principle of cost reflectivity, this means consumers in this area face higher distribution network charges.
The hydro benefit replacement scheme was established under the Energy Act 2004 and provides an annual cross-subsidy—£112 million in 2024-25—which will reduce electricity distribution charges for consumers in the region by around £70 per household in 2025-26. It is funded by electricity suppliers across Great Britain, and hence ultimately by consumers, at an annual average cost of between £1 and £1.50 per household.
The common tariff obligation places a requirement on suppliers’ charging arrangements in the north of Scotland to ensure domestic consumers are not charged different prices based on their location within the region. There is no direct monetary amount attached to the common tariff obligation.
There is a statutory requirement to review the hydro benefit replacement scheme every three years. There has been a long-standing ministerial commitment to review the common tariff obligation alongside the hydro benefit replacement scheme.
The Government have reviewed these schemes through engagement with our delivery partners in Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks and Ofgem, combined with analysis of distribution charges and the assistance amount. The north of Scotland continues to have significantly higher charges compared to the rest of GB and therefore it remains appropriate for assistance to be targeted. The review concluded that the current design continues to strike the right balance between protecting consumers in the north of Scotland and maintaining the benefits of cost-reflective charging, which promotes efficient use of the network and minimises overall system costs. As such, the schemes will be retained in their current form.
The Government’s recent decision on reformed national pricing has no impact on the outcome of this review.
[HCWS1061]
Renters’ Rights Act: Implementation Road Map
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
In their manifesto, the Government promised to overhaul the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector. The Renters’ Rights Act delivers on that commitment.
The Act will empower renters by providing them with greater security, rights and protections so that they can stay in their homes for longer, build lives in their communities and avoid the risk of homelessness. It will ensure that we can drive up the quality of privately rented housing so that renters have access to good-quality and safe homes as a matter of course. It will allow us to crack down on the minority of unscrupulous landlords who exploit, mistreat or discriminate against renters.
The Act will also provide tangible benefits for responsible landlords who provide high-quality homes and a good service to their tenants. Not only will it improve the reputation of the sector as a whole, but it will also ensure that good landlords enjoy clear regulation, better access to information, and clear and expanded possession grounds, so that they can regain their properties quickly when necessary.
I am announcing the publication of “Implementing the Renters’ Rights Act 2025: Our roadmap for reforming the Private Rented Sector”.
The document, a copy of which I will deposit in the Library, provides an overview of our implementation plans for the coming years and includes detail on how we will phase our reforms and when they will come into force.
We intend to implement the Act in three distinct phases:
In the first phase of our reforms, we will implement the new tenancy regime. This will apply to both new and existing tenancies and will come into force on 1 May 2026. In this phase, section 21 evictions will finally be abolished; we will move to a simpler tenancy structure where all assured tenancies are periodic; the practice of landlords demanding large amounts of rent in advance from tenants will be brought to an end; rental bidding will be prohibited; and tenants will be given strengthened rights to request a pet.
In the second phase of our reforms, from late 2026, we will introduce the new private rented sector database and private rented sector landlord ombudsman service. The database will help landlords understand their obligations and demonstrate compliance; will increase transparency and facilitate better access to information for tenants so they can take effective action to enforce their rights; and will support local authorities with effective enforcement. The ombudsman will provide quick, fair, impartial and binding resolution for tenants’ complaints about their landlord and will bring tenant-landlord complaint resolution in line with established redress practices for tenants in social housing and consumers of property agent services.
In the third and final phase of our reforms—dates to be settled following consultation—we will apply a modernised decent homes standard and Awaab’s law to the private rented sector for the first time. Extending the decent homes standard to the sector will give renters safer, better value homes and remove the blight of poor-quality homes in local communities. Extending Awaab’s law will set clear legal expectations about the timeframes within which landlords in the private rented sector must take action to make homes safe where they contain serious hazards.
The Government look forward to ongoing engagement with all stakeholders to ensure a smooth implementation of this transformative Act.
[HCWS1060]