Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I am pleased to report that both access to general practice and patient satisfaction with general practice have improved since Labour came to office. Over 75% of patients find it easy to contact their practice —an improvement of 14 percentage points since the general election. Not only have we recruited an extra 2,500 GPs; crucially, more patients are receiving continuity of care, backed by an additional £1.1 billion. Lots done, lots to do, and certainly a long way to go, but general practice is on the road to recovery.
Alex Baker
I am proud to see this Government’s improvements to GP services making a real difference locally, with over 2,000 more GPs hired and new investment already reaching practices like Jenner House surgery in Farnborough. However, many of my older and more vulnerable constituents tell me they are still struggling to get through on GP phone lines, especially as more practices move online. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that phone lines remain accessible for those who rely on them, so that everyone benefits from our NHS health plan? [Interruption.]
Wes Streeting
Well, Mr Speaker, you couldn’t script this! We have a doctor in the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley)—whose phone was alive as this very issue was raised by my hon. Friend, such is the commitment of doctors in our NHS to be available to patients wherever and whenever they are needed.
This Labour Government were elected on a pledge to end the 8 am scramble, and that is exactly what we are doing. We know that not everyone wants to contact their practice online. That is why practices must offer patients the option to telephone or visit in person in addition to online access. I thank GPs up and down the country for the work they are doing and the progress we are making in improving online access, access generally and patient satisfaction—lots done, lots to do.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
The number of qualified GPs in Buckinghamshire has risen by 8% in the last year thanks to this Government’s determination to recruit and retain more GPs. It is a great start, but I still hear from too many people in Aylesbury who cannot get through to their GP surgery or cannot get a quick enough appointment when they do. My constituent Jane, whose husband had suffered a stroke, was advised that he needed a GP appointment the next day, but it took a month to get one. I know my right hon. Friend is determined to keep improving access to primary care for people in Aylesbury and across the country, so can he set out his next steps?
Wes Streeting
I certainly can, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend’s constituent was let down. Everyone who needs a same-day appointment should be able to book one, and that is what we are working towards. As she says, we are recruiting more GPs. We are also investing £102 million to create additional space for appointments, including in 21 GP practices in my hon. Friend’s local integrated care board system. Nowhere is the state of the NHS, and the crumbling legacy we inherited, more evident than in the NHS estate, and that is why I am proud that in her Budget, the Chancellor will be setting out plans to roll out a new generation of neighbourhood health centres to deal with the crumbling NHS we inherited and to build an NHS that is fit for the future.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
There are a number of exciting opportunities for extended GP premises in my constituency—in places like Martins Oak in Battle, Little Common and Old Town, and Oldwood in Robertsbridge. One major challenge is the rates that the NHS district valuer is willing to offer for construction sites; they have just not kept up with the inflation we have seen across all sectors of construction. I did have a meeting with the Minister for Care and it was helpful to start those discussions, but we have not made the progress that we need to. Can we have a further meeting, and will the Secretary of State outline what he will do to ensure that district valuers are offering rates that can allow construction to go ahead?
Wes Streeting
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising some of the practical challenges that stand in our way to improving and expanding the primary care estate. We are looking into the issues that he raises. We want to ensure that we can modernise the estate as effectively and quickly as possible. When there is progress to report, I have no doubt that the Minister for Care will be in touch.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Over the summer, my team and I conducted a health survey across my constituency, and 40% of those living in the most deprived and most urban parts of my patch—Heaviley, Little Moor and Great Moor—were struggling to access GPs. What more can the Secretary of State do to ensure that urban and deprived communities get their fair share of GP access?
Wes Streeting
I am sure that the hon. Member’s constituents will have noticed what an assiduous and active Member of Parliament she has been in actively soliciting their views. I hope that they and she will find it reassuring to know that we are taking action to deal with the very inequalities that she mentions. The Royal College of General Practitioners found that in the poorest parts of the country, there are an extra 300 patients per GP. It cannot be right that the poorest parts of the country receive the poorest service too. That is why we are reforming the Carr-Hill formula so that deprivation is the driver of funding and prioritisation. That will help us to improve services for everyone and to tackle the gross health inequalities that blight our society.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
Too many people are waiting too long for mental health support. Since coming into office, the Government have put mental health support services on the road to recovery. We promised 8,500 more mental health staff by the end of the Parliament, and we have already recruited 6,500 of them. We are introducing the first 24/7 mental health crisis support services through NHS 111, and we have rolled out mental health support to schools and colleges across the country, providing help to 5 million children and young people.
Liz Twist
Our mental health system is still suffering from the strain of 14 years of Conservative government. Rethink Mental Illness has reported that 12 times as many people are now waiting for mental health treatment than for physical health treatment. Nearly one third of those surveyed attempted suicide while waiting, and one in five lost their jobs. What are the Government doing to tackle those long waits and offer support to people before they reach crisis point?
Dr Ahmed
I thank my hon. Friend for all her tireless work to improve the lives of people living with mental illness and to prevent suicide. The 10-year health plan will build on the work that has already been done to reduce waiting lists, including through an extra £688 million of real-terms investment this year, the hiring of more staff and the expansion of talking therapies for an extra 380,000 patients. In addition, as she will know, the Mental Health Bill, which is in its final parliamentary stages, will modernise legislation and make a significant impact on the lives of those who live with mental illness.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
My all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders recently published a report on preventing eating disorder-related death. The report highlighted that eating disorders are not accurately recorded on death certificates. I was promised an update from the Minister for Women’s Health and Mental Health over two months ago, but am yet to receive one. How much longer will I have to wait?
Dr Ahmed
I am genuinely sorry that the hon. Lady has not received the reply to which she is entitled. I will look into it myself, take it up with my ministerial colleague, and ensure that a reply is expedited in the fashion in which it should have been in the first place.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Thanks to our investment and modernisation of the NHS, the Government are putting cancer services on the road to recovery by opening up community diagnostic centres on evenings and weekends, building new surgical hubs and investing in new radiotherapy machines. We are diagnosing cancer faster and treating it sooner. This year, an extra 193,000 patients received a timely diagnosis or the all-clear compared with the previous year. I am pleased to report that cancer services in north-west London rank among the best performing in England, and we are committed to further improvement.
Gareth Thomas
Northwick Park hospital is the acute hospital serving my constituents. It benefits from having excellent cancer clinicians. They are determined to go ever further to improve the speed of diagnosis and the quality of support for those diagnosed with cancer, and are developing plans for a cancer centre for the hospital. As part of the roll-out of the national cancer plan, would my hon. Friend be willing to visit and meet those clinicians, and perhaps bring the Secretary of State’s chequebook with her?
Karin Smyth
As my kids would say, that is a bit boomer, but I take the point. My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner for Northwick Park and his constituents, and he has long campaigned for the improvement of cancer services. Any reconfiguration or change to services needs to be clinically led by local decision makers, following engagement with patients and stakeholders. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who is developing the cancer plan, would be happy to meet him to discuss services in his constituency.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Mount Vernon hospital is a cancer specialist hospital in north-west London. Following the recent closure of the Mount Vernon urgent care centre and the delay to the new Watford general hospital until at least 2032, both of which I have previously raised in the Chamber, uncertainty regarding the future of Hemel Hempstead hospital now looks set to further restrict access to vital healthcare services for my constituents. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that my constituents receive the adequate access to healthcare that they deserve?
Karin Smyth
This question is about services across north-west London. We are working with all integrated care boards to ensure that they work with local Members of Parliament about service configuration. It is a matter for them to determine. I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman previously. We are determined to ensure that we have the best services for people in their local areas based on clinical need. Today I have been talking about neighbourhood health services, for example. As we develop the health service plan and put right the mistakes of the past in getting the new hospital programme on to a sustainable footing, all of this will be considered in the round. I am happy to keep talking with him.
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
In England, for the first time in 15 years, waiting lists are falling. Through record investment and modernisation, we have cut backlogs by more than 230,000, and we smashed our target for additional appointments in our first year, delivering more than 5 million. There is a long way to go, but the NHS in England is on the road to recovery. Unfortunately, in Scotland the SNP cannot seem to get the car started.
Elaine Stewart
While the NHS is on the road to recovery in England thanks to the investment of this Labour Government, there are 61,000 patients in NHS Ayrshire and Arran on a waiting list for treatment, almost 11,000 of them for over one year. Does the Minister agree that after record levels of funding for Scotland in the last Budget, people in my constituency should be asking the First Minister and his Government, “Where’s the money gone, John?”
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. More patients are waiting a year for treatment in Ayrshire and Arran than in the entire south-west of England—that is shocking. Thanks to the investment the Chancellor has made, Scotland is receiving an extra £1.5 billion this year and £3.4 billion next year—the biggest funding increase since devolution. Labour is cutting waiting lists in England. Labour is cutting waiting lists in Wales. Why is the SNP failing where Labour is succeeding?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State has failed to end industrial action like he said he would. How is that helping to reduce waiting lists?
Wes Streeting
Industrial action sets back our progress on waiting lists, but frankly, the Conservatives presided over an absolute mess—not just over the course of 14 years, when waiting lists rose every single year during the Conservatives’ time in power, but in their catastrophic mishandling of industrial relations. We came in, and we settled with the British Medical Association—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Fox, you were the last voice I heard. I want to hear what the Secretary of State has to say. If you do not want to, you can go and get a cup of tea.
Wes Streeting
We came in, and we settled with the resident doctors with a 28.9% pay rise. It should be clear to them from the questions that Opposition Members have asked and the extent to which they have opposed a pay rise for not just resident doctors but NHS staff more generally that there is not a more pro-NHS, pro-doctor Health Secretary or Government waiting in the wings. It is either the Conservative party, which lumbered the NHS in this crisis in the first place, or the Reform party, which does not believe in the NHS at all.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I would first like to say I am sorry that the Minister for Public Health and Prevention is unwell and convey to her the best wishes of the Opposition.
I would like the Secretary of State to consider a patient who has waited a year for a procedure and then, after three waiting list validation calls, finally sees the consultant to check that the procedure is still necessary. If the consultant agrees that it is, do the Government figures show that patient as waiting for a year or a much shorter period?
Wes Streeting
A clock stop would be in place from the moment the patient saw the consultant. The reason we have had to do waiting list validation is that, in addition to driving waiting lists up, the Conservative party presided over a total shambles where patients were often waiting in duplicate slots on the waiting list, removed from waiting lists unnecessarily or waiting far too long. That is the mess we inherited from the Conservative party.
Wes Streeting
It is no use shadow Ministers heckling from the sidelines. When they had the chance, they drove waiting lists up, and they drove the NHS into the abyss.
Dr Johnson
The Secretary of State does not seem entirely sure, so perhaps he can write to us with an answer—
Dr Johnson
As someone who is on the waiting list myself, I do hope that the Secretary of State is correct. Waiting lists for procedures and operations requiring day care or overnight admission are both rising and higher than they were a year ago. Orthopaedic surgery waiting lists are up, yet this Government scrapped our major conditions strategy and say that they have no plans for a musculoskeletal conditions framework. Gynaecology surgery waiting lists are up, yet the Government scrapped and are now reviewing the women’s health strategy. Waits for procedures and operations in ophthalmology, general surgery, neurology and gastroenterology are going up too. When is the Secretary of State going to get a grip of the surgical waiting lists?
Wes Streeting
I honestly cannot believe the brass neck of Conservative Members; their time in government led to the longest waiting times and lowest patient satisfaction in the history of the national health service. The best news I can offer the shadow Minister, and others like her who are on a waiting list, is that we have a Labour Government who are reducing waiting lists for the first time in more than 15 years.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
We inherited a crumbling NHS estate. Many hospitals, including Doncaster Royal infirmary, are in a state of disrepair, thanks to the shocking record of the last 14 years. When I visited Doncaster Royal, I saw at first hand the outstanding care staff are providing despite significant infrastructure challenges. That is why the Government have supported Doncaster and Bassetlaw trust with £19.8 million in national funding to redevelop the critical care unit, and another £3.2 million from the estate safety fund for fire safety work. We have also provided nine years of certainty for maintenance budgets, allowing trusts to plan strategically and deliver further improvements.
Sally Jameson
As the Minister outlined, Doncaster was badly let down under the previous Administration, when after much fanfare and promise we were left off the new hospital programme. Since then, the trust has been working on revised capital projects to keep it going in the interim period, including a much-needed rebuild of the east block. Will the Minister continue to work with me and the trust to deal with the critical state of DRI?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend has been the most tireless campaigner on this issue since coming to the House in July 2024, so of course I will continue to work with her to support her local hospital. The previous Government neglected the NHS: those buildings were left to crumble and their new hospital programme was neither affordable nor deliverable. We are committed to reversing that decline and repairing hospitals like Doncaster Royal infirmary. That is why the trust will receive over £105 million in operational capital across the next four years to be allocated to local priorities, including repairs at Doncaster Royal infirmary.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
In January we published an honest, realistic and deliverable plan that puts the programme on a sustainable footing, ensuring that taxpayers get the maximum value for money. We are committed to delivering all the schemes and are moving at pace, with funding in place for design work, construction and business case development. Outside the new hospital programme, we are investing £30 billion in day-to-day maintenance repairs of the NHS estate across this spending review period.
Dr Hudson
As my constituency neighbour, the Health Secretary will know that both his constituents and mine rely heavily on the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow and Whipps Cross in Leytonstone. Before the election, he promised the rebuild of the Princess Alexandra hospital and he supported the Whipps Won’t Wait campaign, yet under Labour it appears that both Princess Alexandra and Whipps must wait. Whipps Cross now faces an estimated £170 million in backlog maintenance, one of the highest figures in the country. Does the Health Secretary agree with me that rising maintenance costs must be taken into account when prioritising the new hospital programme?
Karin Smyth
Again, what the hon. Gentleman says is really quite astonishing: like everybody else, he knows that no money was allocated by his Government to the new hospital programme beyond last March. The Conservatives know that and they need to start being honest with their constituents—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Dr Mullan, I want you to set a better example—I expect better from you.
Karin Smyth
I think that the Conservatives’ constituents know exactly what their promises were built on: sand. That is why there are very few Conservative Members in the House and a lot of Members on the Labour Benches. We took hold of the programme and put it on a sustainable and credible footing, and we will deliver it.
Clive Jones
Frimley Park hospital is in wave 1 of the new hospital programme, with construction expected to start in 2028-29. Many of my constituents use the hospital, and they are rightly concerned about possible delays to its build, especially with the issue of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Patients and staff cannot be expected to work in an unsafe environment longer than necessary, if at all. Will the Minister reassure my constituents and confirm that the construction on Frimley Park hospital will begin no later than 2029?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous campaigner on behalf of Royal Berkshire hospital and now of Frimley Park hospital. I met with Members of Parliament last week who are involved in the RAAC schemes, which are progressing to plan. We are absolutely on target with progressing that plan, and we look forward to the proposals coming through from the local integrated care board.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
My constituents in Ribble Valley have been directly impacted by the delays to the new hospital programme, with the rebuilding of Royal Preston hospital being put back by almost a decade. Just last week, I received the disappointing news that Longridge community hospital, which is much loved and valued by local residents, will be closed for safety upgrades for the next six months. This Government’s impressive 10-year health plan rightly notes that they expect a shift from hospital to community. With that in mind, can the Minister confirm that she expects integrated care boards, such as Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB, to keep community hospitals open? That is opposed to centralising, which not only takes services away from communities but, in our case, transfers them to vastly inferior hospital buildings. Will she join with me and Longridge residents and say that she hopes the essential repairs are completed quickly at the community hospital?
Karin Smyth
I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting a lot of estates questions into that one point. The point is that local people value the local facilities that they have known for a very long time. That is why we are committed to reversing the decline in capital investment under the last Government—Lord Darzi outlined the shocking £40 billion black hole on capital. Part of our move towards neighbourhood health services is exactly about getting services closer to people’s homes, and we look forward to having further conversations with my hon. Friend and her constituents.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Rowan View mental health hospital at Maghull health park in my constituency is benefiting from lower costs from the installation of solar panels from GB Energy. May I encourage the Minister to support Maghull health park’s bid for an innovation and research facility so that we can address the Government’s priority of giving parity of esteem to mental health and physical health?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about working across Government with GB Energy to support local health systems in reducing health costs. That is an important part of our efficiency drive. He is a strong advocate for a local facility at Maghull, and we are absolutely committed to working with the ICB so that it develops the most efficient services where people are actually located, rather than expecting them to go to and fro and get bounced around the health system. I hope he can see further progress on that issue.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
When it comes to hospital provision, the Conservatives believe that we should continue to use private providers to improve access and reduce waiting times. We believe the Government should not let spare capacity go to waste on ideological grounds; we should continue to make use of private-sector capacity to treat NHS patients where available. Does the Minister agree?
Karin Smyth
I am sure this is leading somewhere else but, broadly, yes, I think I do.
Dr Evans
I am pleased to hear that the Minister does, given that it is her current policy. The last time the Government brought in private finance, they brought in the private finance initiative, which brought in £13 billion of investment. The problem was that it cost the taxpayer a whopping £80 billion, and hospitals are still paying decades on. This time around, will the Government give a cast-iron guarantee and complete confidence to the public that this is not Labour’s version of PFI mark 2?
Karin Smyth
Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that guarantee. The last Government could have learned the lessons of some of the PFI schemes that were very costly and did not run. Why did they not learn those lessons? Why did they not take action to reverse some of the decline? Why did they not take control of the system and do something about it? We have learned the lessons from those schemes, thanks in part to the great work done by parliamentarians on Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee. The new system to build the new neighbourhood health centres, which are fundamental to our drive to shift care out of hospital, will be different and will be publicly owned; they will revert to the public. The schemes are fundamentally different, and I am very happy to talk about it in more detail.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
May I first commend my hon. Friend not just on leading the recent International Men’s Day debate, but on his courage in speaking so openly about his own experience of sexual assault and the need to tackle the stigma surrounding it? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] For too long, men’s health has been overlooked, with a reluctance to accept that men suffer specific inequalities and hardships as men and boys. We know that men are less likely to come forward for healthcare. From partnering with the Premier League to rolling out health support in the workplace, we are meeting men and boys where they are and supporting them to live longer, healthier lives.
Josh Newbury
The publication of the first ever men’s health strategy for England was a historic step forward, including the drive to improve care for men with prostate cancer, the most common form of cancer in men under 50. I place on record my admiration for the right hon. Lord Cameron for speaking publicly about his diagnosis and successful treatment. The commitment to expanding home-based testing and remote monitoring is welcome, but can the Secretary of State tell the House what the Department will do to increase awareness and access to testing among the men most at risk, including those under 50?
Wes Streeting
I join my hon. Friend in commending Lord Cameron on his openness. Raising awareness, as we know, encourages men to come forward and leads to more diagnosis. He has done a great public service in talking about his own experience. We are improving care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer and undergoing active monitoring or treatment. We will be introducing support for individuals who are on prostate cancer active monitoring pathways to enable them to order and complete prostate-specific antigen blood tests at home from 2027. As for screening and the case being made for targeted screening, I await the recommendations of the National Screening Committee. We will study those carefully. We know that this is contested within the sector, so it is important that we have an evidence-based discussion, thrash out the arguments and reach the right way forward.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s indication that he is awaiting the outcome of that report on screening for prostate cancer. If that report recommends what many of us hope it will recommend, will he act quickly to develop the report’s recommendations, whatever they are?
Wes Streeting
We are expecting the draft recommendations, and then a three-month consultation period will follow, but I want to act quickly on the evidence and what the recommendations contain, not least because we know that as well as it being a prevalent form of cancer, some groups—particularly black men, men with a family history of prostate cancer and men with BRCA gene mutations—are at higher risk. Black men are twice as likely to die with prostate cancer than white men. There is therefore an imperative to act. Whatever the recommendation, we need to do much better on diagnosis and treatment of this terrible condition.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
NHS dentistry is out of reach for too many people, and that issue is felt particularly acutely in rural areas such as Norfolk. This Government are rolling out extra urgent dental appointments across the country, and we will be making further improvements for patients to come in from April 2026. NHS dentistry was left to rot for 14 years under the Conservatives; Labour is putting it on the road to recovery.
Ben Goldsborough
After 16 months of a Labour Government, the share of adults in Norfolk seen by a dentist has risen from barely scraping 30% to well over 40%—lots done, but lots more to be done. The University of East Anglia proposed a dental school as part of the solution. Will the Minister work with Department for Education colleagues to ensure that the Office for Students and other bodies give it the green light?
Stephen Kinnock
I, too, am absolutely delighted that more patients can see a dentist in Norfolk but, as my hon. Friend says, there is a long way to go. We are certainly not complacent, but we are showing that it is possible to turn things around. I am also pleased that the University of East Anglia has been approved as a dental school by the General Dental Council. The Office for Students has statutory responsibility for allocating dental school places, but I fully agree that UEA would be a good candidate for any additional Government-funded places allocated in future.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister told the Health and Social Care Committee that the spending envelope for dentistry would be confirmed by the end of the summer at the latest. Is the Office for Students still waiting for a ministerial direction to launch that competition for new places, so that UEA can bid along with others and so that we can get training places in Norfolk for the first time?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman is right: it is the Government’s responsibility to give a steer to the Office for Students, and we are very close to being able to put that together. I am expecting some advice from my officials later in the week, and I shall be happy to keep the hon. Gentleman updated on further progress.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Women’s health is a priority for me, for my Department and for the Government. Since I last answered questions in the House we have extended the NHS health check to include the menopause for the first time, following the brilliant campaigning of Menopause Mandate and others. We have also made the morning-after pill free in pharmacies. The Prime Minister is co-ordinating work across Government to tackle violence against women and girls, and in the health and care services we will play our part in protecting and supporting victims. I have also asked the Government’s women’s health ambassador to renew the women’s health strategy that was introduced by the last Government, so we can ensure that it is driving the right progress in the future.
Josh Dean
When my constituent Rachel attended numerous A&E departments with severe abdominal pain, swelling, fever and nausea, her fears of a ruptured ovarian cyst were repeatedly dismissed. In her day-to-day life Rachel is a professional advising on antimicrobial resistance around the world, but as a patient she felt that her concerns were being ignored and that she was being pushed aside. She is determined to use her experience to challenge the unacceptable medical misogyny that she and other women across the UK still face too often. What action are the Government taking to ensure that women are not left to endure painful reproductive health conditions, and will the Secretary of State agree to meet Rachel to hear her story at first hand?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for describing Rachel’s experience. We have introduced Jess’s rule and we are rolling out Martha’s rule, so that, whether in primary or acute care, patients’ voices will be heard and they will be given the power to ensure that health professionals are listening and responding appropriately. However, my hon. Friend is right to acknowledge that much of this arises from medical misogyny. It is not just a case of changing rules and regulations; it is a case of changing culture and practice, so that women are not just seen but heard and listened to. That is a fundamental problem that we determined to address—and of course I should be delighted to meet Rachel to hear about her experience at first hand.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Diethylstilbestrol, or DES, was prescribed to women until the 1980s to treat miscarriage. Those who took it were themselves at greater risk of breast cancer, and their daughters have a higher risk of rare cervical cancers. It is estimated that a whopping 300,000 women have been affected. Two weeks ago the Secretary of State made an apology to victims, but they rightly want more than “sorry”, and they have pointed out that the current screening regime is insufficient. Will the Secretary of State meet me, and campaigners and victims, in order to understand how this was allowed to happen, who will be held accountable, and how those women can go about securing compensation for this egregious scandal?
Wes Streeting
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for raising that extremely serious issue. I am glad that she has drawn it to the House’s attention. I have apologised, on behalf of the state, for the failure that occurred and for the harm that has arisen as a result. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) has been campaigning diligently, and the DES Justice UK campaigners have done a magnificent job in raising public awareness. I am always delighted to meet the Chair of the Select Committee because I know which side my bread is buttered on, but I should be particularly delighted to meet her to discuss this specific issue.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The impact of health inequalities on women’s health are starkest when it comes to maternity care, with many NHS trusts requiring improvement. Black and Asian women, and those from the most deprived communities, are far more likely to suffer the worst outcomes or even lose their babies. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives have vocally opposed the removal of the ringfence from the service delivery fund, saying that funding provided to drive change following the Ockenden review has disappeared at the stroke of a pen. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to reinstating that ringfence, and to ensuring that all the immediate and essential actions arising from that review of the failings at Shrewsbury and Telford hospital NHS trust are taken as soon as possible?
Wes Streeting
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her question. She is right to raise the inequalities at the heart of poor maternity care, as well as failures in services overall. We are taking a number of actions, but on the issue of funding specifically—I think this will become a recurrent theme across a range of issues during this Parliament—the approach that we are taking as a Government is to try to devolve more power, responsibility and resources to the frontline. As we do so, we are removing national ringfences.
I appreciate what the hon. Lady says about the risk. It is important that we, and no doubt Parliament, scrutinise the situation to make sure that outcomes across the board improve and that the focus that this House wants to bring to issues like maternity safety is delivered in practice, but I think we are right to drive at the issue of devolution. Decisions are better taken within communities, close to communities and at a local-system level, but she is right to be vigilant about this issue, and we on this side of the House are absolutely open to challenge. If systems are not acting in the way that we want and it is having an adverse impact, we will reconsider.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
We are carefully considering the work undertaken by the Patient Safety Commissioner, which sets out various potential options for redress. I am both a clinician and a Minister who has recently taken on this area, and my hon. Friend will know that this is highly complex work, but it is a complexity that I am willing to step into. It requires input and planning across Government, which takes time. I am certainly committed to taking this issue seriously, and I will return to update my hon. Friend and the House in due course.
Cat Smith
I welcome the new Minister to his post. I have been campaigning on this issue for 10 years, and I have a stack of letters and answers to written parliamentary questions that say things like “in due course” and “the Government are considering”. On behalf of a group of people who have been gaslit by the medical profession, will the Minister step up and be the Minister who ensures that these families, who are victims of the sodium valproate scandal, actually see the redress that they absolutely deserve? Will he make sure that they get a meeting with him at the earliest opportunity?
Dr Ahmed
I thank my hon. Friend for all her tireless work, campaigning and advocacy on this issue for many years, particularly since the Hughes report was published in February 2024. Like me, she will be sensitive to the fact that we are coming up to the two-year anniversary of that report. It is a call to action for me and the Department to answer the questions that she has been asking for so long. I have a meeting with the Patient Safety Commissioner very shortly, and I am very happy to meet her separately when she wishes.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister will know that the Hughes report focused very much on England, but those affected by the redress scheme will be found across the entire United Kingdom. Will he ensure that he engages with Health Ministers from the devolved authorities?
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Gentleman can certainly be given that assurance from me, as the Minister also responsible for four-nation engagement. The Hughes report examined both the sodium valproate and pelvic mesh issues, and I know that these resonate across the four nations, particularly when it comes to licensing and regulation of medical technology. He has that assurance from me.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Trade unions, representing the majority of NHS staff, are engaged in constructive dialogue with the Government, particularly around reform of Agenda for Change. All NHS staff have received above-inflation pay rises. No other staff in the public sector have received a pay rise as high as that of resident doctors. We offered extra jobs, prioritisation for UK graduates and help with out-of-pocket expenses. Against that backdrop, it is simply appalling that British Medical Association leaders led their members out on strike, even though a majority of resident doctors supported the Government’s offer.
I am pleased to report to the House that, thanks to NHS leaders and frontline staff, including the resident doctors who turned up, the NHS met its ambitious goal and 95% of planned elective activity went ahead, meaning that 850,000 patients got the procedures and operations they needed, despite the BMA’s reckless action. None the less, the time and money that this has cost us is detrimental, and I hope the BMA will come back to the table constructively.
Alison Griffiths
After warnings from the NHS Confederation and NHS Providers, my constituents are still rightly concerned that services may yet be cut, appointments lost and operations delayed as a direct result of the BMA’s industrial action. These strikes did not need to happen. What will the Secretary of State do to reassure patients in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that their safety and wellbeing is a priority for this Government, who have no timetable and no plan, and who have made no progress towards ending these damaging rolling strikes?
Wes Streeting
I must say that a bout of collective amnesia has swept the Opposition Benches, because the Conservatives seem to have forgotten the absolute calamity of bad industrial relations over which they presided. The difference between Members on this side of the House and the Conservatives is that we have never closed the door to talks; we have always been willing to engage with resident doctors in good faith. Unlike under that party, resident doctors have received a 28.9% pay rise from this Labour Government. It is a reminder to resident doctors across the land that the grass is not greener on the other side, and that they should work with a Labour Government who want to work with them.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I am delighted to have announced in a written ministerial statement yesterday that the Government are developing a palliative care and end-of-life care modern service framework for England. The modern service framework will be aligned with the 10-year health plan, prioritising shifting care out of hospitals and into the community to ensure personalised, compassionate support for individuals and their families.
Gregory Stafford
There has been cross-party and cross-charity campaigning for this strategy, so I welcome the fact that the Minister has announced it. However, hospices across the country and especially in my constituency are telling me that their biggest problem is the national insurance rise. For example, a children’s hospice that covers my constituency tells me that the £90,000 extra it has to pay in national insurance could have funded three nurses. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor ahead of tomorrow’s Budget to ensure that hospices, and indeed other health and social care organisations, are exempt from any national insurance rises, either in the past or in the future?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I notice he did not welcome the fact that we are supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million capital funding boost and £80 million in revenue funding for children’s hospices over three years. We also notice that Conservative Members do like to welcome the additional investment generated from the last Budget, but they do not seem to welcome the means by which it was generated, so I would say to them: what would they cut or what taxes would they put up to pay for what we are doing to get our NHS back on its feet and fit for the future?
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to a strategy for palliative care, which is as overdue as it is important, but it will mean nothing for hospices that are not able to last out until it comes into effect. Garden House hospice in my constituency is facing a crucial funding shortfall, and although the capital funding from the Government that came through earlier this year is incredibly welcome, it is still just short of filling the cash-flow gap it needs to fill to secure its operations. Would the Minister meet me to see what further work the integrated care board may be able to do to protect this vital hospice serving my constituents?
Stephen Kinnock
I am very pleased that the measures we have taken have provided financial support. I absolutely recognise the challenging financial position, and I would of course be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
We are committed to transforming cancer care, having already invested £70 million in new radiotherapy machines to help patients to be treated more quickly. We are investing £26 million in the NHS, opening community diagnostic centres in the evening and at weekends to catch cancer early, and our national cancer plan will have patients at its heart—from referral to diagnosis, treatment and ongoing care.
Mr Rand
My constituent Mike lost his wife to cancer, but as well as battling the physical symptoms, she faced devastating mental health effects, becoming deeply depressed after her terminal diagnosis. Despite that, she never received appropriate mental health support, and this significant issue for cancer patients should be addressed as part of our welcome reforms to palliative care. Could the relevant Minister meet me and Mike to discuss his campaign to improve mental health support for those with a terminal diagnosis?
Karin Smyth
Of course, I am sorry to hear about the loss of my hon. Friend’s constituent’s wife, and our thoughts are with him and his family. My hon. Friend raises an excellent point, and we are supporting people with cancer who are experiencing poor mental health care by expanding access to psychological therapies through NHS talking therapies. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), will be happy to talk to him as she develops her cancer plan to ensure that these issues are incorporated.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
A constituent of mine recently had successful high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment for prostate cancer, which was at Charing Cross hospital because it is not even offered to men at Portsmouth hospitals, despite being a less invasive treatment with fewer long-term health implications. As if to underline that inequality, imagine his surprise when he turned up at the hospital and found that the same doctor who had diagnosed him in Portsmouth was actually carrying out the procedure in London. What more are the Government doing to ensure that there is no postcode lottery when it comes to HIFU, and what will the Minister do to ensure that more men can access it?
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I thank the hon. Lady for that question and for her work on this issue. She makes a really important point about consistency of care. We understand that services are different in different parts of the country—sometimes the needs are different—but we want to ensure that, where there is good practice and proven evidence, care is rolled out. As we say, bring the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), will take note of that point.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Obesity robs children of the best possible start in life, hits the poorest hardest, sets them up for a lifetime of health problems and costs the NHS billions, so I can announce to the House that we are expanding the soft drinks industry levy to include bottles and cartons of milkshakes, flavoured milk and milk substitute drinks. [Interruption.] We are also reducing the threshold to 4.5 grams of sugar per 100 ml. This Government will not look away as children get unhealthier and our political opponents urge us to leave them behind.
Mr Speaker
The only thing I will say is that at least we are hearing it first in this House and not on Sky.
Sarah Olney
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Department of Health and Social Care on the launch last week of the men’s health strategy. My constituent Philip Pirie, who sadly lost his son to suicide, has been calling on the Government to launch a public health campaign to reduce the stigma of suicide. Nearly 75% of those who lose their lives to suicide have not been in contact with mental health services, and that is why we need to reach out. Will the Secretary of State meet me and my constituent to discuss such a campaign?
Wes Streeting
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Care would be delighted to meet. The men’s health strategy sets out precisely the challenge in those terms. Through the partnerships that we have already announced, such as with the Premier League, as well as the people who have been knocking on our doors to get involved in such a campaign, I am absolutely confident that together, collectively across the House and across the country, we can tackle this terrible stigma.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a tireless campaigner on this issue. We want to see more dentists in Burton and Uttoxeter, and across the country, which is why we are offering dentists £20,000 to work in underserved areas. We are making it a requirement for new dentists to practice in the NHS through our tie-in policy. We are also making additional urgent appointments available across the country, including for my hon. Friend’s constituents in Burton and Uttoxeter.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Secretary of State why he has not sorted out the strikes and disputes?
Wes Streeting
I wish the shadow Health Secretary a very happy birthday—21 again! It is good to see him here.
We continue to hold the door open to the British Medical Association. If it wants to engage constructively, we are ready and willing. What we will not do is be held to ransom. What we cannot afford to do is pay more than we already have. What we are able and willing to do is go further to improve their career progression and job prospects, and to work with them to rebuild the NHS, which the Conservative party broke.
Stuart Andrew
But, Mr Speaker:
“The power to stop these strikes is in the Government’s hands.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 660.]
“They need to sit down and negotiate to end the strikes, but Ministers are too busy briefing against each other.” Those are not my words, but the Secretary of State’s words when he was standing here on the Opposition side. He said it was so simple. The Secretary of State is embroiled in a leadership battle that is taking over the need to focus on averting walkouts, and the Employment Rights Bill reduces voting thresholds on strikes and scrapping minimum service levels. Does the Secretary of State accept that things are only going to get worse as a result of the Bill? And in his words, does he agree that patients have suffered enough?
Wes Streeting
I was very clear in opposition about the Government’s responsibility to sit down and negotiate, and that is exactly what I have been doing. It takes two to tango. As for the other trivial nonsense the right hon. Gentleman mentions, I have been very clear that I am a faithful. Of course, if he were a gameshow, he would be “Pointless”.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss it, because I think the complexity of what she raises needs some detail.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Every MP will be aware of the huge value that unpaid carers add to the NHS, taking the pressure off paid carers while often under intolerable pressure themselves. We were therefore really pleased to hear the news this morning that thousands of unpaid carers will have their cases reviewed, after they had been left with huge debts as a result of a failure of Government over a long period of time. However, it has been reported that debts will continue to accrue and overpayments will continue to be pursued for as long as a year from now. Given his responsibility to unpaid carers, will the Secretary of State raise the issue with colleagues, urging them to suspend repayments until the recommendations are enforced, and ensure that those people propping up the care system are treated fairly from today, not from in a year’s time?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that question, as this is a terrible situation and one of the many messes that this Government are now working to clean up. I will certainly ensure that the issue she raises is taken up with my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As announced in the 10-year health plan, David Lock KC is providing expert policy advice on the rising legal costs of clinical negligence and how we can improve patients’ experience of claims. That review is ongoing, and following initial advice to Ministers and the recent report from the National Audit Office, the results of David Lock’s work will inform future policymaking in this area. I am happy to update my hon. Friend as soon as that happens.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Wes Streeting
I am happy to report to the hon. Gentleman that we are well on the way towards delivering the 8,500 more mental health staff we promised in our manifesto, with over 6,500 already there. Digital tools can play a role, and I am pleased to report that, given the evolution of our online tools via the NHS app, ensuring that we have high-quality and clinically verified apps will be part of our approach, so that people have access to high-quality digital tools, not ones they have googled on the internet.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
Dr Ahmed
While the NHS in Scotland has no app and no plans for a national roll-out, the NHS in England has had an app since 2019, with 71 million logins in October 2025. Three in four people now have the app in their pockets and it has more subscribers in England than Netflix. You may ask, Mr Speaker, why NHS Scotland does not have an app? The answer comes in a freedom of information request by the champion journalist Simon Johnson: when asked about some of the drawbacks of applying the NHS England app in Scotland, they said:
“political optics of adopting an English solution”.
It is time for Analogue John to move over and let Anas Sarwar and Jackie Baillie finally drag the Scottish NHS into the 21st—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are on topical questions. The Prime Minister is in the Chamber. If you do not want Members to get in, please tell me; it would be easier.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Stephen Kinnock
We have the interim reforms, and our response on those will be published very soon. We are working on the long-term reform of the NHS dentistry contract with the British Dental Association, and I would be happy to keep the hon. Lady updated on our progress.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Wes Streeting
Yes, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like to hear it, but we are bringing waiting lists down for the first time in 15 years, patient satisfaction with general practice is rising, and we are delivering the investment, modernisation and change the country voted for.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Bracknell is a life sciences superpower, with Eli Lilly, Sandoz and Boehringer Ingelheim all having a footprint in our town. What can we do to speed up clinical trial set-up to help to deliver the next generation of treatments for our NHS?
Dr Ahmed
The Government are already committed to clinical trials being under 150 days by next March. I commend my hon. Friend on all the work he does with his local pharmaceutical companies in advancing medical science locally and nationally.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that since the law change, the number of children who have received NHS prescriptions for medical cannabis for severe epilepsy has been pitifully low. Families and campaigners believe that part of the reason is that the Home Office still has large responsibility for those products. Will the Secretary of State meet me and other interested MPs to discuss whether his Department could take more responsibility?
Dr Ahmed
Although the Government have no plans to change the departmental responsibilities applicable to unlicensed cannabis-based products, we are cognisant of the need for research in this area. We have agreed to more than £8.5 million in funding for two world-first clinical trials to investigate the safety and efficacy of cannabinoid treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy in both adults and children, and I am happy to speak to the right hon. Gentleman about this matter further.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I have seen at first hand how severe musculoskeletal conditions such as lower back pain can devastate someone’s ability to work, have relationships and sleep, as well as their overall wellbeing. The education of more than 1 million children is disrupted by MSK conditions due to missed schooling and fragmented, hard-to-navigate services. Will the Minister therefore prioritise MSK conditions in phase 2 of the modern service framework and confirm when that will be published?
Stephen Kinnock
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for saving the Ladies Walk health centre in her constituency, which the Conservatives were trying to shut. We are advancing modern service frameworks for conditions where we can swiftly and significantly raise the quality of care. The National Quality Board makes recommendations on future modern service frameworks; its next meeting is on 8 December.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
It is estimated that there are some 200 highly qualified Ukrainian dentists resident as refugees in the United Kingdom. They could be working for the health service, but, because of the moribund attitude of the General Dental Council, they are not allowed to do so. Can we try to drag the GDC into at least the 20th century so that those talents can be utilised?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I met the GDC recently. It has completed the procurement of the new management agent to run the overseas registration examination, and I am confident that we will see a significant boost in the numbers—that is coming onstream very quickly. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: it has been too slow, and it needs to speed up.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
About 38% of children in my constituency are sadly growing up in poverty. This Government are committed to ensuring the best start in life for all children, so in addition to the increase in mental health support teams in schools, does the NHS workforce plan currently address the vital need for trained specialist community public health nurses in schools?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to improve the quality of the paediatric workforce. We are considering that as we revise the workforce plan. I am proud that already, with just one decision that we took in the first year of this Labour Government to expand free school meals, we are lifting 100,000 more children out of the poverty they were left in by the Opposition.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
In 2024-25, the NHS trust in the Secretary of State’s constituency collected £2.4 million from patient and visitor parking and a further £1 million from staff parking. Given that those costs fall hardest on the poor and the most seriously ill, will the Secretary of State consider abolishing this inequitable burden on the sick, their relatives and those who care for them?
Wes Streeting
If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would be more worried about the situation close to home and the SNP’s abysmal record of failure: while waiting lists are falling in Labour-led England and Labour-led Wales, in SNP-led Scotland they are rising, despite the biggest funding settlement since devolution began. It is a record that should make him and his party blush.
Stuart Andrew
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you have been incensed by the unprecedented briefings we have seen by the Government in the run-up to the Budget. It beggars belief that, despite your clear statements on this issue, they have done it again today by announcing that the Chancellor will announce £300 million for NHS tech in her Budget tomorrow—not through a briefing to journalists but with an article on the gov.uk website. This happened just today, after a Minister stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday and said:
“I can assure the hon. Member, given the respect that the Government pay to this House and to their obligations in it, that if there is an important policy announcement to be made, it will be made to this House.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 32.]
Given that that was clearly not the case in this instance, despite your statements, can you advise us as to what we as Members of this House can do?
Mr Speaker
It is frustrating for me and all Back Benchers, because everything should be heard here in the Chamber first. The Budget should be sacrosanct; it should be heard only on Budget day. What I would say is that it makes a change for Budget speculation to at least come to the Chamber, as that is quite out of the ordinary at the moment.
I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. As I have said on a number of occasions in recent weeks, the Government’s own ministerial code states that major announcements should be made in the House in the first instance, not in the media. We had an urgent question yesterday on this issue. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has been conducting an inquiry into ministerial statements and the ministerial code. I look forward to seeing its report earlier rather than later. I would also point out that the country expects the Budget to come out on Budget day. It does nothing for the City and it does nothing for how people view this Chamber if it does not. We will leave it there.
G20 and Ukraine
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, I will update the House on my recent international engagements and our work to strengthen the security of our continent and economy, starting with the situation in Ukraine, which is at the forefront of all our minds. Over recent days, I have had detailed discussions with allies; I met our partners in the coalition of the willing during the G20, and I have spoken a number of times to both President Trump and President Zelensky, who I spoke to again earlier this morning.
We are united in wanting a ceasefire and a permanent end to the horrendous suffering that this war has brought to Ukraine. I have always said that our aim must be a just and lasting peace, and those words “just” and “lasting” are both important. I welcome the continued efforts of the United States to end the war and stop the killing. The initial draft of the 28-point plan included points that were not acceptable, but it also included some important elements that will be essential for a just and lasting peace. For example, it sets out steps on security guarantees from the US and partners. That is very significant. The discussions in Geneva took important steps forward, with progress between the US and Ukraine on an updated peace framework. I can reassure the House that that work is ongoing to refine the plan.
We are clear about the fundamental principles: that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be maintained; that Ukraine should be able to defend herself in future; and that matters about Ukraine and its future must be determined by Ukraine. We are clear that Ukraine’s voice must always be at the heart of the process, and that elements relating to Europe and NATO will need the consent of Europe and NATO members. There is still a long way to go and a tough road ahead, but we are more committed than ever to the cause and to keep pushing forward on the process. That is why later this afternoon President Macron, Chancellor Merz and I will convene the coalition of the willing, which now has 36 members, to discuss how we can advance the peace process and how we can continue to keep Ukraine in the fight right now.
Ukraine continues to hold the line and Ukrainians continue to mount a fearless defence of their country. They deserve not just our respect but our help and support. After all, it is not just our values that are at risk here; it is our security, too.
In addition to targeting energy and food prices, Putin continues to seek to undermine our security, including by sending Russian ships into our waters. The Royal Navy has intercepted two Russian ships in our waters in the last two weeks. Let me assure the House that we are more ready and determined than ever to protect our territory and protect the British people. As we work towards that end, we will never let up on the support that Ukraine needs: the vital defensive capabilities that it needs to protect its people and the economic pressure that we must continue to mount on Russia to cut off the fuel to its war machine.
The urgent need to take Russian oil and gas off the global market was something that I discussed extensively at the G20. That is vital, especially now as winter begins to bite in Ukraine and Putin continues his barbaric attacks on civilians and civilian energy infrastructure. As the House knows, and the British people know, there is only one nation that wants this war, only one nation that launched this illegal invasion and only one nation that deploys a constant barrage aimed at murdering innocent civilians. We saw that again last night with Russia’s strikes on Kyiv. Indeed, in the last week before last night, Russia had launched over 1,200 drones and over 60 cruise and ballistic missiles at Ukraine, killing children, like seven-year old Amelia, a Polish citizen who was killed alongside her mother by a Russian missile in Ternopil last Wednesday in an attack that took 34 lives in total.
Last night, as a family we celebrated my daughter’s 15th birthday. Later, I saw images on the news of a young girl about the same age being pulled from the rubble of a building in Ukraine, where her mother had just been killed. It is abhorrent—it is beyond belief—yet Ukraine lives that same story every night in its cities and every day on the frontline, where so many Ukrainians are killed fighting for their freedom.
We should not forget that Putin’s aggression, his illegal actions and his total disregard for human life have taken a huge toll on his own people. Thousands of Russian soldiers are killed every single day; 100,000 have been killed attacking Donetsk. In total, more than 1 million Russians have been killed or injured all because of the depraved ambitions of one man. We say again that this country will never falter in our support for the Ukrainian people. We will maintain a unity of purpose with our allies and we will focus on delivering the calm, serious leadership that is needed to advance a just and lasting peace for Ukraine and indeed the whole of Europe.
Let me turn to my broader discussions at the G20. I took the opportunity in South Africa to raise the ongoing and utterly horrifying situation in Sudan. We are working with our partners to break the restrictions on humanitarian aid and demand accountability. We must rally global pressure to stop the slaughter, achieve a sustained ceasefire and ultimately deliver a transition to civilian rule.
In South Africa I also chaired the Global Fund replenishment alongside President Ramaphosa, leading the charge in the global fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. That work has already saved over 70 million lives, yet malaria still kills a child under the age of five nearly every minute, 4,000 adolescent girls and young women still contract HIV every week and TB remains the world’s single deadliest infectious disease, even though we have had a cure for nearly a century. We will keep driving that project forward because it is the right thing to do and because it helps protect the United Kingdom from future pandemics and health emergencies.
A central priority at the G20 was delivering economic security and opportunity, as it is at every international meeting I attend. A strong economy allows us to be strong in the world. Economic security is national security. I can tell the House that we delivered for the British people this weekend, including through deals with South Africa for British firms to upgrade their railways and submarines, a £370 million deal for Rolls-Royce to supply jet engines to Algeria and a £4 billion deal with Indonesia for new ships, delivering 1,000 jobs in Rosyth, Plymouth and Bristol, and, if I may say, delivering another rebuke to all the people who prematurely wrote off British shipbuilding. We can only achieve those things—we can only deliver for the British people—by working with our partners. I think this is a moment to raise our sights.
The House will recall that it was when the global financial crisis struck that the G20 showed its full potential, with my predecessor Gordon Brown marshalling a global response to that crisis to protect the savings and finances of the British people. In this moment of growing fragility and crisis around the world, it is time once again to take a more purposeful, unified approach, focused on global growth and stability. I called for a response based on the right balance of investment and fiscal discipline, open markets, reforming the global trading system and tackling the cost of living crisis. That approach was echoed by the leaders’ declaration from Johannesburg.
I am also pleased to say that the summit confirmed that the UK will take on the presidency of the G20 in 2027—the first time that it has returned to the UK since 2009. It will be a proud moment for our country and part of our work to restore Britain’s international leadership, which was neglected for so long. We will use the presidency to drive the agenda I have been talking about today: to drive growth and opportunity, to create jobs, to cut the cost of living and to fundamentally strengthen the economic security of the British people. That is what we are doing at home and abroad, and I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.
We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine and our support remains unwavering. Ukraine is battling the most flagrant breach of territorial integrity in Europe in recent times. We must never forget that the war was started by Putin, who is trying to extinguish a democracy on our own continent. It is important that we stand together to defend the principle that aggressors should not succeed.
The previous Conservative Government led Europe in support for Ukraine. We were the first country to provide modern, western-made battle tanks and to gift munitions and Storm Shadow missiles. We led the way on sanctions and trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers on UK soil. It is now incumbent on this Government to leverage British influence at this crucial time for the west. Putin’s relentless bombardment of Kyiv and KGB-style negotiating tactics show he is not serious about peace, which is why Russia must not be welcomed back into the international fold without a comprehensive peace agreement. Will the Prime Minister rule out support for readmitting Russia to the G7?
We all want this terrible war to end, and as the Prime Minister rightly said, elements of that draft 28-point plan were unacceptable. Conservatives are clear that the blanket surrender of Ukrainian territory would mean rewarding Putin’s unprovoked aggression. What is the Government’s position on reports that Ukraine’s territorial integrity is on the table? If Putin is seen to emerge stronger from these negotiations, all our potential adversaries will be emboldened. Let us be in no doubt, the axis of authoritarian states is collaborating to destabilise the west, aided by China, with Iran providing weapons and North Korea providing troops for Putin.
It is precisely for these reasons that the Government must continue to work extremely closely with the US and to understand its objectives. Parties such as the Lib Dems and the Greens, who are encouraging us to decouple from the US, are putting their anti-American prejudice above national security. Also, given that in the last fortnight the Royal Navy has intercepted two Russian ships in our waters, and with Russian spy ships pointing lasers at RAF pilots, it is a disgrace that Reform is still blaming NATO for Russia’s aggression, although perhaps it should come as no surprise when its former leader in Wales was sent to prison last week for taking bribes from Putin.
Earlier this year, many countries came together to form the coalition of the willing, pledging to strengthen support for Ukraine. Can the Prime Minister update us on the planning and readiness of the coalition of the willing? What is its scope and terms of mission? What can he tell us about a counter-proposal that is reportedly being submitted by the EU?
To stand with Ukraine, we need to know that we can also stand on our own two feet. Last week, the Commons Defence Committee warned that Britain was unprepared for a major attack and that the Government were making “glacial” progress towards conflict readiness, so it is concerning that reports indicate that the Ministry of Defence faces a potential budget cut this financial year of £2.6 billion. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether this is true or false? Meanwhile, the EU is reportedly demanding nearly €7 billion for the UK to buy into its defence fund. Conservatives warned that this would happen. At the time the UK-EU reset deal was being negotiated, the shadow Defence Secretary said that Labour had given away 12 years of British fishing rights in exchange for nothing. He was right. Will the Prime Minister rule out paying the EU for access to the Security Action for Europe—SAFE—programme?
It is extremely disappointing that Europe is still buying Russian oil and gas. Moscow should be denied safe harbours for its tankers and profits, and Europe should ban Russian oil and gas sooner than its current 2027 deadline. I believe that the Prime Minister agrees with that sentiment, so what pressure will he put on European countries to stop them buying Russian oil and gas?
The UK’s genuinely world-leading support has made a material difference to Ukraine’s ability to fight back against Russia’s illegal invasion—support that I remind the Prime Minister began under the Conservatives. Let us not forget that, in 2022, Russia thought it could capture Kyiv and subjugate Ukraine within days. So let us wake up and face that threat from Russia. Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that we will be boosting our own defence capabilities, as well as using our influence to ensure that secure future for Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
May I start by thanking the right hon. Lady for her support on Ukraine? It is really important that we stay united in this House. I readily acknowledge the role of the previous Government in leading on Ukraine and in bringing the whole House together on this issue, which they did for a number of years. This allowed us a platform on which to build the support that we are now putting in place.
In relation to membership of the G7 or G8, the focus at the moment is on a ceasefire so anything along those lines is a long way off. We have to remember that Putin is the aggressor here. He is the one who started this war. On territorial integrity, the sovereignty of Ukraine is paramount. That is why any questions about the future of Ukraine must be determined by Ukraine, and that is why I have been speaking frequently to President Trump and President Zelensky. I have spoken to President Zelensky probably five or six times in the last two or three days on a whole range of issues.
May I join the right hon. Lady in her comments about Reform? It is shocking that a senior official, its leader in Wales, has been jailed for over 10 years—a very significant sentence—for pro-Russia bribes. That is extraordinary. That is why I say again that the Reform leadership should have the courage to launch an investigation. How on earth did that happen in their party, and what other links are there? Today, this statement and the questions across the House will reinforce once again that Reform with its pro-Putin approach would have absolutely no role in bringing allies together on important issues across the globe.
The right hon. Lady asks about the coalition of the willing. Nine months ago, President Macron and I brought the coalition of the willing together. There are now 36 like-minded countries that meet and discuss frequently and align our positions and our support. That is a considerable achievement, and we have plans for security guarantees in relation to air, sea and land. On the text of the agreement that is being worked on in Geneva, there was, as she would have expected, an intensive discussion about this at the G20 involving a number of key allies, including the E3+3 and coalition of the willing allies. The strong consensus was that we should work with the text that is in existence—unacceptable though some parts of it are, because other parts are essential—rather than with a different text. That is the process that is going on in Geneva, and I think that is the right approach.
On defence spending, I have made my position clear, and it goes with the strategic review of defence as to how we take that forward. The SAFE negotiations are going on with the EU in the usual way, and one commitment I made in relation to our reset with the EU was that we would do it by quiet diplomacy, rather than by shouting from megaphones across the channel. The right hon. Lady asks about oil and gas, and this is really important. We are taking every opportunity to have extensive discussions to take Russian oil and gas off the market. This has to be done across Europe and beyond Europe, and I have had discussions beyond Europe on this issue. It is vital that we press ahead and we are taking every opportunity to do so.
May I return to where I started? I genuinely think it is important that we in this House are united on Ukraine. The only winner, if we divide on party political grounds, will be Putin. I again recognise the work and the lead that the previous Government took, which I was proud to support in opposition and I am proud to take forward as Prime Minister. I am grateful for the support that we are getting from the Opposition.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I begin by complimenting the Prime Minister on his work on the international stage? Is he aware that a statement was put out yesterday by the Chairs of Foreign Affairs Committees of 22 Parliaments across Europe, in which we made it clear that we are united in the belief that Ukraine’s sovereignty is vital not just for brave Ukrainians but for the continued security of Europe? We are therefore pleased to hear the Prime Minister assure the House that any plan that is to be agreed will be “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”, but can he also assure the House that there will be “nothing about Europe without Europe”?
The Prime Minister
I can reassure my right hon. Friend that I did see that letter that was put out yesterday. She is absolutely right to say that this conflict affects not only Ukraine and its sovereignty but the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, in our values and our security, and materially in relation to things like the cost of living and the price of energy. Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine, nothing about Europe without Europe and nothing about NATO without NATO are key principles that sit behind the work that we are doing.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. If this is the end game for Putin’s illegal and murderous war, we have one chance to get it right and to safeguard the future of Ukraine and Europe. The stakes could not be higher. Many of us fear that President Trump is gearing up to betray the rights of Ukrainians, who have fought valiantly in the face of war crimes, torture and the abduction of thousands of children. The White House has tried to deny that Trump’s original 28-point plan was a Russian wish list, but that is precisely what it was.
We Liberal Democrats welcome the statement from the Prime Minister that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be maintained. When the Prime Minister speaks with the coalition of the willing this afternoon, will he relay that all major parties in this House agree with him on unequivocally ruling out any proposals that would limit Ukraine’s sovereignty to defend itself now or in the future, including its right to join defence alliances such as NATO? Will the Prime Minister also offer his support and that of the coalition of the willing by joining President Zelensky for any future negotiations with President Trump, so that President Zelensky does not have to suffer the indignity of being bullied by Trump on his own once again and so that Europe can show a strong and united stand?
The Prime Minister is absolutely right to request that Reform UK conducts an investigation into pro-Russian bribes. Will he also commission a second Russia report into Russian interference in our democracy? My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has brought forward a Bill enabling the unilateral seizure of Russian state assets in the UK. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether in his discussions with G20 partners he has secured any progress on plans to seize those frozen Russian assets, and if not, why not?
Will the Prime Minister use his role as the penholder for Sudan to take the lead at the United Nations to secure and enforce a country-wide arms embargo?
Finally, the Prime Minister did not mention China, despite reports that he met the Chinese premier at the G20. The apparent imminent approval of the Chinese super-embassy would be a moment of shame for this Government. Will the Prime Minister block this application and summon the Chinese ambassador to make clear that we will not accept Beijing’s efforts to spy on our Parliament, or to intimidate and harass Hongkongers in our communities?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for her support in relation to Ukraine—support which is important. Certainly, I will make a point this afternoon of expressing to the coalition of the willing how united this House is on the key principles. We are, I think, the closest respected and trusted ally of Ukraine, and that is why I have not only spoken intensively and extensively to President Zelensky over many months and years, but I have done so in particular over the past few days—a number of times a day, sometimes—including this morning, to do what we can to guide this into the right place.
I completely agree with the hon. Member’s comments about Reform. It is extraordinary that, in this Chamber, we are having a debate about a war which Russia has perpetrated on Ukraine, and a senior member of Reform has been convicted of pro-Russian bribes. Interference with democracy is of deep concern. We are having extensive discussions, including at the G20 and elsewhere, about what more can be done on the assets, and we are making progress. It is not straightforward, as she will know, but it is the subject of very extensive discussions to see what more we can do.
On the Chinese premier, let me just be clear: I said hello and shook the hand of the Chinese premier at the G20. We were in the leaders’ lounge together. It would have been a little bizarre and discourteous not to have done so, but we did not actually engage in any substantive discussion. The hon. Member raises the question of the embassy. That is obviously a quasi-judicial decision that will be taken in accordance with those processes.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement updating the House, but let us be under no illusions: President Trump’s originally proposed peace plan is humiliating and unpalatable to the Ukrainians, would be detrimental to our own European security and would reward the invading, annexing aggressor. That is why yesterday the cross-party House of Commons Defence Committee issued a very robust statement calling on the Government urgently to give full moral and practical support in whatever way they could, especially diplomatically, to our Ukrainian friends. Does the Prime Minister agree that at this critical juncture it is imperative that the UK, along with its European allies, shows clear and determined leadership and is actually around the table to negotiate, so that we can be a voice for our Ukrainian friends, because if we are not at the table, we will be on the menu?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions. In relation to the original plan, clearly there were elements that were unacceptable, and that is why I am pleased that progress has now been made in relation to it. I can assure him that we are giving support to President Zelensky and Ukraine at every level, and extensively, as my hon. Friend would expect. He is quite right that part of the reason we can have influence with our allies is that we are present at the international table in a way that we have not been over recent years.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister has done a pretty good job of getting close to President Trump. Can he convince the tyrant bear that to reward him with land he has already taken would be bad enough, but it would be utterly egregious and appalling to allow him—the ruthless bear—to take land he has not even taken yet, in fortress Donbas? That would make Ukraine utterly defenceless, just as we allowed Czechoslovakia to be utterly defenceless when we forced it to give up the Sudetenland 85 years ago.
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Member. The very idea of negotiating land that has not been taken in nearly four years of a conflict and has cost tens of thousands of lives is so obviously unacceptable that it should not be put forward or seen as a serious proposition. I agree with him wholeheartedly on that.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I once more thank the Prime Minister for his unstinting support for Ukraine, and for saying that nothing can be done for Ukraine without Ukraine. In the last few moments, a media source in the US has reported that Ukraine has agreed to the peace proposal brokered by the Trump Administration. I know the Prime Minister will not have the detail of that, but if that is the case—I know that he is making a statement now—will he come back and give the House the full details of what has been agreed by Ukraine, the US and potentially Russia?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course I will. From my discussions with President Zelensky this morning, I will need to look precisely at that, but I suspect it will not be the whole of the agreement that needs to be reached, because obviously the discussions so far have been predominantly Ukraine/US. Obviously, there are European elements that are important and NATO elements that are important which need further discussion, and of course none of this has been back to the Russian side yet. I will have a look at the report and look behind the headline, and if there is anything material to report, I will of course do so. My sense is that it will probably be progress on the Geneva exercise rather than the agreement of all elements.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that, if Ukraine has agreed to a proposal that has been brokered by the United States, it must be made acceptable to Russia and that we need to exert every possible pressure on Russia through increased military support, sanctions and the use of frozen assets to make Russia accept a ceasefire?
The Prime Minister
I certainly agree with that wholeheartedly. We will see; I suspect it is the version that emerged from Geneva yesterday that is being talked about, but of course the next step is Russia, and we need to exert every pressure, whether that is capability, the assets, or oil and gas, on which we have been bearing down for a considerable period of time.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry but that is just not within the rules of the House. I do not expect this from somebody who is so well established here. The right hon. Gentleman may by all means raise a point of order straight after the statement if it relates to the topic, but the rules of the House come first. I call Stella Creasy.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think we all understand that this is a breaking situation. In such an uncertain world, we know that allyship is integral to our security. The post-war generation created the NHS and NATO because they understood the power of collective solidarity. I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk about the importance of the Security Action for Europe negotiations, because our work with Europe is not about replacing our relationships with NATO but about strengthening them. Did he raise the SAFE negotiations with the President of the European Commission? This situation reminds us that we must get the European defence industry into a shape in which it can address the threats that we face from Russia. The UK must be part of those conversations.
The Prime Minister
I can assure my hon. Friend that negotiations are going on in the ordinary way in relation to SAFE and a number of other issues.
I am endeavouring the get the best information I can in relation to what is developing, and I will weave it into an answer if I get anything that will help the House.
The Prime Minister
I will certainly come back, but if I am able to update the House as we go along, I will endeavour to do so, so that others can ask questions about it.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensuring that decisions about Ukraine are not taken without Ukraine, and to upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty. Yet we know that Russia is trying to use this negotiation to undermine the future security not only of Ukraine but of Europe. In the light of the ongoing negotiations, will the Prime Minister confirm that any future deal will reject Russia’s references to
“ambiguities of the last 30 years”—
code for unravelling NATO back to 1997—and reject attempts to determine which nations may join NATO or where NATO may put its military assets?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, because we must always remember that this is about Europe as well as Ukraine. Putin’s ambitions are not limited to Ukraine, as the bordering countries are intensely aware. It is therefore important that we see this for what it is, and act accordingly as European allies.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I appreciate that this is a developing situation, but we know that at least 19,546 children from Ukraine have been stolen by Russia and sent to more than 400 locations across eight time zones. We know that 1.6 million children in the occupied territories are being subjected to militarisation and indoctrination. We know that 200 military training camps turn Ukrainian children into Russian soldiers. And we know that one in 10 of the Ukrainian children rescued from Russia have reported that they have been sexually abused. Will the Prime Minister remind President Trump that behind every one of those figures is a child? Will he assure the House that any peace plan agreed will deliver the safe return of all the Ukrainian children who have been stolen, and that Russia will be held to account for the war crimes that it continues to commit?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning and all her efforts to keep a constant light on that appalling situation. It is shocking that Russia is treating those children as a weapon of war, kidnapping and subjecting them to all sorts of abuse and ill treatment. We are doing and must do everything we can to safeguard those children and get them back to their families, where they belong.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I ask the Prime Minister to focus on the question of effective security guarantees? Security guarantees deter aggression only if there is no doubt that the guarantor will act in accordance with the guarantee that he has given. Therefore, if there is a security guarantee to unoccupied Ukraine, it is absolutely essential that the guarantor has some forces on the ground, because otherwise a guarantee to an unoccupied region that is a strategic vacuum can lead to a wider war by miscalculation by the killer in the Kremlin.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. That is why we have done so much work with the coalition of the willing on the capability and planning for land and sea; detailed plans are now as advanced as they can be until we know the next stage of the proceedings. It is also why I have worked so hard with the US to get a US security guarantee going alongside the coalition of the willing, so that the two go together. He will have seen that that is part of the discussion in Geneva, on which we have managed to make some progress.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I join many others here in welcoming the recent progress on the war in Ukraine at the G20, in Geneva and most recently. Putin is continuing to circumvent sanctions via other countries. Will the coalition of the willing work with those other countries, as the Prime Minister has explained will happen, to ensure that that money, which is continuing to fuel the war, is cut off? That will enable a just and lasting peace and the rebuilding of Ukraine.
The Prime Minister
The question of sanctions is absolutely vital, as is bearing down on any individuals trying to circumvent those sanctions. That is why we put in place the sanctions and the measures behind them. We work with allies to make them enforceable.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I think it is important to begin by stating that those on the far right who parrot the views of Putin, and those on the far left who seek to undermine NATO, are no friends of Ukraine. I was pleased to hear in the Prime Minister’s statement his unequivocal approach to responsibility in this regard—he rightly pinned it on one person: Vladimir Putin. The Prime Minister did, however, equivocate in response to the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the G8. Kaja Kallas of the European Union was very clear in her comments this morning that Russia cannot be in the G8—she said, “definitely not”. Surely he agrees?
The Prime Minister
Russia is the aggressor here. Obviously these are questions for the G7 to determine, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the focus is very much on the process at the moment, which is to get a ceasefire and an end to this conflict.
I join the right hon. Gentleman in his point about those on the left. The Green party, of course, says that we should pull out of NATO—at a moment like this. It also says that it would make renting out a property—landlords—unlawful, but make selling drugs lawful, outside the school gate. I have to say, I find that a little odd.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week in Rochdale, I joined our proud Ukrainian community to mark the Holodomor, which was Stalin’s forced famine of millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s. There is a modern-day Holodomor going on in Ukraine through the drone strikes and air strikes by Putin’s regime. Does the Prime Minister share my absolute disgust at the treacherous actions of the former leader of Reform in Wales, who lined his own pockets with cash from the Russian regime, and does he agree that Reform UK’s refusal to carry out a full investigation proves that they really are Putin’s poodles?
The Prime Minister
I agree. This is clearly a really serious case. Any other party would want to investigate to assure itself of how this could happen. This is not a minor transgression; it has now been visited with a 10-year sentence because it undermines our country. Surely the Reform leadership want to know how that happened on their watch, and what other links there are between their party and Russia. No wonder they are Putin-friendly. How on earth could they respond to a situation like this? There is no point in standing up and saying that you support Ukraine if within your own party, you are pro-Russian.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s role in marshalling European co-operation is essential and very welcome, but would it not be obscene and unconscionable for any country—indeed, one of the permanent five at the United Nations—to invade its neighbour and murder its citizens, and to get away with it and profit from it, let alone to rejoin the G7? Have we not seen this film before? Do we not know how it ends?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this. That is why it is really important that we make the case for, and ensure that it is, a just and lasting peace—because we have seen this before. We have seen agreements brokered before without security guarantees, with the inevitable result that Putin will go again. That is why, in relation to all the principles I have been operating on, in setting up the coalition of the willing and in all my discussions, it has got to be a just and lasting peace. It has got to be one that actually deters Putin from doing this again, because we know that without that deterrence and those consequences, he has the ambition to go again, and he will go again, and we must guard against that.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his steadfast leadership on Ukraine. My constituent Roksolana is one of tens of thousands of Ukrainian people with a loved one “missing under special circumstances”. These families do not know whether their loved ones are detained, a prisoner of war or even alive. It is likely that Russia has not notified the International Committee of the Red Cross on the status of thousands more prisoners of war. On behalf of Roksolana and all the Ukrainian families I met this weekend at St Mary’s Ukrainian school who are seeking answers about their loved ones, can the Prime Minister assure this House that the UK will support every effort to ensure that Russia complies with international humanitarian law regarding the treatment and identification of prisoners of war?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this and for her work bearing down on this, in particular the meeting she had at the weekend. This is a really serious issue. We are raising it with our allies. It is further evidence of the total disregard that Russia has for any of the principles of war, even in an unjust war, and we will continue to bear down on it.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Over the past 18 months, the Prime Minister has shown himself to be influential and purposeful at significant times in this crisis, so I thank him for that. While events may be superseding the statement this afternoon, there are some principles that should not change. Aggression must not be rewarded. Violence should not pay. There has always been an alternative to violence. But when the Prime Minister says, rightly, that there should be a “just and lasting peace”, does he recognise that it may be difficult to sell a lasting peace to the people of Ukraine if so-called allies are forcing President Zelensky to accept an encroachment on his sovereign territory, and that those allies should be robustly defending Ukraine, rather than allowing so-called friends to allow the loss of territory?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member and give him my assurance that I am acutely aware of the need for this to be a lasting peace for Ukrainians. A large part of my discussion with President Zelensky is how we bring that about, but I am extremely mindful of the fact that this has to be just and lasting for the Ukrainians, who did not start this war, do not want this war, have suffered hugely under this war and need to be reassured that if there is a peace, it is going to last and they are not going to be subject to the same thing in just a few years’ time.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend’s efforts to engage our allies in support for Ukraine. Does he agree that resolve, unity and support from the west are vital to give Ukraine the guarantees it needs for a lasting peace? How optimistic is he about the resolve and commitment he will secure from the coalition of the willing later today?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very confident about the assurance from the coalition of the willing, because we have already agreed plans between the countries in the coalition of the willing that are as advanced now as they can be until we know the next stage of the process. Obviously, I want to ensure that that is forged or welded together with US guarantees alongside the coalition of the willing, which will then be the strongest possible guarantee.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Prime Minister welcomed the inclusion in the 28-point peace plan of security guarantees. Point 10 of the proposed plan says that if Russia invades Ukraine, it would lead to
“a decisive coordinated military response”.
Who would co-ordinate that response, and what does the Prime Minister anticipate would be the UK’s part in it?
The Prime Minister
Without going into the details, the plans that the coalition of the willing have drawn up are about capability, co-ordination and command structure. A huge amount of military work has gone into exactly how that would operate in practice. These are not simply countries saying, “Here’s some capability that we’re prepared to put on the table,” as it were. They are military plans capable of being put into effect when they are needed.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for all his efforts on ramping up the economic pressure on Putin, including through oil and gas and the shadow fleet. On the $300 billion-plus of Russian sovereign banking assets in the west, we know there are a few holdouts in the European Union that do not want to mobilise a loan backed by those assets as a downpayment on reparations. Could he update us on what progress has been made to get that over the line and get that money moving?
The Prime Minister
A proposal has been put forward in relation to how the assets could be used. Obviously, that requires a high level of agreement by various interested parties. That is why extensive discussions are going on as to how we can make that progress. There is no pretending that it is simple and straightforward—it is not—but that should not stop us trying to make further progress.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I understand that the order of the day when dealing with Mr Trump is flattery. I am afraid that 42 years of experience in this House have not yet qualified me for that level of sycophancy. The presentation of a Kremlin wish list by the White House as a peace plan is risible, which the Prime Minister indicated rather more elegantly than I have. Will the Prime Minister seriously consider—if necessary, unilaterally—ensuring that legislation goes through so that the frozen Russian assets can be used to support the Ukrainian war effort?
The Prime Minister
On the assets, I do want to make progress. My strong view is that if we are to make progress, it is better that as many countries as possible act at the same time. That is what we are trying to achieve. If we do that, obviously, we will take whatever steps are necessary. At the moment, my focus is on trying to progress this discussion, which has been difficult and fraught with risk. None the less, there is a willingness, I think, to move forward on it. Other discussions I had in the margins of the G20 were with countries outside of Europe to see whether they will act at the same time along with us if we get that far, because I think it is important to do so.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am very proud to represent Cardiff West in this place. Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, was elected to serve the people of Wales in the European Parliament, but as we now know, he served not only himself but the interests of Russia. Having admitted not one, not two, but eight counts of bribery, he is now serving 10 and a half years’ imprisonment. I know the Prime Minister will join me in condemning that treachery, but will he also join me in demanding that the leadership of Reform UK—who, typically, cannot be present here today—launch an independent investigation into this act of treason?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend puts the point very powerfully. It must be uncomfortable for the Reform party to hear this. This is completely undermining our national security. It cannot be right for a political party represented in this House to simply close its eyes and ears to this. There has to be an investigation. There has to be a level of reassurance that there are not other links to Russia within the Reform party, and on how this came about in the first place. His question is very good. It should be deeply uncomfortable for Reform MPs to hear this, knowing that they are sitting on their hands and doing absolutely nothing about it.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
May I remind the House that last year I personally donated a five-figure sum, bought a pick-up truck, filled it with first aid supplies, drove it with friends and colleagues to Ukraine, and donated it to the brave soldiers of Ukraine. My support and Reform’s support for Ukraine has been rock-solid throughout, Prime Minister.
It is important that this House is united, which it is. Last week, when the 28-point plan emerged, we rejected it immediately. Just yesterday, I was with a Ukrainian delegation, and we were talking specifically about the leverage that European nations have with regard to the frozen assets, the majority of which are here in Europe. I urge the Prime Minister, among all the noise, to utilise that leverage, because that, I think, is one of the most powerful negotiating points that the west has against the vile dictator, Putin.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman could have said that Reform has seen sense and decided that it will have an investigation into what happened in the bribery case. I do not doubt that he drove that truck and personally committed that support, but the simple fact is that you cannot be pro-Putin and pro-Ukraine; you have to decide between the two, and Reform is pro-Putin—
The Prime Minister
Well, a Reform politician has just been convicted and given a 10-year sentence for taking pro-Russian bribes, so the case could not be clearer than that. There is an unwillingness for Reform to say, “We need to investigate how on earth that happened.” Can the hon. Gentleman not see the inconsistency in what he is saying?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is feared that the brutality in El Fasher will only intensify and spread to Tawila and beyond if international action is not convened and focused on the resolutions that are needed, not least to stop the incursions with drones supplied via the United Arab Emirates and mercenaries. Will the Prime Minister say more about what happened in South Africa to put the necessary focus in place, and about the next steps to stop the expansion of the atrocities we are witnessing in Sudan?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising Sudan, because what was an appalling situation has become even more appalling over recent days and weeks. We discussed it pretty extensively at the G20. We support the work of the Quad that is aimed predominantly at a ceasefire, the provision of humanitarian aid—it is the worst humanitarian situation in the world—and bringing about a better resolution.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I do my best to update the House in relation to the latest news about Ukraine? It is coming to me second hand, so if it turns out to be not entirely accurate, I hope that the House will forgive me and I will come back to correct the record. My understanding is that there is not a new agreement, but Ukraine has confirmed that it is happy with the draft that emerged in Geneva yesterday, which does not cover the question of territory. My best understanding is that this is a confirmation of what came out of Geneva, not a new set of proposals or agreements—I think that is what it is—but if I get more information, I will update the House and we can discuss it in due course.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Prime Minister talks of having extensive discussions about limiting the export of oil and gas from Russia—the engine driving the Russian war machine. Danish waters could offer the key to killing the shadow fleet. An international convention regulating shipping going through those straits would stop the shadow fleet and stop a significant part of its activity supporting Russia. It would also drive environmental support through stronger regulations set out in such a convention. What considerations have the Prime Minister and his colleagues given to this?
The Prime Minister
We regularly discuss how we deal with the shadow fleet. The Danish authorities do a lot in their waters, as do the authorities in Norway and other countries in the region, and we are looking at what further we can do in relation to the shadow fleet. His underlying point about the oil and gas that are fuelling Russia’s aggression is hugely important. We need to ensure that that oil and gas is taken off the market, and that can only happen if we deal with the shadow fleet, among other things.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his continued support of Ukraine. Going back to the announcement about the £4 billion deal with Indonesia at the G20, may I thank the Prime Minister for his efforts in securing that maritime partnership programme for Babcock? It will benefit people in my constituency and secure hundreds of jobs. Does the Prime Minister agree that the partnership is testament to the skills and experience of the workforce at Rosyth, and will he continue to do everything he can to support shipbuilding in Scotland, and at Rosyth in particular?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Winning such deals, whether they be the Indonesian deal, which we finally concluded while we were at the G20, or the frigate deal with Norway, means competing against others in the world—we competed against France, Germany and the United States for the frigate deal—and that is only possible for us as a country because of the quality of the workforce, their professionalism and their commitment to delivering on time. After the frigate deal with Norway, I went up to the Clyde to see the workforce and to thank them for putting me in a position where we could secure that deal. I would be grateful if he passes those thanks on to his constituents.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Signals matter. Right now, Putin thinks he is getting his own way but, as a point of principle, would the Prime Minister sit around a table if the indicted war criminal Putin was sitting at it?
The Prime Minister
No, I would not. When I was at the United Nations Security Council last year, I took my first opportunity as Prime Minister to be very clear about where I stand. In that case, it was in relation to the Security Council, but the principle applies elsewhere. Leaders cannot subscribe to international law and the UN charter if they are in breach of it through this illegal war.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his work to secure peace in Ukraine and for his very good comments about BAE Systems, which is partially located in my constituency of Glasgow West. Point 24 of the Trump plan indicates that
“all civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.”
The kidnapping of children is heinous and a war crime in and of itself. Surely, as a mark of good faith, Putin should not wait for any agreement on this or other plans, and should release those children immediately. In saying that, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her work over many months on this issue. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that point 26 of that plan, that
“all parties involved in the conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and will agree not to make any future claims or pursue any grievances”,
cannot be tolerated?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend on both fronts. Of course those children should be released straight away. They should never have been taken in the first place and it is heartbreaking, as well as intolerable, that they are held for a moment longer. As for amnesty, no, I do not agree with amnesty for Putin and others for their illegal acts.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I am deeply concerned that it appears that American negotiators have been listening more to the unreasonable demands of the Russian aggressors than to the security needs of the Ukrainians. Will the Prime Minister assure me that in his conversations with President Trump he has made absolutely clear that the voices of Ukrainians have to be front and centre in securing any just and lasting peace?
The Prime Minister
I assure the hon. Lady that the principles that I have set out to the House—that matters on the future of Ukraine must be for Ukraine—have been the guiding principles in all our discussions and in everything that we have done.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and actions. If we achieve peace, as we all hope, the efforts to rebuild Ukraine cannot be only about infrastructure. They also have to focus on rebuilding people’s lives, from those who have been devastatingly injured or have lost loved ones, to civil society, which has been really tested. What will the UK Government do to ensure that funding and support is in place to allow not only the rebuilding of buildings, but the rebuilding of civil society?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. This will not just be about rebuilding infrastructure; it will be about the rebuilding of society. That is why I was really pleased last year to sign the 100-year agreement we have with Ukraine, which was intended to and does show that this is not just an agreement for the duration of the conflict, but something that goes well beyond the conflict to the lasting relationship that I hope our two countries will have.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I was very pleased that the Prime Minister mentioned Sudan; we cannot be blind to Russia’s malign interest there or across the Sahel. What discussions has he had with Prime Minister Modi about his approach to Russian oil and what appear to be his overly friendly social media posts towards President Putin?
The Prime Minister
I will not disclose all the details of my discussions, but the right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the principles I have set out to the House guide me in all those discussions.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for updating us all—this is obviously a fast-moving situation. Last week, at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, we harrowingly heard from our Ukrainian counterparts how 20,000 children have been abducted by Russia since this war began. May I ask him to reiterate that in the just and lasting peace we all seek, they are at the centre of all this? Will he send a clear and immediate message to say, as Pink Floyd might have put it, “Hey, Putin! Leave those kids alone!”?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend puts forward; I am not sure I would put it in quite the terms that she does, but the sentiment is shared. This is just shocking—the idea of kidnapping children as an act of war and a weapon of war is just so disgusting, frankly. We should do absolutely everything we can to ensure not only that the children are safe, secure and returned, but that there is full accountability.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but if I may, I will caution him. I understand that the reports referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) are from a single source—an unnamed US official. I think we might be falling into a trap here, which others want us to fall into, of bouncing the Ukrainians ahead of an arbitrary deadline of Thanksgiving day. We need to ensure that officials and all of us are able to verify sources and corroborate them, even if they are reported in the mainstream media and repeated in the United Kingdom.
I believe I am still allowed to ask a question. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give to the people of this country and of Ukraine that President Trump’s very bad 28-point plan will not now be replaced by a bad 19-point plan? We all know from history that Ukraine, Europe, the United Kingdom and even our allies, the United States, will rue the day that we roll over for Putin. If we reward the aggressor, history tells us and we know that they come back for more.
The Prime Minister
My instinct is with the right hon. Gentleman on the breaking news. I spoke to President Zelensky about four hours ago—I have obviously spoken to him extensively, so I have a pretty good sense of where he is at on this matter—and I intend to speak to him again this afternoon.
The Prime Minister
My instinct is that this probably is not anything of greater significance than what was coming out yesterday. If it is, of course I will make another statement. I spoke to President Zelensky this morning and got a very clear sense of where he is at, and I intend to speak to him again this afternoon. We have the coalition of the willing, and if there is anything, I will of course update the House.
The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) is right to caution, and he is right in the underlying point he makes. We must hold to the principle that matters about the future of Ukraine are for Ukraine. That means that we must engage as extensively as we are doing with the President and the Ukrainians to ensure that, every step of the way, we are taking into account in a practical sense that matters for Ukraine must be for Ukraine, and that can happen only if we are talking to them in the way that we are.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank the Prime Minister for the leadership he has shown on Ukraine.
Year 6 students from St Margaret Clitherow Catholic primary school in Bracknell have written to me to express their deep concern about the ongoing crisis in Sudan, so I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership at the G20 on this conflict. What message does he have for those students who are concerned about this deep tragedy?
The Prime Minister
Will my hon. Friend please pass a message back to them to say, “Thank you for raising this”? It is important that they have done so. The fact that they raised it with him means that it has now been raised through him on the Floor of this House, so they are directly inputting into our democracy and accountability. I assure them that we are working with partners to bring about an end to the appalling situation in Sudan. It has been the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world not just in recent days and weeks, but for a very long time—it is simply worse and more intense. Will he reassure the students that we are doing everything we can with partners to bring an end to this awful situation and thank them for their input?
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Prime Minister referred to Putin’s barbaric attacks on civilian energy infrastructure. What discussions has he had with his G20 counterparts about learning from Ukraine’s experience to protect energy supplies and infrastructure from hostile Russian action?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. The attacks on energy supplies are intended to inflict damage on civilians in Ukraine, as they do on a regular basis, particularly as we go into the winter. We are doing two things: we are working with the Ukrainians on what more support we can give them to safeguard their energy supplies, and of course with allies we are looking at whether there are any issues we need to address in relation to any vulnerabilities we may have.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his updates on the G20 and, in particular, for his commitment to the Global Fund, which we should be really proud of. I was also very pleased to see Sudan referenced in the joint declaration of the G20 leaders—as the Prime Minister has said, it is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, but we are also hearing appalling accounts of war crimes. What more will the Prime Minister now do with global partners to secure a ceasefire, protect civilians and hold the warring parties to account for their crimes?
The Prime Minister
In particular, the Global Fund is so important—my hon. Friend heard the statistics that I went through. In relation to the wider situation, the focus is very much on a cessation of hostilities and on humanitarian support, which is desperately needed.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree with many assessments that make it clear that Russia is actually in a far weaker position than President Putin pretends, so long as we continue to support the war effort in Ukraine? That depends on us developing more independent, non-American capability, and the best way to do that is to fund the Ukrainians to develop their own capabilities so that they can continue to defend their own country.
The Prime Minister
It is important that we make it clear that Russia is in a much weaker position than it pretends. We should always remember that the early briefings and intelligence in relation to this conflict indicated, at the very beginning of the war, that Russia would achieve its end in a matter of a few weeks. Here we are, nearly four years in, and because of the fearless defence of the Ukrainians, supported by others, that has not been the case.
In relation to the damage being done to Russia’s economy by sanctions and other financial issues, we can see that they are doing real damage if we look at the inflation rate and the impact on its economy. The hon. Gentleman’s central point is really important. The plans of the coalition of the willing are premised on Ukraine having the capability that it needs, around which the plans that we have put in place would operate—not as a substitute or an alternative, but based on the Ukrainians having the ability and capability within Ukraine to do what it needs to do to safeguard and self-protect.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Trains, planes and submarines—the Prime Minister put the pride of Derby manufacturing front and centre at this G20. Millions saw him halfway around the world in Johannesburg on a train made in Derby, showing the world what our city is famous for. Will he tell us more about what the deals he has secured mean for my constituents who work at Rolls-Royce and in the rail sector? Will he continue his focus on winning international deals for more high-productivity, high-skills and high-wage jobs?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is an incredible champion for Derby. It was incredible to be in Johannesburg, sitting in a train that had been made in Derby. It is significant that countries around the world want to do deals with the United Kingdom because of the quality, professionalism and commitment of our workforce, whether they are in Derby in her particular case, or in other places across the country. Those particular trains will be used for the run to the airport and back, so they will be heavily relied upon in South Africa. I am proud that other countries are saying that it is the UK they want to do deals with, whether that is in relation to frigates, submarines or trains. She should be very proud of the workforce in Derby. If she could pass on my thanks to them for allowing us to do this work, I would be grateful.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. The draft deal states:
“It is expected that Russia will not invade neighboring countries”.
To say it is “expected” is wholly inadequate, given that we cannot place our trust in the words of leaders such as Vladimir Putin. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure that this agreement includes clear, enforceable safeguards? What measures are being implemented to strengthen the UK’s resilience against Russian interference?
The Prime Minister
On the security guarantees, planning has taken place with the coalition of the willing. That needs to be put together with the US guarantee to ensure that it is not an expectation that Putin does not invade Ukraine again, but that there is an absolutely clear message that if he does, there will be consequences. It is only if that is in place, with strong guarantees and credibility, that we will be able to deter Putin. Without those guarantees, he will, as we have seen in the past, simply breach any agreement that was reached in due course. We need to bear down on Russian interference in our democracy, and we will continue to do so.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
My friend the Scottish journalist Jen Stout has just returned from the grey zone between Russian and Ukrainian forces, where to try to evacuate the wounded or even to wander outside for a moment is to invite death from the sky by drones. The message she brings back from Ukrainians on the frontline is that they will not give up this territory that they have defended for years. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the message that comes from here—apart from the Lord Haw-Haws paid by Putin—is that their frontline is our frontline, that Ukrainian sovereignty must be respected and that we will stand with Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The change in the use of drone warfare over the past three to four years has been accelerated and intense, to the point that now, as he reflects, if you are seen, you are dead. That is the effect of drone warfare, and everybody on the frontline understands that. Tens of thousands of lives have been lost defending particular lines, particularly in Donetsk. I will never forget visiting a hospital in Kyiv where I met those who had been burned very badly on the frontline. They were receiving treatment in those hospitals, and it was a poignant reminder of the impact that the war is having on Ukrainians. It is no wonder that they are not going to give that up after so much sacrifice.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What indication was there that Putin would accept even the earlier iteration of this agreement?
The Prime Minister
I am not able to say, because I have not been involved in any discussions with Putin, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect. The main thing is to be clear that the draft was not acceptable in a number of respects, but it did have essential elements that will be required. That is why work is being done to ensure that we get to a place that is acceptable to Ukraine and that can then be used as a basis, I hope, for some sort of negotiated outcome.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s emphasis on a just and lasting peace. Does he agree that while it is noble to want the fighting to stop, that can always be achieved in any conflict by giving in to the aggressor’s demands? History shows that that is not peace, but appeasement. Does he further agree that Ukraine must not be forced to give up its territory and long-term security needs, not only for its defence, but because it would weaken the very principles of sovereignty and the rules-based system, endangering us all?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the principles that my hon. Friend sets out. I assure him that at the meeting of the coalition this afternoon, I will make the point that I always make when we meet: while we are working for peace and trying to put in place security guarantees, we must not let up on keeping Ukraine in the fight now. That would be a big mistake, and I worry that because of the hope of peace, it is always possible that the focus goes off the fact that Ukraine needs support now to stay in the fight. We must never lose that focus.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Prime Minister’s statement says that Putin continues to seek to undermine our security. Can the Prime Minister give this House an assurance that when a deal is done to the satisfaction of Ukraine, our preparations for our security and defence against Putin—and he will not give up—will continue.
The Prime Minister
I can give the hon. Member that reassurance, but we will not wait until there is some agreement in place; we are taking those measures now.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
On behalf of my constituents, I congratulate the Prime Minister on demonstrating UK leadership by supporting the Ukrainian Government and President Zelensky in turning the 28-point peace plan, which very much appears to have been authored by Russia, into a much more acceptable 19-point peace plan, which clearly needs to be built on. Does the Prime Minister agree with me, and with the majority of my constituents who contact me, that it is vital that the UK and Europe remain steadfast in their support for Ukraine to achieve a lasting and just peace?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend and his constituents. We are doing everything we can to ensure that. It is remarkable that through the coalition of the willing, which is mainly European countries but not just European countries—Japan, Canada and Australia were centrally involved in our discussions over the weekend—there has been such a singular purpose in supporting Ukraine.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I appreciate that this statement might be being outpaced by events outside this Chamber, but negotiating this peace deal with Russia seems to be at odds with nearly four years of steadfast military support. The overriding message is that the rules-based order means nothing, that we will acquiesce to countries that breach sovereign borders, and that actions no longer have consequences. The Prime Minister may as well be waving a piece of paper at Heston aerodrome. The message this sends to our adversaries, and specifically to China, is that the west will be too weak to take action if China invades Taiwan. The Prime Minister mentioned earlier that Russia will face consequences if it invades again. When he talks about a just and lasting peace, what consequences will Russia face for its current actions, or can it act with impunity?
The Prime Minister
We had a pretty good tone up until now. I am not here waving some piece of paper; I am working with Ukraine and with other countries to try to bring about a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We all want a just and lasting peace, but it will not happen if we do not have negotiations. We have to have those negotiations with clear principles about accountability and with strong security guarantees. The hon. Member is not doing this House a service by undermining a serious effort by international partners to bring about a just and lasting peace. It is very easy to speak in this House; it is much harder in practice to negotiate an end to a conflict on just grounds. We will do so, as we have done from beginning to end—and as the last Government did, in all fairness—by being clear that we are the closest ally of Ukraine and the most supportive country. I am proud that that is the approach we have taken in this House.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly said in his statement that Putin continues to seek to undermine our security. Those efforts were aided and abetted by Reform’s Nathan Gill when he took Russian bribes. He is a traitor to this country. How plausible does the Prime Minister think it is for that just to have been an isolated incident? Does he think that Reform’s refusal to investigate its own party and find out how many more Putin puppets and traitors lurk there tells its own story?
The Prime Minister
The way I would put it is this: if the leadership of Reform were confident that there are no other pro-Russia activities and links in their party, they would surely want to have the investigation. The very fact that they will not look at this tells me that they are not confident of that, and they do not want any of us to know about it.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Will the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that he will oppose any peace deal that rewards Russia for its aggression, whether that means carving up Ukraine’s territory or allowing Russia to join the G7? If Putin gets what he wants, this will never end.
The Prime Minister
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman’s constituents that we will absolutely fight for a just outcome and a lasting outcome. He can tell his constituents that we are working very, very closely with the Ukrainians on this, as we always have, and supporting them for as long as they may need that support.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today, and for his continued leadership on a global scale, particularly in respect of Ukraine. I also welcome what he said about the investment that the Government will put into the Global Fund, because I recognise the importance of tackling HIV, malaria and tuberculosis. However, may I put in a personal plea for my constituent Anne Strike, a Paralympian and a polio victim, and ask that we continue to lead on the world stage in the eradication of polio? We are so close, but global conflicts such the one in Ukraine will obviously lead to more instances of polio in the future.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a proud champion for Harlow, and I am pleased that he has raised polio in that context, linking it to his constituency. We must not lose sight of the devastating impact of polio, HIV/AIDS and TB. They are having a devastating effect across the globe, and they will be a threat to us as well if we do not act.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I, too, thank the Prime Minister for reaffirming his commitment to the Global Fund. I secured a Backbench Business debate about the fund last week, so we really do appreciate that.
The Army Training Regiment Winchester trains about 20% of new recruits, putting them through basic training. I was there last week to see the passing-out parade. However, it is scheduled to close next summer, and the replacement facility at Pirbright is not due to open until 2030 at the earliest, although we have heard that the opening will be delayed. Will the Prime Minister review that decision? A four-year gap between one facility closing and another opening, at a time when we are rightly trying to increase troop numbers, does not really make sense to anyone.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I do not have the details to hand, but I will ensure that I provide a full response in writing to the point he has raised.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Many of the Ukrainian refugees in my constituency have welcomed the continuity between the last Government and the current Government in respect of their support for Ukraine. President Zelensky is under great pressure from some within the American Administration to accept an unreasonable deal. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will give his commitment to the President of Ukraine to ensure that he does not have to give in to the unreasonable demands for land surrender, for a restriction of Ukraine’s ability to defend itself in future, and for Russia not to pay for the crimes that it has committed in Ukraine? That is important for Ukraine, but it is also important to send Russia the message that we will not reward the aggressor.
The Prime Minister
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I can give him that reassurance. That is why we are working as closely as we are with the Ukrainians, particularly with the President but at all levels.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the host of a Ukrainian.
Given the growing instability around the world and the absence of the US President from both the G20 summit and COP30, how will the Prime Minister use the close relationship between the UK and America to ensure that Trump does not undermine the ability of global partnerships and agencies to keep us all safe from all types of problems in the future?
The Prime Minister
It is very important that we make the case for multilateral work across the globe, whether it is done by the G20 or by COP30. We will constantly make that case, because it is important for a rules-based system throughout the world—of which the United Nations is one part and the principles of war are another—but it is also in our own interests as the United Kingdom.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Prime Minister has told the House today that he and the United Kingdom will never falter in support of Ukraine. Does that mean that the United Kingdom is not part of the pressure on Ukraine to concede territory that is already occupied? How could the ceding of territory be anything other than the rewarding of aggression and the whetting of the appetite of the aggressor?
The Prime Minister
The approach that we have taken is based on the principles that I have set out to the House, and is absolutely rooted in what the Ukrainians want out of this. That is why we are speaking to and working with them so extensively in relation to these negotiations. All matters involving the future of Ukraine must be for Ukraine, and that is the guiding principle in everything that I have been doing.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I was pleased to see that Sudan was included in the G20 consensus. Will the Prime Minister set out what that will look like in practice, given that the atrocities of El Fasher seem likely to be repeated in Kordofan? What protections will be in place for the safe passage of civilians and humanitarian workers, what will be done about the assistance funding gap, and, importantly, what conversations are taking place with or about states that are said to be funding the belligerents and keeping the war going, including the United Arab Emirates?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I can reassure her that we are having extensive conversations with the Quad, which is driving this forward, on all fronts but most immediately about the humanitarian situation, and we will keep the House updated.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for all that he does for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, indeed, for the western world. It is appreciated by many.
There is a plan that we all hope can end the war in Ukraine and stop the devastation and the killings. Our eyes are focused on that plan. I think of the innocents killed, the women and children targeted, and the massacres carried out by Russians. I think of the children as young as eight and women as old as 80 who have been raped by Russian monsters, and of the massacres in Bakhmut, where more than 200 people were found in a mass grave. And there is more: we can watch video of Russian soldiers torturing people and murdering people. I suggest that whatever peace will bring, it must ensure that the Russians who have carried out those terrible crimes are held accountable, so can the Prime Minister confirm that there will be retribution? As a Christian, I know that there will be retribution in the next world, but what I want to see is retribution in this world, and eternal damnation for the rest of their lives.
The Prime Minister
That may have been the last question, but it is a very important one, given the atrocities and the impact that this has had on all Ukrainians. I remember, in the early days of the conflict, seeing the images of civilians handcuffed and shot in the head, lying in the streets just outside Kyiv. It was shocking. I went to visit those communities when I was over there, and talked to the individuals. It was their brothers, their sisters, their families and their colleagues who had had their hands tied and been shot in the head, and it fell to them to pick the bodies up, put them in shopping trolleys, wheel them to their church, and try to give them the best burial they could in the circumstances. We should never lose sight of the human impact that these atrocities have, not only on those individuals but on all of us, myself included.
COP30
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about the COP30 climate summit.
The climate crisis represents the greatest long-term threat we face as a world, but the transition also represents the greatest economic opportunity of our time. At home, we are driving for clean energy and climate action, because it is right for energy security, lower bills, good jobs and growth for the British people, as well as for protecting future generations. We went to COP because, with the UK representing just 1% of annual global emissions, working with other countries to tackle the climate crisis is the only way to protect our home and way of life, and because there are huge investment and export opportunities for our country by accelerating the transition globally.
More than 190 countries participated in this COP to build on the progress made over more than three decades of global co-operation, which has seen us move from a world heading for 4°C or more of warming to one where national commitments put us on course for around 2.3° to 2.5°; from a world where no major economy had a net zero target to one where 80% of global GDP is covered, thanks in no small part to the leadership of the UK at COP26 in Glasgow; and from a world where a majority of energy investment was in fossil fuels to one where twice as much is invested in clean energy. The energy transition is happening, the world is moving and multilateralism is working. The forces around the world—including here in Britain—who want to deny that the climate crisis exists, or to delay the action we need to address it, are losing. But at the same time, we were conscious in Belém of the further progress that needs to be made. Our Brazilian hosts were determined to make this an “implementation COP”, and the negotiations served as a focal point for action. This was the first COP to be held in the Amazon, and therefore a significant focus was on protecting forests. The UK was proud to work with Brazil to help it develop the pioneering Tropical Forest Forever Facility, and work on this was moved forward at COP.
The UK was also proud to work alongside the Brazilian presidency on the global climate action agenda, which is about building coalitions of Governments, businesses, cities and civil society groups to accelerate action on issues including reducing methane emissions, phasing out coal and driving investment in clean energy. Thousands of British businesses, as well as our researchers, universities, mayors and others, were involved. The agenda is part of the unstoppable transition that is happening in the real economy, including here in Britain, where our net zero sectors are growing three times faster than the economy as a whole, and where £52 billion of private investment has been announced in clean energy since July 2024.
Turning to the negotiations themselves, I want to put on record my thanks to the UK’s brilliant COP negotiating team, led by our chief negotiator Kate Hughes. I saw once again in Belém the huge admiration there is around the world for the talent, expertise and dedication of our civil service, as well as the recognition of British climate leadership, which has built up over many decades under Governments of different political parties—the foundation of our ability to stand up for Britain on the world stage.
Of course, there is a truth that we must acknowledge: these summits are hard and complex. More than 190 countries negotiating how to transform their economies and societies is never going to be easy. We did not get everything we wanted from the talks, and there were times when it appeared that there would be no agreement, but in the end an agreement was reached, and the outcome represented progress on three critical issues.
The first is about redoubling our efforts to keep global warming to 1.5°. Last year, the Prime Minister announced the UK’s target to reduce emissions by at least 81% by 2035, based on the previous Government’s carbon budget. Many other countries have announced commitments over the last 12 months, including China pledging to cut its emissions for the first time, alongside the EU, Brazil and a total of 120 countries, covering three quarters of global emissions.
However, we must do more to close the gap to 1.5°. Recognising the urgency of action, it was agreed in the final COP30 text that all countries had to play a part to keep 1.5° within reach, that this required us to meet net zero as a world by or around the middle of the century, and that all countries should be encouraged to raise their targets. There will now be a forward process into COP31 next year, so we remain focused on the urgency of this issue.
Secondly, ambition on reducing emissions goes hand in hand with finance. This is in our interests, because there is no route to global stability, growth and development without supporting developing countries to take the low-carbon path and to better protect their populations from the impacts of the climate crisis. At COP29 in Baku last year, countries agreed that we needed to mobilise at least $300 billion per year for developing countries by 2035, and to scale up towards $1.3 trillion from all sources. COP30 agreed to target a share of the global resources agreed last year towards a trebling of adaptation finance by 2035, to make sure that developing countries have the resilience they need.
Thirdly, we know that there is no solution to the climate crisis without action on the transition away from fossil fuels. The need for this transition was agreed by all countries at COP28 in Dubai, including by the UK under the last Conservative Government. The Brazilian presidency put forward the idea of agreeing to a road map so that we could grapple with the difficult issues facing fossil fuel-producing countries, as well as the need for a just and fair transition.
At COP30, we saw the emergence of a broad coalition of 83 countries from the global north and global south, backed by more than 140 global businesses and civil society groups that endorsed the idea of a road map. This turned out to be the hardest sticking point in the talks, and it could not be agreed in the final text because some countries objected, yet as a result of the momentum built, the Brazilian presidency announced at the conclusion of the COP that it would launch such a road map on fossil fuels, as well as a road map to halt and reverse global deforestation. These coalitions of the willing are important when we cannot reach universal agreement, as we have seen with the Powering Past Coal Alliance, initiated by Britain and Canada, which is now supported by 65 national Governments.
The COP30 agreement also took important steps forward on building carbon markets, the just transition, technology transfer, and transparency on implementing commitments so that countries are properly held to account. Taken together, this package represents incremental but important progress and extends the arc of the progress we have seen over 30 years of COPs. That was particularly important this year, because the summit was a test of whether countries would continue to work together on the collective threat we face or whether, with the US stepping out of the Paris agreement, there would be a domino effect of others departing. That has not happened. At COP30, more than 190 countries reaffirmed their faith in the Paris agreement, their faith in working together to keep global warming to 1.5°, and their faith in multilateralism.
The message coming out of Belém was clear: whatever the challenges, clean energy and climate action are the foundations on which the global economy is being remade and rebuilt. That is good for Britain because of the economic opportunities that clean energy represents. It is good for Britain because it is the route to energy security and lower bills.
And it is good for Britain because it is the only way we can keep future generations safe from the threat of climate breakdown. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
Let us be clear: when this Secretary of State resumed office, he decided to impose the most punishing climate policies at home, because according to his argument, if we lead, others will follow. That is why we are the only country in the world to be shutting down our domestic energy supply in the North sea, and why he is forcing us into ever higher energy bills. He has taken the most hair-shirt, ideological approach to climate policy, with thousands of jobs lost and high bills for decades. We are not setting an example to the rest of the world; what he has created is a warning.
It is now the renewables advocates at home who are raising the alarm about the folly of the Secretary of State’s plans to shut down the North sea. [Hon. Members: “Who?”] They say, “Who?” Let me name them. Scottish Renewables, Octopus Energy and—they may have heard of this one—the chair of his very own Great British Energy have all said that we have to continue to drill in the North sea, because they know that there is no just transition by pulling the plug as thoughtlessly as the Government are doing. This is student politics, yet thousands of Britons—[Interruption.] Labour Members laugh. I might remind them that it was their Minister who got booed when we went to Aberdeen, because thousands of Britons are paying the price with their jobs.
Secondly, while the Secretary of State has been gone, it has become even clearer that his plans are raising energy bills at home. Martin Lewis and all our country’s biggest energy suppliers have publicly made it clear that the Secretary of State’s costs are now raising bills. The truth is that he promised the public lower bills and more jobs, when in fact his policies are destroying jobs and signing us up to higher bills for decades. That is not what the public were promised.
The real path to lower emissions is cheaper electricity. If we want people to choose electric cars or electric heating, we need to make electricity cheap, and our cheap power plan would cut the cost of electricity for everyone by 20%. We have some of the cleanest but most expensive electricity in the world. Our plan would address that, and even the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), has said that it merits consideration.
Let me return to COP to see what the Secretary of State did achieve. How many countries joined his new Global Clean Power Alliance? We did not hear about that in the statement because the answer is, “Not a single one.”. Perhaps the terrible outcomes that he is achieving at home have put them off. Worst of all, despite this conference cutting down acres of the Amazon rainforest, the Secretary of State chose not to support this conference’s flagship forest fund. Every Conservative Government since 2021 have supported global funds on deforestation, but he made sure that Britain, for the first time in four years, did not contribute. Is this not the height of hypocrisy? When people say they support environmental policy, first and foremost they mean protecting the natural world that we all cherish. Does this not show up his green ideology for what it is— bureaucratic, punitive and ultimately ineffective?
The Secretary of State’s plans are completely counterproductive, so he should answer these fundamental questions. First, what do his plans mean for electricity bills, when everyone from Martin Lewis to Ofgem have made it clear that his policies are raising bills? What assessment has he made of how damaging those higher electricity bills are for electrification? Here is the rub: he is making electricity more expensive, and expecting people to use it for their heating. As a plan, it is simply absurd.
Secondly, how many more emissions will the UK account for if it is increasing its imports of liquefied natural gas, which has four times the emissions of North sea? The Secretary of State is driving away British jobs to import gas with higher emissions, and he should explain to the House what the environmental benefit of that is. Thirdly, how will it help climate change if AI firms that want to use gas power set up shop in some other country rather than Britain? Those data centres will still exist, just not here in Britain, thanks to his policies. Fourthly, what does he say to Martin Lewis, who has made it very clear that the problem pushing up bills is not gas, but his plans?
Here is the problem: from our electricity price to the North sea and AI, the Secretary of State is impoverishing Britain for no benefit to global emissions. This is student politics. We have become a warning, not an example, to the rest of the world. Here is what he should remember: no country is going to be convinced by a moral lecture from this Secretary of State. They are persuaded by prosperity, and his hair-shirt approach is the biggest blocker to British prosperity.
Ed Miliband
Oh dear, oh dear! I remember a time when the Conservative party was serious about the COP negotiations. The shadow Secretary of State had advance sight of the statement, but she did not ask any questions about it. I have to say that there is a fundamental issue here: do we engage internationally on how we drive forward the clean energy transition, or do we have a series of really pretty useless talking points, which is what she chose to do?
Let me get to the right hon. Lady’s questions, such as they were. She talks about jobs, so let me tell her some of the things that have happened on jobs in the last couple of weeks: 3,000 new jobs with the small modular reactors in north Wales, which is the biggest investment in north Wales in a generation—promised multiple times by the Conservatives, but never delivered—and 600 jobs in Great Yarmouth, Belfast and the north-west, all thanks to our clean power plans, while SSE has announced thousands more jobs as part of its £33 billion investment in the UK.
Let us not forget that all of this would be put at risk by the Conservatives’ plan to rip up the Climate Change Act 2008. Do not take it from me; in the words of Rain Newton-Smith, the director general of the CBI, that would be
“a backwards step in achieving our shared objectives of reaching economic growth, boosting energy security, protecting our environment and making life healthier for future generations.”
It has been roundly condemned by British business, and of course the proof is what we have seen in the last 15 months. The shadow Secretary of State talks about the record, but more than £50 billion of investment in clean energy in Britain has been pledged because of our plans.
The right hon. Lady talks about bills, but her problem is that she has learned nothing from the disaster the Conservatives imposed on the country with the worst cost of living crisis in generations in this country—
Ed Miliband
Oh! The hon. Member says it was because Putin invaded Ukraine—excellent, excellent! I congratulate him on his sedentary intervention—exactly, exactly! Why did prices go through the roof and why were we so exposed? Because of our exposure to fossil fuels. And what do the Conservatives want to do? Double down on our exposure to fossil fuels. As the shadow Secretary of State knows, the truth, as the Conservatives used to believe before they went a bit more wacky than they were before, is that there is only one route to energy security in the modern world, which is clean home-grown power that we control. Despite everything they say, the truth is that they have learned nothing from what happened.
Let me turn to the questions, such as they were, on the COP. By the way, the shadow Secretary of State complains about the COP being held in the Amazon. I have to say to her that, with the greatest of respect, I will take President Lula’s judgment about where the COP should be held rather than hers. For goodness’ sake, have a bit of respect for the Brazilian presidency! It decided that the right thing to do was to hold the COP in the Amazon to draw attention to the issue of deforestation, and she is complaining about its decisions to make the COP possible—for goodness’ sake!
On the point about the TFFF, we are supportive of it, and we will keep under review whether we can make a contribution. It was because of fiscal circumstances that we did not, but we are investing more than £1 billion over five years in countering deforestation. I am proud of what we are doing on that and the Congo basin.
On the point about British leadership, the right hon. Lady could not be more wrong about the role of Britain on these things. What people are seeing is an ambitious Government who are leading on these issues, so there is actually some respect for what Britain is suggesting others should do. There is a record under both parties that we need to learn from here, and I say this as politely as I can to the Conservative party: ambition at home is what makes possible leadership abroad. We passed the Climate Change Act in 2008, which she now wants to rip up, and 60 countries followed us. We put net zero into law by 2050, and she wants to rip it up. I praise Theresa May for that, but is it not extraordinary that I can praise Theresa May, but the Conservative party cannot do so? She put net zero by 2050 into law, which the Conservatives want to rip up, and 80% of global GDP has followed us.
I will end by saying that there is a truth here, which is that the Conservatives used to aspire to global Britain. Now, they have simply become the party of little Britain, and it really does not look good.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend rightly reminded us of the progress that was made at COP. The recommitment to limiting global warming to no more than 1.5° is hugely important. He was honest in saying that we did not get everything we wanted, and that is sensible. However, he also reminded us of the absolute seriousness of climate breakdown, and that we must take every action possible. That goes beyond COP, and I hope he agrees that that work should continue whether or not it is in relation to a COP.
The Secretary of State started to talk about energy security, and I want to link this subject to that, because there is a worrying tendency towards a loss of support for the transition. Does he agree that it is really important, especially in the light of the ongoing aggression from Russia—and we have just had a statement, including on Ukraine, demonstrating it—that we make it clear to people that energy security and climate breakdown are very strongly linked, and that the answer to both of them is the energy transition?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The reason we have seen a movement of support for the transition away from fossil fuels is not simply climate-related, but energy security-related. Lots of countries, including Britain, recognise—unwittingly helpfully, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said this from a sedentary position—that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine showed our vulnerability due to our reliance on fossil fuels. At a very striking roundtable hosted by Marina Silva, the Environment Minister in Brazil, many countries from the global north and the global south said the same thing, which is that, for them, the move away from fossil fuels towards home-grown clean energy is the route to energy security, so he makes a very important point.
The only other point I would make is that my hon. Friend is right that these negotiations are hard and painstaking. We have to look at the progress that has been made over the course of the 30 years. It is tough, and different countries are in different positions, but that is what these talks are all about.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
COP30 was the first climate summit since the world experienced a full year of global warming above 1.5°C. That is a stark reminder of the urgency we collectively face. At home, due to extreme weather, our farmers faced their worst harvest on record and lost billions in income from arable crops, while we saw devastating wildfires, doubling records, that wiped out national parks and local environments that are precious to everyone. These are the costs of inaction and climate breakdown here in the UK.
I was proud to be part of a cross-party group of MPs who attended this COP and to carry with me the hopes of young people in South Cambridgeshire who sent me pictures, videos and poems. Freya, aged 11, wrote:
“I don’t want to just inherit my future. I want to be able to shape the decisions and actions that others are taking on my behalf, because I am afraid.”
I want to commend Brazil, the Secretary of State, the UK negotiating team and all those who worked tirelessly to keep the COP process alive, despite relentless attacks from climate denialism, delay and deception. The multilateral system is far from perfect, but it is the best alternative we have for global co-operation on climate change. There were positives: the pledges to cut methane; the recognition of the links between climate, nature and public health; the commitment to triple adaptation finance, which we know from Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica is absolutely critical; and the demonstration by business that the transition is an economic imperative and opportunity.
The global climate action agenda is just so inspiring and has a massive impact, but we know that hope was not matched by delivery: there is still no credible plan to reduce the gap between current national commitments and the reductions needed to stay below 1.5°C; the refusal to reference fossil fuels and the transition away in the final text, despite it being the root cause of the crisis, was a staggering failure; and the Prime Minister’s unexpected and inexplicable decision not to support the Tropical Forests Forever Facility was really, really disturbing. This was what Brazil launched: an innovative investment facility to save tropical forests and give them a value while standing.
Ed Miliband
I agreed with much—not all—of what the hon. Lady said. On her overall point about the fact that we have so many countries driving forward with action, she is absolutely right. On her point about the gap to achieving 1.5°C, she is also absolutely right. In a sense, part of what the future of these COPs will be about is each country driving others towards greater ambition, because we know we need greater ambition. It is also important to look at where the world has come from. The multilateral process has all kinds of maddening aspects to it, but it has definitely made progress. On the point about business, she is absolutely right and that is really striking. The fact of the agreement and the fact of this staying on track is an important signal to business, just as the Climate Change Act 2008 is an important signal to business here at home.
On the hon. Lady’s point about the TFFF, let me say candidly that we have a very difficult fiscal situation in this country. We have not ruled out contributing to investing in the TFFF in future. It is, as the Prime Minister said, something that we will keep under review. Overall, I thank her for her support, because we want to keep as much of the cross-party consensus as we possibly can on this really important matter.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
I was part of that same cross-party delegation to COP in Belém. We were proud to meet parliamentarians from all over the world who are absolutely invested in the COP process and still absolutely believe in its importance. I was struck by how many conversations we had about the UK’s enduring global leadership on climate change, from our landmark Climate Change Act in 2008 under the last Labour Government to our clean energy policies today. It is not just about driving down carbon emissions and climate change; it is also about Britain’s role in the world. Will the Secretary of State commit Britain to continuing to lead the way on driving down carbon emissions and saving our planet, and continuing to make the case that this action is making life in Britain for British people safer and cheaper?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. With the UK at 1% of global emissions, as I said in my statement, engaging with the world is incredibly important. There is huge respect for Britain on these issues. I give credit to some of the actions taken under the previous Government by Lord Sharma and Theresa May, because the different actions we have taken have built a legacy of British leadership and it is incredibly important to build on that.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I, too, would like to ask the Secretary of State some questions on the TFFF. I am glad that he is proud of the previous Government’s actions and innovation in setting up that facility. He has explained that there is a tough fiscal situation and that is why the Government are currently not committing to that fund, but it is disappointing that in the statement there is only sentence on the TFFF. It concludes that
“work on this was moved forward at COP”.
Will he please update the House on what specifically was “moved forward” at COP in relation to the TFFF? When will decisions be made in the future about a financial commitment to that facility?
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and I am very happy to expand on what I said in my statement. We have worked—under the previous Government and under this Government, particularly in the last year—with the Brazilian Government on the design of the TFFF. Work was moved forward because a number of countries pledged investment in the TFFF. There were lots of discussions, at the side and indeed at the world leaders’ summit, on the TFFF and the innovative idea. We pledged both to keep under review our potential public financial contribution and to continue the work with the City of London on the TFFF. Obviously, that is a decision on the financial contribution. I know better than to speculate about these things, because they rely on the Treasury and other matters, but it is something we are going to look at over the coming months.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I, too, was on the cross-party delegation that attended COP, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes)—I take this opportunity to wish her a happy birthday. I welcome the Prime Minister’s global leadership on climate and his attendance at COP30 in Belém, and indeed the leading role played by the British cross-party contingent of MPs, Ministers, non-governmental organisations and our world-class scientists. My constituents sent me hundreds of messages ahead of my travel to COP30. Among them were asks about our plans for our clean energy transition. Will the Secretary of State outline to the House what Labour’s plans are for clean power by 2030, alongside our world-leading nationally determined contribution, and how we are encouraging other countries to act on the climate crisis?
Ed Miliband
I welcome the fact—I should have done so earlier—that my hon. Friend and other Members from all parties were at COP30. British Government representation is important, but so is British parliamentary representation and the more cross-party it is, as far as I am concerned, the better. My hon. Friend’s point about the NDCs is important. Our NDC, our 81% reduction, is based on the carbon budget passed by Boris Johnson in the run-up to COP26. We have taken that target, in good cross-party tradition, and put it forward as part of the UN framework. On clean power by 2030, we are driving ahead with our plans on clean energy, with more than £50 billion-worth of investment in clean energy pledged. All of that is a crucial contribution. Britain’s leadership on these issues is recognised and gives us more power in these discussions and negotiations.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Is it not a cruel confidence trick to suggest that 1.5°C is still achievable, when it manifestly is not? Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency confirmed 2.9°C by 2100 as its central scenario and that a 2.5°C increase by 2050 was totally unrealistic and unachievable. Would the Government not be better off spending our taxpayers’ money on adapting to the realities—increasing resilience and ensuring we improve our flood defences and so on—and preparing for the inevitable, instead of continuing to punish the British people?
Ed Miliband
I have had this exchange with the hon. Gentleman before—he is too pessimistic. If we had taken that approach before, we would be heading for 4°C or 5°C of global warming. Yes, it is true that the central scenario is somewhere between 2.3°C and 2.5°C depending on which figures one looks at, but the whole point is to bring the numbers down. People talk about negative tipping points, and we are right to be worried about those, which is why, I am afraid, we cannot just let it happen—it would be a disaster. We should also think about positive tipping points. On solar energy in the past decade, for example, we have exceeded the forecasts that the IEA and others had. We need to move towards those positive tipping points.
I am not giving up on 1.5°C, but I make this point to the hon. Gentleman: every fraction of a degree that we reduce warming will save many lives across the globe, prevent many disasters and reduce the costs that future generations face. I agree with him about investing in adaptation, but we have got to do both.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
For a long time there has been a consensus on the need to take action against climate change in this House, so it is disappointing and saddening to see the Secretary of State, Members on the Government Benches and the Lib Dems having to come to this House to defend a position that used to be shared. I was proud to be at COP with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), who I wish a happy birthday, to see UK negotiators and Ministers taking a leading role in action to protect my generation and generations to come. Does the Secretary of State agree that Reform UK’s dangerous anti-climate politics show that with them our future is at risk?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend speaks incredibly well about this issue, and it is worth pausing and recognising what she has said. Since I have been involved in this issue, all the way back to David Cameron—I call him my nemesis—there has been a competition in this House for climate ambition. That was good, and it was recognised across the world—that was when the Conservative party won elections. My hon. Friend has said something really important; the sooner we can get back to that, the better. I do not think the British people want a culture war on climate. They do not want an imported US-style culture war, and the sooner the Conservative party recognises that, the better.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Increasing the sustainability of agriculture is a vital part of action on climate change, and it was particularly relevant at a COP held in the rainforest, which is under pressure from farming. Can the Secretary of State outline the discussions he had at COP on agriculture, and will he work with his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to reverse this Government’s mistakes and provide UK farmers with the financial support they need to play their part?
Ed Miliband
We are making big investments in farming and agriculture. In answering the hon. Lady’s question, I will take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), and the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Katie White), who are both with me on the Front Bench. They were part of the negotiations and discussions, including on agriculture and the question of methane. The UK produced its methane action plan in the run-up to COP; methane reduction is an area where we can make quick progress that can have real benefit in bridging the gap to 1.5°C. There were definitely extensive discussions on that; the world made progress on methane and it is something that we will keep working on in the months ahead.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I am sure the Secretary of State would not necessarily like me to remind him that it is 16 years since the first COP he attended with me, which was significantly less successful than the one this year. I commend him for his great effort over that time in managing to demonstrate the UK’s leadership on climate change. That cannot be underestimated, and despite what some on the Opposition Benches think, we make a difference by demonstrating what is possible in climate actions here at home. Where we lead, others follow.
For that reason, the Secretary of State also knows how important nature is in contributing to tackling climate change, and how much our constituents value nature at home and abroad. In that light, financing is important, especially maintaining the amount of funding in the new international climate finance budget for nature projects. Will he confirm that a third of the new budget will be spent on nature projects, with half of that spent on protecting forests?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend reminds me how old I am, for which I am grateful! At various points in the middle of the night, Friday into Saturday, I could not help feeling a slight sense of Copenhagen post-traumatic stress disorder as I thought we were heading for no agreement. One of the things I consoled myself with was that the world is actually much further forward than it was when the Copenhagen summit foundered. On my hon. Friend’s important points about international finance and nature finance, despite the difficult fiscal circumstances, we have maintained funding of £11.6 billion over five years in the ICF. We will be making new announcements in the coming months, but the points that she makes about protecting nature and tackling the climate crisis going together are very well taken.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
What commitments were secured at COP30 from the countries responsible for the highest carbon emissions—China, the US and India—to reduce their emissions, given that their leaders, Xi, Trump and Modi, could not even be bothered to attend? Or did those countries fail to commit to reducing their carbon emissions and to phasing out their use of fossil fuels, instead allowing the Secretary of State to walk his ideological path of net zero, which is destroying the UK’s industrial and manufacturing base and pushing our population into poverty with ever-higher energy bills?
Ed Miliband
I definitely disagree with the last part of the right hon. Lady’s question, because net zero is actually the greatest economic opportunity that we have, which is why we are going to create 400,000 new clean energy jobs by 2030. On the first part of her question, which is really important, let me answer her directly: I would like China to go further, but for the first time it has announced an absolute reduction in its emissions. It is really important to understand that. I think it could go further, but this is a very significant moment. When I was at COP 15 years ago, the notion that China would have had an absolute emissions target—never mind that it would be cutting its emissions—was frankly fanciful.
I did an event with the Indian Minister. Again, India could go further, but it has reached its target to have 50% of its electricity supplied by non-fossil fuel sources five years early—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member is shaking her head. She asked a question, and I am answering it. The notion that no other country is acting is frankly wrong.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The objections to global and national action on climate change frankly baffle me, not least because of the climate emergency, but also because of the opportunity it brings to our country. My constituency has had good clean energy jobs for decades through Heysham 1 and 2 nuclear power stations—I keep pushing for Heysham 3. Does the Secretary of State agree that the agreements at COP30 and the Government’s actions on climate change are an opportunity to not only fight climate change and create good jobs, but improve living standards in our country and across the globe?
Ed Miliband
I agree 100%. For all that the Opposition say, according to the Confederation of British Industry the net zero economy is growing three times faster than the economy as a whole. There is a reason why China, India and all those other countries are driving into clean energy: they see it as a massive economic opportunity. The Opposition would say, “Let’s just rip up that economic opportunity.” Frankly, that would be a betrayal of not just young people, who will look at them and think, “What about our future?” but people today who want those good jobs.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Right across the world, people’s day-to-day lives are being destroyed by the impacts of climate change and associated industrial activity, from the indigenous tribes of the Amazon seeing their rainforest home destroyed around them, to island peoples in the Pacific, whose nations will literally cease to exist as water levels rise. To many people looking at COP30, it feels like developed nations are taking a somewhat protectionist view at the expense of millions of people. In years to come, when the Secretary of State looks back at this COP, will he be able to say that he did absolutely everything he could for those people? From here, it does not look good for so many people who are on the brink.
Ed Miliband
That is an absolutely fair question; it is one I ask myself a lot. Are we doing everything we can despite the global pressures and how difficult it is? I will tell the House this: as it looked like we were going to end up with no deal, I thought a lot about what signal that would send. At the same time, though, we wanted to have as robust an agreement as possible. My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s very legitimate question is yes; we are trying to do absolutely everything we can, but it is hard because 190-something countries are all wrestling with their own dilemmas and constraints. However, he is right to push us to do as much as we can, because we are the generation that both knows the scale of the crisis that confronts us and has the chance to do something about it. Future generations will have less opportunity to do anything about it because the pathway will be more set. He is absolutely right to push us.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Meeting international colleagues at COP30, the extent to which the UK’s track record and the policy of this Government are hugely respected was absolutely clear. In fact, while many of the steps this Government have taken received huge support, there was also great respect for the steps that the previous Government had taken. I share my right hon. Friend’s despair that the current version of the Conservative party not only opposes his policies, but trashes its own history, which—in this area at least—should be a proud one.
While I absolutely believe that we would not have got the statement that we did get without his work and the work of his colleagues over there, does the Secretary of State agree that it is disappointing that the road map towards the eradication of fossil fuels was not agreed? On that basis, what more will he be doing to try to bring that coalition together to get greater agreement when we get to Turkey next year, or even before that?
Ed Miliband
First, I thank my hon. Friend, who is the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, for the really outstanding job they do. I think the observations from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) on the Conservative party are right; I will not add to them because he put them well.
The transition away is the hardest part of the negotiations, as I said, and that is not surprising, because some countries are extremely reliant on fossil fuels and are very reluctant—I think, in retrospect, they are quite reluctant about what was agreed at COP28, which is part of the difficulties we have. I agree with my hon. Friend about continuing to push for this to be part of the negotiations, but I think we also have to accept, as I said in my statement, that part of what we did on coal—and, to be fair, what the previous Government did on coal—is work with others. We have to work as much as we can both inside and outside the formal negotiations with others to drive these issues forward. The lesson of COP history is that we keep pushing forward on these issues; it might be slightly three steps forward, two steps back, but we do make progress.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
If I may, I will focus on the international rather than domestic aspects. I welcome the Secretary of State’s ecumenical approach in respect of the work of the former Government. I have been going to COPs since Copenhagen in 2009, with the last one being COP28 in the UAE, and I do wonder whether, at least in their current form, they are worth continuing. They are hugely expensive jamborees; hydrocarbon interests are distorting the original aim of COP; the wealthy countries are increasingly in the dock, but have decreasing money available. On the wider aspect, it is the poorest people in the world who suffer first and hardest from climate change. There is no doubt that the appalling humanitarian crisis in Darfur is exacerbated by climate change, yet we are doing very little about that.
Ed Miliband
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman and his work under the previous Government on a whole range of development and climate issues, and I thank him for his question. I think my view of COP is a bit like the Churchill view of democracy: it is the least-worst system we have. For all the complaints and all the problems with it, we are bringing together 193 or 194 countries and, as he will know from his experience of COPs, there is an element of accountability: the smallest island states can confront the big emitters.
This is hard, and it is painful, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman cares passionately about these issues. We skated over it in these discussions, but I would just say to him that the agreement to treble adaptation finance within the new collective quantified goal that was agreed last year, which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) drew attention to, is a significant development. It is not as much as many of the developing countries want, and looking at the scale of need—Hurricane Melissa, and so on—we can see the difficulties. I was involved in the £100 billion overall finance that Gordon Brown produced around the Copenhagen summit; again, it was hard, and developing countries complained about it being late, but it did set a bar of accountability for the developed world. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that I am sure the process could be better, but I do think it is an important mechanism of accountability and driving progress.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
It is great to see my right hon. Friend back at the Dispatch Box once more after taking a global leading role at COP. We could have no better Secretary of State in this area. Whatever the Opposition say, the Secretary of State in the global mainstream of climate leadership. As he knows, article 6 was operationalised at last at COP29 last year. The UK, and particularly the City of London, could have a global leading role in utilising article 6 to preserve nature to afforest and restore wetlands, peat bogs and marine environments. We know that countries around the world—not just in the global south, but countries including Ukraine—are putting article 6 into domestic law. What more could we do in the UK to ensure that our City of London, and our global finance money, is creating that natural capital through article 6 around the world?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend draws attention to something that is relatively obscure in the big scheme of things that we talk about in this House, but which is incredibly important none the less. Article 6 on carbon markets was agreed last year after, I think, a decade of effort. I want to pay tribute, by the way, to Rachel Kyte, our climate envoy, who was very much part of that, and indeed Ruth Davis, our nature envoy. Two things are interesting about this. The first is that the Brazilians launched what they call the open coalition on compliance carbon markets to drive work on carbon markets forward. I was part of those discussions. The second interesting thing that has happened is that the idea of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, which has been called for by lots of Members of this House, has actually pushed forward some of the work on carbon markets. I think I am right in saying that 7% of the world was covered by carbon markets 15 years ago, and now it is 28%, so progress is moving forward. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the potential role of the City of London in this.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Like the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), I am a survivor of COP15 in Copenhagen. I have seen just what hard work it is, and I commend the cross-party delegation for representing our country so well in Belém. However, environmental campaigners have raised concerns over the carbon budget delivery and the growth plan’s reliance on unproven technologies such as sustainable aviation fuel and carbon capture and sequestration. How will the Government ensure that the UK is not simply offshoring ecological impacts, including deforestation, or relying on fantasy future technologies on our pathway to net zero?
Ed Miliband
First, I thank the hon. Lady for her advocacy on these issues now and over a very long period, which is widely recognised. On CCS and SAF, I think we will have to agree to disagree, based on all the evidence I have seen. For the real nerds present, among which I obviously count myself, I strongly recommend the IEA’s “World Energy Outlook”, which came out during the COP—I have slightly lost track of when—and which looks at how far we are from the net zero pathway. It actually shows that we have overachieved on renewables, but we need to go further on some other issues. All the experts I respect say that there is no route to decarbonisation without carbon sequestration technology in different forms. As well as that, CCS is a big jobs creator. CCS and SAF are an important part of the future, and technological development is part of what we need. We have existing technologies, such as solar, wind and batteries, and they can also help us. We have seen a driving down of the cost of those, and we need to do the same for these other technologies.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I was not at COP, unlike some of my colleagues, but I am so glad that others were there and saw, in particular, the enduring leadership of the Secretary of State on this issue. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is not listening to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who said that we should be adapting to reality, because it is the poorest people in our societies, both at home and abroad, who often pay the ultimate price for our failure to tackle the climate crisis. It is also one of the biggest drags on growth.
It is because of the powerful leadership that the Secretary of State has shown at COP this weekend that I have to press him. He will know of the concerns many of us have that decisions at home around issues such as Jackdaw and Rosebank could undermine that leadership. Those developments could lead to nearly 300 million tonnes of carbon emissions and fatally attack our ability to stick to the 1.5°C increase in temperature. It would also not help the cost of living crisis. I know that there is a process ahead. Can he assure us that he will rethink the developments and that our global leadership as well as our local cost of living will be foremost in his mind when he makes a decision on Rosebank and Jackdaw?
Ed Miliband
I am not going to comment on planning decisions. I will, however, make the overall point that this Government had two manifesto commitments: to keep existing oil and gas fields in the North sea open for their lifetime, and not to issue new licences to explore new fields. Those were important commitments. They are how we will combine the just transition in the North sea, including for North sea communities, and ensure that we have environmental leadership. We are committed to both those things. I thank my hon. Friend for her wider advocacy on all these issues.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I am grateful to learn from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) that I am not the only person who was not invited to COP30. But I followed it closely and was very pleased to see the emergence of the Belém 4X agreement, which committed its signatories to quadrupling the production and deployment of sustainable fuel molecules by 2035. That would include, most importantly for the United Kingdom, green hydrogen. Unfortunately, while I could find the names of India, Italy and, obviously, Brazil on the agreement, I could not find the United Kingdom’s name. Did I miss it?
Ed Miliband
The right hon. Member did not miss it. Broadly, we are supporters of green hydrogen and many other things he mentions. Our issue is to do with whether the quadrupling of biofuels can be done in a sustainable way. We think that work now needs to be done to ensure that there are proper guardrails around this issue. The broader point he makes about diversification, green hydrogen and all those things is something we very much agree with.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the leadership he has shown internationally and nationally over the past 20 years—it has been quite remarkable. I thank him for his statement today. He will have seen over the time that has elapsed since COP26 in Glasgow the change in the language that is used. In Glasgow, when discussing the Glasgow climate pact, we talked about “phasing out” coal and fossil fuel subsidies. We then moved to “phasing down” and then to “transitioning away”. Now we have a “plan” or “pathway” to transitioning away. That, I am sure, causes alarm bells to ring in his head, as it does in mine. Can he tell us what he sees as the role of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance? He spoke about the need to work with other countries for a really ambitious future. How does he propose to do that?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend has enormous expertise on these issues, which he showed with his question. BOGA, as it is known, has played a really important role in assembling this coalition of more than 80 countries over the global north and global south. Indeed, I was proud to be part of an event and this precedent we set with the alliance on these issues.
My hon. Friend’s wider point is correct: this is hard. There are countries that are resistant to this change and think that previous agreements went too far. That is part of the dialogue being had at these COPs. I think we learn a lesson from what has happened on coal though. The progress the world has made on coal, including the UK, is partly reflected in the agreement at COP26, but it is also about the high-ambition coalitions that form together. As I said in response to an earlier question, we have to do both these things. We have to work in the context of the agreements—but, because they rely on unanimity, we cannot always get what we want—and then we have to work in these broader coalitions.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
It was disappointing to hear from the shadow Secretary of State that tackling climate change and attending COP is student politics. Clearly it is not; it is about grown-ups coming to the table. I thank the Secretary of State and his team for their commitment and work to get the agreement at COP. As we start looking towards COP31, how are we advancing and monitoring the domestic implementation of our nationally determined contributions? Can the Secretary of State also set out how global agreements at COP translate to practical support for communities and businesses in Huddersfield?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend made a very important point with her opening remarks, which I will let Members absorb. On her specific questions, we have a very important carbon budget monitoring system within Government. It is important to say that at the same time as the Conservatives are saying that they want to rip up the Act that they supported, and that David Cameron even had a hand in helping to shape from opposition, so many countries around the world still ask us about it and want to work out how to emulate it. It is head-spinning really.
On my hon. Friend’s point about her constituents, she is absolutely right. In so many different ways, we want to support her constituents. This is about not just future generations but good jobs today, cutting bills, helping community organisations to put solar panels on their rooftops, schools and hospitals and all those things. It is about bringing the benefits of clean energy to her community and communities across Britain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will finish this statement in the next 10 to 15 minutes, so I would be grateful if Members and the Secretary of State could keep their answers short.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
We are at a pivotal moment in the climate crisis. COP30 showed us the fossil fuel industry and its political cheerleaders doing their very best to de-rail action. I thank the Secretary of State for his work. I have two questions on points he raised in his statement. First, he said that ambition must be matched with finance, yet the UK has not contributed to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility or the just transition mechanism. Is it not time for the UK to put its money where its mouth is on this? Secondly, on the point of transitioning away from fossil fuels, the UK faces a defining test: Rosebank. Will he reject the Rosebank oilfield and fully back the just transition that our country needs?
Ed Miliband
On the second point, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). On the first point, I think she is being a little unfair, to put it mildly, on the UK. We led the process of agreeing last year an ambitious NCQG on overall finance. We were part of an agreement that saw the trebling of adaptation finance by 2035, targeting those resources. She knows the fiscal situation that we face as a country. I say very clearly to her, and to all Members of this House who take an interest in these issues, that we absolutely have not ruled out contributing to the TFFF in the future.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know my constituents well and will know that climate change is a huge concern for them. They are particularly concerned that the Government talk a lot about tackling climate change during COP, but all year round it falls off the agenda. Will he reassure my constituents that this is an ongoing commitment from the Government to tackle climate change and that the agreed road map for fossil fuels will not somehow become a loophole for climate inaction?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend asks a good and important question about keeping climate change on the agenda all year round. This is partly about international negotiations, but it is as much about the work that we do at home. Whether announcing new SMRs in north Wales, showing the jobs that come from tackling the climate crisis or putting solar panels on the roofs of schools and hospitals, that is all part of the argument for how this is the route to the right thing not just for future generations but for today’s generations. On the fossil fuel road map, we will work with Brazil on that, and I assure her that it will not be the thing that she fears.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
I thank the Secretary of State for the recent decision on the small modular reactor at Wylfa. To stay committed to the goals of the Paris agreement, we need to speed up the roll-out of technologies such as marine energy. Ynys Môn is home to the world-leading, community-owned Morlais tidal stream project. However, developers require a strategic vision from the Government to develop at pace. Will he consider setting a £40 million tidal stream and a £7 million wave energy ringfence in the next renewable auctions, as advocated for by the UK Marine Energy Council?
Ed Miliband
I thank the hon. Lady for her support for the SMR fleet in north Wales; the announcement that we made was a really important one. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, who is not in the Chamber, is very much involved with the Marine Energy Council. We have been proud in previous auctions to support tidal energy, which has a really important role. It is obviously a more expensive technology at the moment; we need to drive its costs down. I will pass her request on to him, and I am sure that he will get back to her.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for his ongoing commitment to fighting the scourge of climate change in the face of rising denialism. I was really pleased to hear him leave the door open to future contributions to the TFFF. Will he spell out the circumstances in which they might come to reassure me and my constituents, who are deeply concerned that that did not come forward at this COP?
Ed Miliband
That would be telling. Those are the discussions that we need to have with colleagues across government, including in the Treasury, as we look at the ICF programme and others in the future. But I do want to reassure my hon. Friend. We are proud to have worked on the TFFF over all the time of this Government, and indeed part of the time under the previous Government, we think it is a very innovative financing mechanism, and we are absolutely serious about keeping a future UK contribution under review.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
We all believe in keeping our planet sustainable and being good custodians of our environment. What most people do not agree with, however, is the madness of net zero, with its astronomical cost to the taxpayer for minimal impact on a global scale and the damage that unachievable targets are having on agriculture and manufacturing. Will the Energy Secretary tell us what he is doing to ensure sustainability, given the six tonnes of CO2 he is supposed to have emitted as a result of two flights to Brazil to be part of COP30 along with 56,000 others, the £1,250-a-night hotels and the estimated £22,000 on flight costs? It would appear to most of the general public to be a case of, “Do as I say and not as I do.”
Ed Miliband
I could not disagree more with the hon. Lady. Honestly, this is a really important point: either we engage in international action on the global stage or we do not. We are 1% of global emissions, and unless we engage with the countries that produce the other 99% of global emissions, we will never keep our country safe. Do not look into the crystal ball; look at the record. Thirty years of COPs have reduced global warming forecasts from 4°—indeed 5°—to something like 2.3° to 2.5°. It is about multilateralism and working with others; that is so important. This is about our view of Britain. Are we a small, shrivelled country that cannot have any sway, or are we a country that can engage and stand tall on the global stage? That is what I believe.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his update and commend his continued leadership on this issue. I welcome the conference’s focus on strengthening multilateralism, including creating the Belém mechanism for a just global transition. But beyond the walls of the conference, here in the UK we need to be moving much faster away from oil and gas. The UK’s four biggest banks continue to finance polluters, and the drilling licence for Rosebank still has not been rejected. Does the Secretary of State agree that it should be the big polluters subsidising the taxpayer in our climate response and not the other way round?
Ed Miliband
I will be brief. My hon. Friend raises the issue of the banks. I encourage her to contribute to our consultation on transition plans for financial institutions and large companies, because that is an important part of making sure that the investments being made are aligned with net zero and the wider argument on tackling the climate crisis. She makes an important point.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Other countries in straitened fiscal circumstances did pledge to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, so will the Secretary of State explain why the Government failed to commit a single penny, despite the fund being conceived and designed with British minds? There was even talk of it being headquartered here in the City, yet not a penny of official development assistance is being used. That damages our climate credibility as well as our relationship with Brazil and with our own future generations. What should I say to schoolchildren in my constituency who are involved in student politics and who asked me to go to Belém to help save the rainforest?
Ed Miliband
The hon. Lady should tell her constituents that we played a big role in helping to devise the TFFF, that we have absolutely not ruled out contributing to it in the future and that we are determined that the fund succeeds. As I have said, we will obviously keep the question of a UK contribution under review.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his clear leadership, which is in stark contrast to the shadow Secretary of State. I was dismayed to hear her comments, which offered a complete dereliction of duty to future generations and followed others’ failures of leadership rather than showing leadership. I warmly welcome the role that the UK played under the Secretary of State’s leadership in championing the road map for fossil fuel phase out, but there is an elephant in the room. Will the Government continue that leadership by ruling out extraction at Rosebank?
Ed Miliband
On that question, I refer to the answer I gave a few minutes ago. My hon. Friend made a really important wider point. All hon. Members should ask this: when people look back in 10 or 20 years, will they say, “Why were they going on about that climate change business? That all turned out to be a passing fad.” I do not think so. Or will they say, “They were the generation who had the opportunity to act—why weren’t they doing more?” I think the latter is much more likely than the former.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State not see the irony of 53,000 people—about 400 from each of the participating countries—flying to Brazil and landing on airfields cut out of the tropical forest to discuss, of all things, the reduction of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere? Of course, they reached the conclusion that to keep our homes warm and our economies ticking over, we will still need oil and gas.
The Secretary of State has talked about the UK’s vulnerability in depending on foreign sources of fuel. Why, then, does he resist and block the use of the plentiful gas and oil resources we have in our economy that could generate jobs, raise tax revenue, cut costs and reduce imports?
Ed Miliband
I just do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman—he and I have been having this disagreement for 20 years. I will concentrate on his first question. The truth is—I say this to him in all honesty—if we disengage from the world, it will not serve Britain’s interests; it will harm our interests. When we think about all the problems that the world faces, including but not limited to the climate crisis, multilateralism and working with others is the only solution. The idea that we should not engage in COP because it involves travel seems very mistaken.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Leadership at home, leadership globally, and now we need leadership on the fossil fuels road map. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will play a pivotal role in setting the terms of reference, the scope and the ambition of that. It is also important to build the industrial strategy to ensure that we can see a just transition for so many countries. How will he lead that opportunity for our country and others to ensure that fossil fuels are the focus leading into COP31?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I will concentrate on the first bit of her question. This is very much about the just transition. Seventy thousand jobs were lost in the North sea under the last Government and they did not put in place the alternatives. That is why our investments in carbon capture and storage, offshore wind, electricity networks and all those things are crucial to provide the jobs of the future, as well as having North sea oil and gas fields open for their lifetime. We need to do both those things, and that is what the Government are determined to do.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
During a stimulating discussion with the highly informed students of Ashlawn school in Rugby yesterday, I mentioned COP30 as an example of how global politics is highly relevant to them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that strong British leadership at multilateral negotiations is part of a rebalancing that is more important than ever; preferencing the interests of the younger and future generations and giving them meaningful agency in our world?
Ed Miliband
That is a good point to end on. I congratulate the students at Ashlawn school for their interest. With the greatest of respect to all Members of this House, the young people at that school will have to live with the consequences of the decisions we make for much longer than us. I intend to live for a long time; nevertheless, they are the people who will have to deal with those consequences. We owe it to them to focus on doing everything we can to tackle this issue.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the only way we can do that is by working with other countries and by putting our faith not in letting each other sink or swim but in multilateralism. For all its flaws, that is what this COP was about and that is what the COP process is about. People should not despair because, actually, over 30 years, the world has made progress.
Points of Order
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about a piece of so-called ministerial correspondence that I have received, which is the worst I have ever had the displeasure to receive as a Member of Parliament. I am serious.
Mine is a rural constituency and the family farm tax is an extremely serious matter. It is an existential threat to many businesses in my constituency. Earlier this month, I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer setting out a serious, detailed argument about why it has such an impact. I spoke about mental health and the wider economic impact, and I expected a reasonable reply to my ask to reconsider the tax tomorrow.
I received yesterday a letter that states just this, and it is not a holding reply:
“I can confirm we have shared your letter with the relevant policy officials in the department.
Thank you again for taking the time to make me aware of your concerns.”
That is the letter signed by the correspondence and enquiries unit at HM Treasury, and not by a Minister.
Is it acceptable for us to have ministerial correspondence that is not from Ministers? Is it acceptable for it not even to go to a Minister but to the relevant policy officials? Is it acceptable, on such an important matter, to have all the points in it completely ignored?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It is disappointing to hear that he has not received a more substantive response to the concerns raised by his constituents. Ministers themselves are responsible for their own correspondence, and the Government’s ministerial code states:
“Ministers should, where possible, provide full and timely responses”
to such correspondence. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concerns, but he may also wish to raise his concerns with the Leader of the House.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Transport questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) asked the Transport Secretary whether a pay-per-mile charge would be introduced, as had been reported in the Financial Times. In response, the Transport Secretary said:
“There are no proposals to introduce a national pay-per-mile scheme.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 834.]
However, the Government then briefed the Daily Express, claiming that the Transport Secretary had misspoken in the Chamber. That directly contradicts what this House was told. I have checked Hansard and no correction has been made. This is especially concerning, given the guarantee made yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), that any important policy announcements would be made to this House. Can you therefore advise me how the Transport Secretary may be invited to return to clarify the Government’s true position?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will have heard my previous response and will know that Ministers are responsible for the accuracy of their remarks in the House. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concerns and if a correction is needed, I am sure one will be forthcoming.
On the issue of briefings to the media, as has been said on numerous occasions from the Chair in recent weeks, major announcements should be made in this House in the first instance and not to the media. We had an urgent question on this issue just yesterday. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has been conducting an inquiry into ministerial statements and the ministerial code, and I look forward to seeing its report in due course.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A significant statement in respect of carer’s allowance was briefed out by Ministers overnight. This affects thousands of people up and down the United Kingdom, yet no oral statement has been given by a Minister. Do you agree that the Minister should come here and face questions, particularly with respect to those who may be subject to significant overpayments of carer’s allowance and could be hounded over the next few months?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have not had any indication that a Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement, but he has put his point on the record and the Table Office can advise him on how to pursue the matter further.
Waste Incinerators
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the carrying out of construction work in respect of new waste incinerators, other than in cases where substantial construction has already begun; to make provision about the taxation of waste disposed of by way of incineration; to prohibit local authorities from entering into any contract for the incineration of waste which requires them to pay financial penalties if a minimum amount of waste is not delivered for incineration; and for connected purposes.
I begin by paying tribute to colleagues from across the House who have spoken out against waste incinerators. My commendations go too to the United Kingdom Without Incineration Network and local campaign groups, including Westbury Gasification Action Group, which have been a thorn in the side of the incinerator industry. For too long, too many of our constituents have lived in the shadow of waste burners that pollute the air that we breathe. This Bill puts the reduction, reuse and recycling principles of the waste hierarchy back into waste management.
Since the landfill tax was introduced in 1996, consecutive Administrations—Labour, coalition and Conservative—have encouraged incineration and discouraged landfill. They have been helped by the burner industry, which has greenwashed its operations as “energy from waste”. The generation of a few tepid calories and a feeble stream of electrons has convinced Whitehall that waste burners are part of a transition to a green future and to net zero. They are not.
We are allergic to putting waste in the ground, but happy to consign it to the landfill in the sky—out of sight, out of mind and straight into the lungs of those living downwind and on to the nation’s carbon ledger. Not only does the incineration of plastic produce 175 times as much CO2 as landfill, but the emissions per unit of energy produced from burning mixed waste is the same as coal and nearly double that of gas. It is the dirtiest way we generate electricity in this country by far. We have to change course.
We tax oil and gas, we have turned our back on coal entirely, we are turning off the taps in the North sea, we refrain from exploiting shale deposits while importing liquefied natural gas and our share of global emissions is less than 1% and falling. We are more than doing our bit, at considerable cost—in the short to medium term at least—to our economy and the people we serve, yet we do not tax incineration, which gives off the most world-warming, health-harming emissions, in return for a paltry amount of energy. A welcome inclusion of incineration in the UK emissions trading scheme is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The time has come to use the same infrastructure that raises the landfill tax to levy an incineration waste tax at rates that will promote the handling of rubbish in a way that puts it at the top of the waste hierarchy, not at the bottom.
Unfortunately, an incineration tax has not been among the kites flown in advance of the Budget, but I will gladly pull my Bill if the Chancellor pulls this rabbit out of the hat tomorrow. She knows that we have too many waste incinerators already. The Government’s own analysis, published in December last year, confirms that. With the 50 waste burners already operational in England and Wales, we already have more capacity today than we will need in 2035. In other words, the 12 plants being built and the 41 that had been granted planning permission as of last December were already surplus to requirements. Why do we need to almost double our capacity to burn waste when the Government know that it is already excessive?
Where is the social justice in the way we consign the nation’s waste to the atmosphere? Unsurprisingly, incinerators are sited disproportionately in poorer, densely populated places with a heavy burden of ill health. The growing monster at Edmonton, for example, which already takes waste from leafier, more favoured districts to burn in the capital, is belching a cocktail of gases and ultrafine particles with uncertain health consequences across a huge swathe of north London.
Having too many incinerators for the residual waste available might be tolerable if it were not for the clauses in contracts between local authorities and incinerator operators that demand councils consign a minimum amount of waste for burning to avoid financial penalties—so-called “deliver or pay” contracts. What happens if a council that is reducing, reusing and recycling waste, as it should, turns out not to have enough waste to feed the monstrous burner that has been foisted on its community? Waste will be imported—of course it will—because the monster must be fed. Geneva, of all places, trucks in waste from Milan to keep running a burner that, once built, failed to secure enough rubbish locally.
The more households reduce their waste and local authorities recycle, the less waste councils will have to send for incineration. That triggers penalties under “deliver or pay” that they cannot afford. It is little wonder that recycling has stalled for the last 15 years, and that where incineration rates are higher, recycling rates are lower, as Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs figures have made abundantly clear. It gets worse. Transitional arrangements laid last year will allow 31 waste collection authorities, including Wiltshire, to defer the separate food waste collections required from March next year under the otherwise excellent Environment Act 2021, in some cases to the 2040s. This means sending compostable waste to the burner.
We have a ludicrous situation in which councils are being actively encouraged to recycle less and even import waste just to keep running a set of wholly unnecessary incinerators that pollute far more than they power. This Bill will outlaw the importation of waste for burning, terminate “deliver or pay” contracts and rescind the Environment Act 2021 (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024. We must revoke planning permission for those 41 pending sites, including the monstrosity planned for Westbury in my constituency, where preliminary work has recently begun. We must immediately prohibit any more permissions and permits.
The last Government paused the issuing of environmental permits to new burners—the only attempt by any Government to alter course in the last three decades. My party’s manifesto last year contained a firm commitment to put a stop to them. The Welsh Labour Government wisely placed a moratorium on new burners in 2021. The Scottish Government did so the following year after a review highlighted the risks that incineration posed to human health and the environment. The review went on to say:
“Scotland should not construct more capacity than it needs and only some of the currently planned capacity should be built.”
The Government’s in-principle acceptance of this Bill, perhaps by launching a consultation on the future of incineration like the 2022 Scottish review, might be enough, because it would signal to investors that the incineration game is up. It would say that if they want to be in the waste business, they must stop burning and start operating higher up the waste hierarchy.
My Bill calls time on one of our biggest polluters, one that is hidden in plain sight. It would begin to lower the curtain on a filthy enterprise cynically passing itself off as green because it generates a few calories, a trickle of electrons and the promise of carbon capture at some point in the distant future. As the Government’s own figures show, we are already at overcapacity. Without the measures in this Bill, the industry will almost double its capacity in the decade to 2035. That means the hierarchy of waste will be inverted to soak up the excess capacity. This Bill would end Whitehall’s obsession with incineration. It would direct the UK waste industry to start operating much higher up the waste hierarchy. We must tax incineration, ban “deliver or pay” contracts, outlaw waste imports and, above all, build no more incinerators.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Dr Andrew Murrison, Steve Barclay, Brian Mathew, John Glen, Danny Kruger, Euan Stainbank, Ben Obese-Jecty, Lee Barron, Lloyd Hatton and Robbie Moore present the Bill.
Dr Andrew Murrison accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 336).
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 87 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 320 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:25 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 187 / Noes: 320 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 322 / Noes: 179 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Rutland Rutland
Government new clause 46—Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.
Government new clause 49—“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”.
Government new clause 50—Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence.
Government new clause 51—Standards relating to the suspension or revocation of a regulated licence.
Government new clause 52—Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence.
Government new clause 53—Further provision about standards.
Government new clause 54—Guidance.
Government new clause 55—Relationship with existing licensing legislation.
Government new clause 56—Regulations.
Government new clause 57—Interpretation.
New clause 1—Consent for local government restructuring—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may only make an order or regulations to create, change, or dissolve a strategic authority with the consent of all 6 constituent councils.
(2) The “constituent councils” are any county council, district council, town council or parish council.’
This new clause would mean local government restructuring could not take place without the consent of the constituent councils.
New clause 6—Local authority oversight over management of land of community value—
‘(1) A local authority is responsible for overseeing the management of land of community value in their area.
(2) If the relevant local authority identifies deliberate neglect or mismanagement of land of community value by its owner, the authority may—
(a) exercise compulsory purchase powers, or
(b) refuse planning changes in relation to the land.’
This new clause would require local authorities to oversee the management of land of community value in their area and enable them to exercise compulsory purchase powers in instances of mismanagement.
New clause 10—Community ownership fund—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which establish a community ownership fund within six months of the passage of this Act.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for any strategic authority to apply for funding of up to £2 million to support any—
(a) voluntary and community organisation, or
(b) parish or town council,
to purchase of an assets of community value they determine is at risk in their area.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Community Ownership Fund to which strategic authorities may apply for funding.
Amendment (a) to new clause 10, at end insert—
‘(4) On the day on which regulations are first made under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) how a strategic authority can apply to the community ownership fund;
(b) how the community ownership fund is governed and administered;
(c) any other information which in the opinion of the Secretary of State assists strategic authorities and other persons in understanding the purposes of and application process for the community ownership fund; and
(d) a timetable for when applications to the fund may be submitted, and by when they should be responded to.’
New clause 11—Local public accounts committees—
‘(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment of a public accounts committee in each mayoral strategic authority area (“a local public accounts committee”).
(2) Regulations made under this section must—
(a) make provision relating to the membership of local public accounts committees, including appointment; tenure; and arrangements for chairing of committees;
(b) make provision about support for local public accounts committees by the relevant local audit services;
(c) empower local public accounts committees to require the provision of information from all providers of public services in the mayoral strategic authority area;
(d) make provision about the functions of local public accounts committees, including the power of the committees to report on—
(i) the effectiveness with which mayoral strategic authorities exercise any of their functions;
(ii) the effectiveness with which any local partners exercise functions on behalf of the strategic mayoral authority.
(iii) the effectiveness with which any local partners collaborate with the mayoral strategic authority.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “local partner” has the meaning given in section 17B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (as inserted by section 21 of this Act).”’
This new clause would require the introduction of Local Public Accounts Committees within one year of this Act coming into force. LPACs would ensure scrutiny and accountability across the whole of the local public service spending and activity.
New clause 12—Assets of negative community value—
‘In the Localism Act 2011, after section 92 insert—
“92A Assets of negative community value
(1) A building or other land in a local authority’s area is of negative community value if, in the opinion of the authority, the asset—
(a) has been the subject of a measurable and sustained increase in anti-social behaviour in the locality,
(b) has caused material disruption or harm to the amenity, cohesion, or wellbeing of the local community, or
(c) has been vacant or derelict for a continuous period of not less than three years, and during that period no meaningful attempt has been made by the owner of the asset to restore it to use.
(2) A local authority may maintain and publish a list of assets of negative community value in its area.
(3) Where a local authority has listed an asset of negative community value, the authority may—
(a) take such steps as may be prescribed by regulations to secure temporary management or community stewardship of the asset;
(b) invite community groups, charities, or other qualifying organisations to bring forward proposals for its use or stewardship;
(c) exercise such enforcement or compulsory acquisition powers as may be made available by regulations made pursuant to subsection (5).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) make provision as to the procedure for listing an asset of negative community value;
(b) confer rights of appeal on owners or occupiers of listed assets;
(c) provide for safeguards to ensure proportionality and fairness in the designation and management of such assets;
(d) make further provision for the disposal, management, or transfer of listed assets to qualifying community groups.
(5) For the purposes of this paragraph “community group” has the same meaning as in section 86D of this Act (as inserted by schedule 19 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025).”’
This new clause would create a parallel category to “assets of community value” by enabling local authorities to designate “assets of negative community value” (ANCVs). Designation would trigger a framework for temporary community stewardship or pathways to transfer into community use. Further provision would be made via secondary legislation.
New clause 13—Duty relating to community empowerment—
‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 (Community empowerment).
(2) The report must—
(a) consider the effectiveness of the provisions in Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 against the criteria in subsection (3), and
(b) set out a plan for better meeting those criteria, including potential legislative provision.
(3) The criteria are, in relation to people in England—
(a) access to a clean and healthy environment;
(b) access to land or space to play, roam, and swim;
(c) access to land for food growing;
(d) the ability to contribute to and challenge decisions made at a local level;
(e) access to, use of, and ability to propose acquisition of assets of community value.
(4) Within the period of 21 days beginning on the day in which a Report under this section, a Minister of the Crown must move a motion in the House of Commons that the House has considered the Report.
(5) In reckoning any period of 21 days under subsection (4), no account is taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.’
This new clause would require the Government to report annually on the effectiveness of community empowerment measures under the Localism Act 2011. It requires that Ministers assess how well communities can access land, green space, and local decision-making mechanisms. The report must include plans to strengthen these rights, including potential new legislation.
New clause 16—Funding for local authority governance reorganisation—
‘The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded for any purposes relating to the reorganisation of cabinet governance structures that are required or enabled by this Act.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure funding is available for any rearranging of councils’ governance models.
New clause 17—Resource and support for local authority implementation of the Act—
‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that relevant authorities are provided with the resources and support necessary in order to carry out any functions conferred on, or required of, them by virtue of this Act.
(2) Any resources and support provided by the Secretary of State must be sufficient to ensure that there is no delay to the holding of any future local elections resulting from the implementation of, or delay to the implementation of, this Act.’
This new clause would ensure local authorities are provided with the resources and support they need to deliver the content of this legislation with specific regard to preventing any further delays to future local elections.
New clause 18—Councillors: proportional representation vote system—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a proportional representation vote system in elections of local authority councillors.
(2) The regulations in subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.’
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to introduce a proportional representation voting system for local authority councillors.
New clause 19—Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: alternative vote system—
‘(1) Within three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the use of the alternative vote system in elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners.
(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause would require the introduction of the Alternative Vote system for elections of mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections within three months.
New clause 20—Training for councillors—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require a strategic authority to provide training for councillors following the designation, creation, or merger of any class of strategic authority.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) make provision for training within six months of any designation, creation or merger, and every four years thereafter.
(b) make provision for training to apply to all levels of local government within the area of the newly designated strategic authority,
(c) provide that training under addresses any changes to the strategic authority’s governance practice, and
(d) specify a period during which councillors must complete the training under subsection (2)(a).
(3) The Secretary of State may create guidance for strategic authorities regarding the content of the training in subsection (2)(a).’
This new clause would create a requirement for councillors to receive training following the designation, creation or merging of any class of strategic authority. It allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the content of this training.
New clause 26—Local authority acquisition of dormant assets—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 15 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant.
(2) Land of community value is considered dormant if—
(a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A for five years continuously,
(b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a),
(c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section 86S(4)), and
(d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with any other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6).
(3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 15 of this Act if the land is considered dormant.
New clause 27—Community right to challenge: duty to undertake joint reviews—
‘(1) In Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011, omit Chapter 2 and insert—
“80A Duty to undertake joint reviews
(1) A relevant authority must conduct a joint review if a request is submitted by a relevant body.
(2) A joint review under subsection (1) must—
(a) enable the relevant body to shape the provision, commissioning, or design of the service through a set period of consultation with the relevant authority;
(b) be concluded within a reasonable timeframe, as prescribed in statutory guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State following consultation with community organisations and public bodies;
(c) produce outcomes that, following the conclusion of the review, should be enacted by the relevant authority through any necessary changes to the provision, commissioning or design of the service.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the form and conduct of consultation under paragraph (2)(a), which must include measures to ensure that a relevant body can participate meaningfully in the decision-making process.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
“relevant authority” means any public body responsible for delivering a local service;
“relevant body” means—
(a) a voluntary or community body;
(b) a body, person, or trust which is established solely for a charitable purpose;
(c) a parish council;
(d) a group of at least ten users of a local service;
(e) two or more persons who are employed by a relevant authority;
(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause replaces the duty to consider an expression of interest in the Localism Act 2011 with a duty triggering a joint review and requiring local authorities to work collaboratively with communities and service users to shape local services.
New clause 34—Councillor standards—
‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to establish a recall process for councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct.
(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a recall process for Councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct.
New clause 35—Consideration of impact on local elections—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure a relevant activity does not—
(a) delay,
(b) postpone, or
(c) lead to the cancellation of,
any election of members to any local authority affected by the relevant activity.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “relevant activity” means the making of an order or regulations, or any other exercise of power, relating to the reorganisation or restructuring of one or more local authorities under this Act.’
New clause 38—Land quality assessments—
‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to enable a local authority to facilitate an assessment of the quality of an area of land within its area where the conditions in subsection (2) apply.
(2) The conditions are that—
(a) an application has been made to a local planning authority for planning permission for development on the area of land,
(b) the area of land has not been allocated for development in a local plan or any Land Use Framework,
(c) the area of land has been used for agricultural purposes,
(d) two or more Agricultural Land Classification assessments have been undertaken in the last 10 years, and
(e) the planning applicant and the current owner of the area of land are in disagreement regarding the quality of the area of land.
(3) An assessment under subsection (1) must—
(a) be conducted by an independent surveying organisation, and
(b) determine the area of land’s suitability for development.
(4) The costs of an assessment under subsection (1) must be divided equally between the planning applicant and current owner of the area of land.
(5) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
New clause 42—Procedure relating to postponement of elections—
‘(1) Section 105 (Orders and regulations) of the Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (6), after “9N” insert “87”.’.
This new clause would require any order postponing a local election to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
New clause 47—Rutland: status as ceremonial county—
(1) The Lieutenancies Act 1997 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, in the Table, after “Nottingham” insert as a new row—
This new clause will preserve Rutland's lord lieutenancy and ceremonial county status.
New clause 59—Disclosure of members’/co-opted members’ addresses—
‘(1) In section 100G of LGA 1972, for subsection (5) substitute—
“(5) But the information open to inspection under subsection (4) must not include a member’s address included in the register maintained under subsection (1) unless, in relation to a principal council in England, that member gives their consent.”
(2) In section 29 of the Localism Act 2011, after subsection (8), insert—
“(8A) But the information open to inspection or published on the principal authority or parish council website under subsections (5) to (7) must not include the residential address of the member or co-opted member (“M”), or that of M’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom M is living as if they were a married couple or civil partners, where the address is the same as M’s, unless M requests that the address be published.
(8B) If an address is entered into the authority’s register which is being withheld under subsection (8A) from public versions of the register, the public register should state that the member or co-opted member has an interest, the details of which are withheld under subsection (8A).
(8C) If section 31(2) applies in relation to the interest, the provision is to be read as requiring the member or co-opted member to disclose not the interest but merely the fact that the member or co-opted member has a disclosable pecuniary interest in the matter concerned.”’
This new clause requires local authorities not to publish the address of member or coopted member or that of their spouse, civil partner or person with home they are living as partners on the registers of members and interests unless the member or coopted member requests that it be published.
New clause 63—Parishing of all areas of England—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to achieve the objective in subsection (2).
(2) The objective is that, within five years of the passage of this Act, there must be no part of England for which there is not a parish or town council.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision that is consequential on this section.
(4) In pursuance of subsection (3), the regulations may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act passed—
(a) before this Act, or
(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.’
New clause 67—Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing national standards—
‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations set national minimum standards for the licensing by strategic authorities of operators of private hire vehicles and taxis whose operating address is located within the area of a strategic authority.
(2) The national minimum standards must include, but not be limited to, vetting, training and safety standards.
(3) The regulations must include provision for strategic authorities to deny licensing permissions to operators of private hire vehicles and taxis within their strategic authority who do not meet the national minimum standards.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause ensures that locally licensed operators are subject to national minimum standards.
New clause 68—Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing regulations—
‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations meet the objective set out in subsection (2).
(2) Regulations made under this section must provide that a person licensed to operate a private hire vehicle or taxi whose operating address is located within the area of a strategic authority must only accept and fulfil bookings for journeys that either start or end within that area, with specific exceptions for NHS patient transport, school transport, and chauffeur services.
(3) The regulations must include provision for a regime by which strategic authorities can enforce the requirement set out in subsection (2).
(4) The regime must include provision for strategic authorities to impose sanctions on any licensed operator of a private hire vehicle or taxi who breaches this requirement.
(5) The regime must ensure that sanctions exercisable by a strategic authority include—
(a) financial penalties,
(b) suspension of licensing permissions, and
(c) revocation of licensing permissions.
(6) The regime must provide that money recouped by strategic authorities from any financial penalties is used by strategic authorities to fund future enforcement of this requirement.
(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause ensures that locally licensed operators only fulfil journeys that either start or end within their strategic authority area. It makes provision for sanctions for breaching this requirement.
New clause 69—Limitation on delay to elections resulting from local government reorganisation—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may not make any order or regulations to delay the ordinary elections of councillors of any specified authority if—
(a) the order or regulations result from any change to local government organisation under or by virtue of this Act,
(b) the effect of the order or regulations is to delay any such election by a period exceeding 53 weeks from the date on which it was originally scheduled to be held.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “any order or regulations” includes—
(a) an order under section 87 (Power to change years in which elections held) of the Local Government Act 2000;
(b) an order under sections 7 (Implementation of proposals by order), 10 (Implementation of recommendations by order of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007; or
(c) any other delegated power exercisable by order or by regulations in relation to the scheduling of ordinary elections of councillors.’
This new clause would prevent the Secretary of State from delaying by more than one year any local government election, if the delay results from local government reorganisation under this Act.
New clause 73—Duty of local public service partners to co-operate—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations designate certain persons or bodies as “local public service partners” for the purposes of this section.
(2) These regulations must include, at a minimum—
(a) NHS bodies;
(b) police and fire authorities; and
(c) any other public service providers exercising functions in the area of a Strategic Authority, in addition to the principal councils in that area.
(3) A local public service partner operating (in whole or in part) in the area of a Strategic Authority must, in exercising its functions so far as they affect that area, co-operate with—
(a) the Strategic Authority; and
(b) the principal councils for that area.
(4) The duty to co-operate under subsection (3) includes, in particular—
(a) a duty to attend any meeting reasonably convened by the mayor of the Strategic Authority under section 21 (or by the Strategic Authority acting collectively), when given due notice;
(b) a duty to provide information and assistance to the Strategic Authority and to principal councils, insofar as reasonably required to facilitate the exercise of their functions or any joint planning of services for that area; and
(c) a duty to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with the Strategic Authority and principal councils when formulating or implementing policies, plans and services that affect the area.
(5) In performing the duty in subsection (3), a local public service partner must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the implementation of whole-area public service collaboration.
(6) In this section, “principal councils” means the county, district or London borough councils (including the Common Council of the City of London) whose territories lie within the area of the Strategic Authority.’
This new clause introduces a statutory duty on local public service partners—such as NHS bodies, police, and fire authorities—to co-operate with Strategic Authorities and principal councils.
New clause 75—Duty to provide professional planning support—
‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to provide appropriate professional planning support to town and parish councils in accordance with this section.
(2) Support provided under subsection (1) is for the purposes of enabling a town or parish council to—
(a) involve communities within the authority area with development of a neighbourhood plan, and
(b) engage communities with the content and delivery of the plan following its development.
(3) For the purposes of this section “communities” means—
(a) any person or group of persons who live in the town or parish council area;
(b) any group who in the opinion of the town or parish council can reasonably demonstrate a connection to the area.’
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to provide professional planning support to town and parish councils for the purposes of developing, and involving communities in, neighbourhood plans.
New clause 79—Local accounting officers and local public accounts committees—
‘(1) Within one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment, in each mayoral strategic authority area, of—
(a) a local accounting officer; and
(b) a local public accounts committee.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) make provision about the membership of local public accounts committees, including appointment, tenure and arrangements for chairing of committees;
(b) make provision for local public accounts committees to be supported by the relevant local audit services;
(c) empower local public accounts committees to require the provision of information from all providers of public services operating in the mayoral strategic authority area;
(d) specify the functions of local public accounts committees, including the power to report on—
(i) the effectiveness with which mayoral strategic authorities exercise any of their functions;
(ii) the effectiveness with which any local partners exercise functions on behalf of the mayoral strategic authority; and
(iii) the effectiveness with which any local partners collaborate with the mayoral strategic authority.
(e) provide that the Head of Paid Service of a mayoral strategic authority is the local accounting officer, responsible to the local public accounts committee for the value for money of the authority’s expenditure, including any monies provided by the Secretary of State.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “local partner” has the meaning given in section 17B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (as inserted by section 21 of this Act).’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within one year, to establish Local Public Accounts Committees in every mayoral strategic authority area. The clause also designates the Head of Paid Service in each mayoral strategic authority as the local accounting officer.
New clause 80—Consultation on publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a consultation on updating requirements about the publication of notices under the following sections of the Local Government Act 2000—
(a) subsection (2) of section 9KC (resolution of local authority), and
(b) subsection (7) of section 9MA (referendum: proposals by local authority).
(2) The consultation must consider the impact of requirements for the publication of notices, and of proposed changes to arrangements for the publication of notices, on the following matters—
(a) the economic viability of local newspapers,
(b) access to information for local authority residents, and
(c) local democracy and accountability.
(3) The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.’
New clause 81—Consideration of the cancellation of local elections—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to achieve the objective in subsection (2).
(2) The objective is that any local elections scheduled for 2025 which subsequently did not take place, are held no later than 53 weeks from the date for which they were originally scheduled.
(3) The regulations in subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would ensure that the local elections scheduled for May 2025 take place no later than May 2026.
New clause 82—Public consultation on the provisions of this Act—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on the provisions of this Act.
(2) The consultation must seek the public’s view on the measures set out in each Part of the Act.
(3) The consultation must seek views on the impact on—
(a) combined authorities;
(b) combined county authorities;
(c) local authorities; and
(d) town and parish councils.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the findings of the consultation.’
New clause 83—Private hire vehicle licensing—
‘(1) The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 55A (sub-contracting by operators), in subsection (1)(b), after “in that district” insert “except where section 55AB applies”.
(3) After section 55A (sub-contracting by operators), insert—
“55AB Restrictions on licensing under section 55
(1) A person (“A”) licensed under section 55 who has accepted a booking for a private hire vehicle in a controlled district may only arrange for a person licensed outside of the same controlled district (“B”) to provide a vehicle to carry out the booking where the following conditions apply.
(2) The first condition is that B is licenced in a controlled district within the same strategic authority area.
(3) The second condition is that the booking is for a journey that—
(a) starts, or
(b) ends,
within the strategic authority area.
(4) The third condition is that an order under section 55C is in effect.”
(4) After section 55B (Sub-contracting by operators: criminal liability), insert—
“55C Mayoral strategic authority power to regulate bookings
(1) A mayoral strategic authority may make an order to provide that only a person licenced under section 55 whose operating address is located within its area may accept and fulfil bookings for journeys that both start and end within that same area.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may only be made if the relevant mayoral strategic authority —
(a) has consulted—
(i) any district council—
(A) within the mayoral strategic authority area, or
(B) that shares a border with the mayoral strategic authority area,
which grants licences under section 55;
(ii) such persons licenced under—
(A) section 55, or
(B) section 51,
as the mayoral strategic authority considers appropriate;
(iii) people living or working within the mayoral strategic authority area; and
(b) has had regard to any response received to consultation under paragraph (a).
(3) An order under this section must include such transitional arrangements and conditions about licensing as the mayoral strategic authority considers are appropriate.
(4) When an order is made under this section, the relevant mayoral strategic authority must—
(a) publish the order,
(b) publish such information relating to the content and application of the order as the mayoral strategic authority considers appropriate;
(c) notify the Secretary of State that the order has been made.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the procedure to be followed in connection with the making of an order under this section.
(6) In this section, an “operating address” is the address at which a person licensed under section 55 is registered with the district council for the purposes of that licence.”
(5) In section 80 (Interpretation of Part II), after the definition of “London cab”, insert—
““mayoral strategic authority” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025.’
This new clause would provide an optional “license where you operate” model, by giving strategic authorities power to require that journeys that start and end within their strategic authority area are fulfilled by locally licensed operators.
New clause 84—Information sharing for health improvement and reduction in health inequalities purposes—
‘(1) A local authority must share information where it considers that the sharing of the information will contribute to the improvement of health and a reduction in health inequalities within the local authority area.
(2) Information which the authority must share includes information about the stability of healthcare providers within the area.
(3) The duty under subsection (1) does not apply to any sharing of personal data.’
New clause 85—Alignment of Essex county borders—
‘(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex correspond with the boundaries of the historic county of Essex.
(2) Regulations made under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made—
(a) in or by virtue of the Lieutenancies Act 1997, and
(b) in or by virtue of any other Act passed before this Act,
where the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of this section.
(3) In this section—
“ceremonial county of Essex” has the meaning given in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Lieutenancies Act 1997;
“historic county of Essex” means an area which in the opinion of the Secretary of State was commonly understood to be Essex, prior to the enactment of the Local Government Act 1888.’
This new clause would require that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex align with the historical boundaries of Essex.
New clause 86—London Borough of Havering: Referendum on joining Greater Essex—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a referendum for residents of the London Borough of Havering to opt to—
(a) cease to be an area under any jurisdiction of the Greater London Authority, and
(b) form part of the area of a Greater Essex Combined County Authority.
(2) Arrangements made under this section must include provision—
(a) for any referendum to be held in sufficient time to enable the London Borough of Havering to form part of the area of a Greater Essex Combined County Authority at the moment of its establishment;
(b) about the administration of the referendum;
(c) for the London Borough of Havering to form part of the area of the authority only where a simple majority of participants in the referendum have voted accordingly.
(3) Arrangements under this section may be made by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to enable residents of Havering to participate in a referendum on joining the Greater Essex Combined County Authority Area.
New clause 87—Alignment with boundaries of historic counties—
‘(1) The area of a strategic authority must be coterminous with the area of a historic county, save as where provided for by exceptions in subsection (2).
(2) Exceptions from subsection (1) are where—
(a) the Secretary of State intends to create a strategic authority for a metropolitan area which would otherwise—
(i) be located wholly within a historic county, or
(ii) be located across the boundary of two or more historic counties;
(b) there is no existing equivalent local authority for the area which in the opinion of the Secretary of State may be reasonably identified with a historic county.
(3) A single strategic authority may not cover the area of more than one historic county, save as provided for by subsection (2)(a).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) define—
“equivalent existing local authority”,
”historic county”, and
”metropolitan area”,
for the purposes of this section, and
(b) make further provision about exceptions to this section.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’
This new clause requires that strategic authorities should correspond with historic counties. It provides exceptions for cities and other built-up areas, and for historic counties for which no equivalent current local authority exists.
Amendment 1, page 60, line 6, leave out clause 55
Amendment 3, page 60, line 27, leave out clause 57
Amendment 42, in clause 58, page 60, line 33, at end insert—
‘(1A) It is a duty of a local authority to specify the description of a neighbourhood area that will apply within the local authority’s area for the purposes of subsection (1).’
This amendment assigns the power to define “neighbourhood area” to the affected local authority.
Amendment 150, in clause 58, page 61, line 2, at end insert—
‘(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) must include provision to ensure that appropriate governance arrangements for a neighbourhood area are related to the preparation and implementation of—
(a) local plans, and
(b) spatial development strategies and other strategic planning frameworks.’
This amendment would require regulations made under subsection (2) to include provision for a clear link between neighbourhood governance structures and the preparation and implementation of local plans, spatial development strategies and other relevant strategic planning frameworks.
Amendment 70, page 61, line 14 , at end insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure local authorities receive adequate funding to implement the “appropriate arrangements” in subsection (1) which relate to neighbourhood planning functions.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to deliver neighbourhood planning functions.
Amendment 41, page 61, line 18, at end insert—
‘(4A) But regulations may not—
(a) alter—
(i) any function exercised by, or
(ii) any power available by or under any Act of Parliament to,
a parish or town council, or
(b) make provision for the abolition of any parish or town council.’
This amendment would ensure that the Bill’s provision for effective neighbourhood governance does not alter any functions performed by a parish or town council or lead to the abolition of a parish or town council.
Amendment 43, in clause 58, page 61, line 18, at end insert—
‘(4A) Regulations under this section may not include power for the Secretary of State to specify the description of any neighbourhood area.’
This amendment precludes the Secretary of State from exercising any power to define a neighbourhood area.
Amendment 5, page 61, line 27, leave out clause 59
Amendment 44, in clause 62, page 66, line 17, leave out from “acting” to end, and insert
“who—
“(a) are wholly independent of the Local Audit Office, and
(b) possess appropriate expertise.”
(2) The Secretary of State must approve any appointment made for the purposes of subsection (2), and may only do so when they are satisfied that the person to be appointed satisfies the criteria specified in that subsection.”
This amendment makes provision about the independence of persons appointed to scrutinise local authority audits.
Amendment 46, in clause 66, page 71, line 28, after line 28 insert—
‘(4A) A Local Audit Office may make arrangements about—
(a) the membership of an audit committee;
(b) the appointment of the members; and
(c) the conduct and practices of the committee.’
This amendment removes the role of the Secretary of State in appointing audit committees and provides LAOs with the ability to oversee the membership and work of audit committees.
Amendment 45, page 71, leave out from beginning of line 29 to end of line 7 on page 72.
This amendment removes the role of the Secretary of State in overseeing the membership of audit committees.
Government amendment 119.
Amendment 78, page 71, line 31, at end insert—
‘(c) the training of members newly appointed to an audit committee.’
This amendment would require the provision of training for all new members of an audit committee.
Government amendment 120.
Amendment 103, page 71, line 38, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for the establishment of audit committees for parish councils.
(7B) Regulations under subsection (9A) are subject to the negative procedure.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which make provision for the establishment of audit committees for parish councils.
Government amendment 121.
Amendment 7, page 74, line 18, leave out clause 72.
This amendment removes the ban on upward only rent review clauses.
Government amendment 158.
Amendment 182, in clause 79, page 78, line 15, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
‘(2) The provisions that come into force in accordance with subsection (1)(b) are the provisions set out in section [Public consultation on the provisions of this Act].
(3) This Act comes into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint (if, and to the extent that, it does not come into force in accordance with subsection (1) or (2)).
(4) The Secretary of State may not appoint regulations under subsection (3) until the Secretary of State has laid before each House of Parliament a report under section [Public consultation on the provisions of this Act].’
Government amendments 114 and 115.
Amendment 168, in clause 79, page 79, line 12, at end insert—
‘(z2) Section (Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing national standards);
(z3) Section (Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing regulations).’
This amendment provides for the coming into force of NC67 and NC68 as soon as the Act is passed.
Government amendment 157.
Government new schedule 3—Extension of the general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority.
Amendment 2, page 261, line 14, leave out schedule 24
This amendment removes the direction powers on unitarisation.
Amendment 38, in schedule 24, page 262, line 14, after “government” insert—
‘having particular regard to the need for the new single tier of local government, or new unitary council, to—
(a) be of an appropriate geographical size, giving consideration to—
(i) economic zones,
(ii) physical geography,
(iii) public service provision, including health, transport, and emergency services; and
(b) preserve community identity, cohesion and pride.’
This amendment mandates that the Secretary of State must have particular regard to certain criteria when creating or merging SAs to ensure their suitability in terms of economic, geographical, service, and community considerations.
Amendment 4, page 265, line 33, leave out schedule 25.
This amendment removes the power to allow the Secretary of State to abolish the committee system.
Government amendment 152.
Amendment 94, in schedule 25, page 266, line 24, leave out “Duty to move” and insert “Moving”.
This amendment, alongside Amendments 95 to 102, makes the Bill’s provision for legacy committee systems match the provisions for legacy mayor and cabinet executive systems, while maintaining the prohibition on new systems other than leader and cabinet executive.
Government amendment 153.
Amendment 96, page 266, leave out from line 33 to line 4 on page 267.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Amendment 95, page 266, line 33, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Amendment 97, page 267, leave out lines 12 and 13.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Government amendment 154.
Amendment 98, page 267, leave out lines 18 to 32.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Government amendment 155.
Amendment 99, page 267, line 33, at end insert “or committee systems”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Amendment 100, page 267, line 37, after “executive” insert “or committee system”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Amendment 101, page 267, line 39, after “executive” insert “or committee system”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Amendment 102, page 268, line 3, after “executive” insert “or committee system”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 94.
Amendment 28, page 269, leave out lines 26 to 35.
This amendment retains the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers.
Amendment 29, page 269, line 29, at end insert—
‘(aa) after subsection (2)(b), insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), at least one of the newspapers must—
(a) have paid-for of free distribution in the relevant local area, and
(b) be published at regular intervals.”’
This amendment ensures that at least one of the newspapers in which a public notice is printed is a local newspaper.
Government amendment 156.
Amendment 6, page 271, line 19, leave out schedule 26.
Amendment 109, in schedule 26, page 275, line 18, at beginning insert
‘For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,’.
This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in local authorities.
Amendment 110, page 277, line 10, at beginning insert
‘For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,’.
This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in combined authorities.
Amendment 111, page 278, line 28, at beginning insert
‘For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,’.
This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in combined county authorities.
Amendment 30, in schedule 27, page 280, leave out lines 21 to 28.
This amendment would remove the provision for assets of community value to be removed from the list of assets of community value after five years.
Amendment 32, page 280, leave out lines 29 to 32.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.
Amendment 31, page 280, leave out from “value” in line 30 to “the” in line 31.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30.
Amendment 57, page 281, line 26, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
This amendment would require environmental interests to be considered as a criterion for establishing a local authority’s area as land of community value.
Amendment 107, page 281, line 26, leave out “, and” and insert
“or furthers the environmental wellbeing of the local communities, as long as the land is not allocated in the local development plan, and”.
This amendment and Amendment 108 extend the community right to buy to include assets that further the environmental wellbeing of local communities, alongside economic and social benefits; provided that the land is not allocated local development plan.
Amendment 108, page 281, line 29, leave out “or social” and insert “, social or environmental”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 107.
Amendment 58, page 281, line 30, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 57.
Amendment 59, page 281, line 38, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 57.
Amendment 60, page 282, line 2, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 57.
Amendment 82, page 283, line 8, at end insert—
‘(1A) Where a local authority is responsible for assessing whether land in its area is a sporting asset of community value, the Secretary of State must ensure the authority receives adequate funding to make the assessment.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to assess whether land in their area is a sporting asset of community value.
Amendment 34, page 295, line 8, at end insert—
‘(2A) The local authority must also arrange with the owner of the land for the preferred community buyer to have had the opportunity to view the land prior to a meeting under subsection (2).’
This amendment would ensure that there is an early opportunity for a preferred community buyer to undertake a proper viewing of an asset of community value that has been listed for disposal, prior to committing to make a purchase of the land.
Amendment 64, page 295, line 8, at end insert—
‘(2A) The relevant local authority must as far as reasonably practicable support the preferred community buyer in securing the purchase land of community value.’
This amendment would require local authorities to provide support for the preferred community buyer in agreeing and meeting an offer to buy land of community value.
Amendment 63, in schedule 27, page 296, line 20, at end insert—
‘(9A) The Secretary of State must ensure local authorities are adequately funded to meet the expenses of a valuation under this section.’.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to meet the expense of land valuations in their area.
Amendment 33, page 299, line 12, at end insert—
‘(f) matters relating to requirements about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value.’
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is my pleasure to open the debate on day two of Report on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Today we are concerned with parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill, which cover provisions relating to local government, community right to buy, local audit and the ending of upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases. As with yesterday’s debate, I will focus on the substantive changes made in Committee and those we have brought forward on Report.
Before I turn to the amendments, I would like to address some of the comments made in yesterday’s debate. Opposition Members suggested that this Government have not taken on board any of their suggestions. Today I am delighted to demonstrate that the Government have been listening to the points raised by Members in the House and by our mayors. We have today announced the next big step in our path to devolution. Mayors will be given the power to raise revenue locally through a new overnight visitor levy. We are consulting on whether to also grant this power to leaders of foundation strategic authorities. This is a groundbreaking step for the future of devolution, with transformative investment potential for England’s tourism sector and the wider economy.
Mayors have already proven what is possible when they are given the tools to deliver, from the Mayor of London using business rate supplements to deliver the Elizabeth line to the Mayor of Greater Manchester using his mayoral precept on council tax to provide far improved bus services. Making places more attractive to visit, live and work in will attract further investment and improve the visitor experience, so I am proposing that constituent authorities within a strategic authority that implement a levy should be eligible for a share of the revenue raised for growth-related spending. Tomorrow, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and the Secretary of State of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will publish a consultation with the details of the proposed levy. We recognise that businesses and potential visitors may have concerns about the effects of a new levy, and we will take those concerns seriously. I expect mayors to engage constructively with businesses and their communities to hear those concerns throughout the consultation period and beyond
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I am interested in this proposal, but I wonder whether it will be applicable to council areas that do not yet have a mayor and may not have a mayor for some time. Will they still have the power to impose an overnight visitor levy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will consult on whether that power should be extended to foundational strategic authorities that do not have a mayor, and we will see the responses to that consultation.
I said yesterday that the Bill is the floor, not the ceiling, of this Government’s ambition. Today’s announcement shows just how seriously we take the mayor’s right to request new powers, and our commitment to give them the tools they need to drive growth for the area. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for raising that issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for his contribution to yesterday’s debate.
I turn now to the changes made in Committee. The Government recognise how much communities value their local sports grounds as spaces that foster local pride, belonging and identity. The Bill will automatically designate grounds across England as sporting assets of community value, ensuring that those essential local spaces are protected. We have introduced a new 16-week review period for communities seeking to purchase a sporting asset of community value accommodating more than 10,000 spectators. That amendment is about putting processes in place to safeguard the long-term sustainability of larger sports grounds, ensuring communities have the capability and readiness to manage them effectively.
The Bill delivers fully on our commitment to fix the broken local audit system that we inherited, and will set local government on a firmer financial footing. In Committee, we inserted new provisions relating to financial penalties, sanctions and criminal offences. They will ensure that the local audit system has the right levers in place to deter and sanction improper behaviour. The new local audit office will be established as the regulatory authority for that system, and will be given further powers to conduct assurance reviews.
The Bill will ban upwards-only rent review clauses in new and renewed commercial leases. Such reviews create an imbalance of supply and demand, contributing to the blight of empty properties, from high street shops to empty office floors. Our amendment will close loopholes in the ban, ensuring that tenants who vacate or have not occupied properties are still caught by the ban. It will allow tenants to trigger a rent review in all leases, preventing landlords from avoiding rent reviews during times of rental decline
I turn now to the amendments tabled on Report. New clause 46 will confer the general power of competence on England’s national park authorities and the Broads Authority. The legislation underpinning our national parks currently limits their powers to activities directly related to their statutory functions, creating uncertainty and stifling their ability to innovate. Providing them with the general power of competence will enable them to be more innovative and agile in delivering their statutory functions, and to contribute towards the Government’s wider agenda.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
In addition to that very welcome general power of competence for the national park authorities, will the Minister consider tabling amendments to ensure that the new unitary authorities surrounding those park authorities do not dominate the membership of the board with a majority?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point and for advocating for our national park authorities. We are clear that, as we go through the process of reforming local government, we want strong and effective collaboration between all the institutions that need to drive services for local people. We will look to ensure that we are strengthening those partnerships and collaborations as local government reforms and the general power of competence for those authorities bed in.
I turn to taxi and private hire vehicles. Let me be clear: the current legislative framework for regulating the taxi and private hire vehicle trades across England is complex, fragmented and archaic; some legislation dates back to Victorian times. The Government recognise the challenges that the current licensing framework can cause, including the inconsistency of licensing standards throughout the country and the practice of out-of-area working, where drivers choose to license in one authority area but work wholly or predominantly in a different authority area.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
My constituency covers two local authorities: the Royal borough of Kingston upon Thames and the London borough of Richmond upon Thames. For a number of years, they have both operated a committee system that works extremely well; it is well accepted by the local community and both local authorities function extremely well. Why are the Government proposing to put in place additional hurdles for both my local authorities to continue to operate effectively and efficiently in this way?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are clear that our strong preference remains for executive models of government, because we believe that that model provides clearer and more easily understood governance structures, and leads to more efficient decision making. However, we recognise the genuine concerns held in particular constituencies where committee systems have been adopted recently, particularly where public referendums have been held. That is why we are moving forward with this amendment.
We believe that we are striking the right balance between encouraging a more consistent local authority governance model across England that will ensure better decision making, while also respecting recent local democratic mandates and voter expectations, as well as reducing disruptions where councils are operating a committee system and are within their moratorium periods. If a council is within its moratorium period, we will allow the transition, but our strong preference is to move towards the cabinet system.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make some progress.
Finally, we have built on the amendments made in Committee to the local audit provisions. Our further amendments contain technical provisions that broaden the existing regulation-making powers relating to the payment of allowances to audit committee members to include expenses, gratuities or pensions to members of audit committees across all local bodies within the audit framework. Broadening this power will give clarity to the sector that remuneration can apply to all audit committee members, whether they are independent or not, across all relevant authorities, including the Greater London Authority.
The Bill originally required that the Mayor of London and the Assembly jointly appointed an audit committee. However, following discussions on its particular governance arrangements, it has become clear that it would be more appropriate for this power to rest solely with the Mayor of London, consistent with other audit provisions in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. This change will enable the mayor to appoint an audit committee that includes at least one independent member, in line with the requirements set out in the Bill. I thank the GLA for its constructive engagement with my officials on these important audit measures in the Bill. It is vital that our reforms work in practice for all authorities within the local audit framework.
The Bill will help to build and rebuild local government, fix our broken local audit system and truly empower communities. Our amendments build on these ambitions and ensure that the Bill works as we intended. I commend them to the House.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I know that this issue has been exercising Mr Speaker. Yesterday, at topical questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about a tourism tax, we were told by the Secretary of State:
“My hon. Friend tempts me to venture into terrain that is properly within the decision-making jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She only has to wait 48 hours to find out what the Chancellor has decided. I suggest that she ask the Chancellor on Wednesday, rather than me this afternoon.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 19.]
During debate on the Bill yesterday, when asked the same question by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), replied:
“They have made an impassioned and effective case, but as I said in my opening remarks, I will not pre-empt the Chancellor. Tax decisions are for the Chancellor, and we will have a Budget in 48 hours.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 155.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you and Mr Speaker have been very exercised by the number of leaks, which the former chief economist at the Bank of England described as
“the single biggest reason why growth has flatlined”.
You will therefore be concerned, as the Conservatives are, that a short while ago the Government put out a press release on their website saying that mayors will be given these new powers, before that was briefed to the House and after repeated comments to the House that Ministers would not answer that question. What further measures are open to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker to ensure that these kinds of damaging leaks, which are undermining our economy and particularly hitting our tourism and hospitality businesses hard, can stop?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I am inclined to the view that there are two separate issues here. He will have heard my earlier comments about statements being made to this House first and how deeply regrettable it is when statements are made to the media ahead of being announced to the House. However, with specific reference to the Minister’s comments yesterday, I believe they would far better be addressed as a point of debate. I am sure the shadow Minister will want to raise that later on in this afternoon’s debate.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Today I will continue to highlight our concerns on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Labour Government spend a great deal of time telling the country that they are putting power back into the hands of communities and say they are on the side of local leaders and delivering locally led renewal, but when we examine the powers that the Bill actually grants, it is clear very quickly that they risk doing the opposite.
Through this Bill, power is being snatched upwards and away from local voices. It strengthens combined authorities and concentrates power with a statutory authority mayor at the expense of constituent, unitary, parish and town councils. It enables key planning decisions to bypass local authorities and gives Ministers sweeping powers to redraw governance arrangements without genuine local engagement. Local leaders, parish councillors and residents see that, and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches certainly see that.
If we are to empower our communities, as this Government promise, this legislation needs to be improved. That is what we seek to do with the amendments we bring forward today, just as we did yesterday. Let me begin with our primary measure, new clause 17. The Government really cannot keep coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that they want locally led delivery while creating legislation that puts responsibilities on councils without giving them money or support to do the job. That just does not add up. The truth is that without even considering devolution, councils are currently not funded properly. Every single one, regardless of political leadership, is under unprecedented strain, and many are on the brink of effective bankruptcy. Some have declared section 114 notices, and others are warning that they may not last the financial year. Even more are raiding reserves, cutting services to the bone and desperately firefighting rising demand in social care, temporary accommodation and children’s services.
Instead of addressing this crisis with the urgent, national level of investment for which local government was calling out for years under the Conservatives and now this Government, the Government seem committed to perpetuating this problem, albeit now with a different approach of giving to one council by taking from another. We see that clearly in the rather inaptly named fair funding review, which does not increase funding from central Government, but simply redistributes an already insufficient pot. It is a winless exercise dressed up as equality.
Council leaders from across the political spectrum are all deeply worried that this Bill is a continuation of that same approach. It asks councils to do more, take on more and deliver more, all without serious new funding models, and nowhere is that clearer than in west Surrey. This Government have imposed a new local governance model that local leaders have warned will be financially unstable and structurally incoherent. Instead of listening to local authority leaders and residents, the Government pressed ahead with a structure that groups multiple councils facing extreme financial pressure—the legacy of current and former Conservative Administrations—leaving the new West Surrey council with roughly five times the debt of neighbouring East Surrey council.
What is the Government’s answer to the question of how West Surrey council is to manage its significant debt and financial instability? Their answer is that West Surrey should pool its budgets, sell its assets and harmonise council tax. They may as well have suggested tackling the debt with hopes and prayers. We simply cannot redistribute a crisis. We cannot create a strong structure on foundations that are already breaking under debt, demand and chronic underfunding, and that is exactly why our new clause 17 is so vital. If we ignore local leaders and refuse to fund local government properly, we do not empower councils; we set them up to fail. I call on MPs from across this House to back new clause 17 and back our local councils.
Funding alone is not enough; devolution relies on democratic legitimacy. That brings me to new clause 35, which would safeguard the integrity of local democracy by ensuring that residents could hold their leaders to account at the ballot box. Our new clause would ensure that when Government restructure local governance, shift power or redraw boundaries, they must explicitly consider the impact on local elections.
In Surrey this year, as in many places, we have seen clearly what happens when elections are cancelled or postponed. The failing Conservative Administration has been allowed to remain in office not because residents have endorsed them, but because the Government and the local Conservative leadership came together to deny residents their chance to remove them. Based on local by-election results, it is clear that the Administration would have been removed, had the elections taken place in May.
Martin Wrigley
There is another aspect in which this Bill is lacking. In Devon, where we have a county and district system, the city of Exeter is ruled by a district council, which will be absorbed into the unitary council, leaving Exeter—unlike the rest of Devon—without a town or parish council. The same thing would happen in Torbay, should Torbay unitary be changed and moved to cover a wider area. That would leave Torquay and Paignton without town councils, while Brixham has one. Does my hon. Friend agree that my new clause 63, which would require re-parishing or the introduction of town or parish councils in those areas that lose them in this way, is a good thing that would prevent far-off unitary councils being overwhelmed by the minutiae and issues of an individual city?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. We have a lot of speakers this afternoon. If Members make long interventions, we will simply not get through everybody.
Zöe Franklin
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of our fantastic parish and town councils, and I hope that Members from all parts of this House will support that new clause.
We have tabled new clause 70 because neighbourhood planning only works if communities can afford to take part. Without support, neighbourhood planning becomes a slogan. With support, it becomes genuine grassroots devolution. We believe that new clause 70 would plug that gap and ensure that real community voices are heard.
Finally, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to plug yet another gap that the Bill sadly leaves wide open, and we return to the theme of parish and town councils. Under the Bill, those could be sidelined, merged or absorbed without proper public consultation. New clause 41 closes that loophole by protecting parish and town councils from being swept aside in the rush to build bigger, centralised combined authorities. If the Government claim to trust communities, they must protect the governance closest to those communities, and new clause 41 delivers just that.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I like a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying, because I believe in communities, towns and villages being properly represented. However, names are important, too. Does she, as a Surrey MP, agree that instead of east Surrey and west Surrey, perhaps west Surrey and south Middlesex would be the correct name for the new authority, because of the area that is traditionally part of the county of Middlesex?
Zöe Franklin
The hon. Member raises an interesting point, which returns us to the theme that we need to allow local communities a say in their own destinies. I will leave it to my wonderful colleagues in local government to continue that thought.
We Liberal Democrats remain concerned about the many gaps that we see in the Bill, and they are what our new clauses attempt to plug. Every single one is designed to strengthen the democratic, localist, community-led principles that Ministers say they support. With our new clauses, this English devolution Bill might finally seem to provide the devolution that the Government keep promising us. I urge Members across the House to support these vital amendments, and to give local democracy the respect, the voice and the power that it deserves.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 83, which stands in my name. I thank colleagues for their support for the new clause. I also sincerely thank the Minister and her team for their consistent engagement with me on this landmark piece of legislation—a Bill that will be game-changing for my constituents.
Before I speak to my new clause, which would forge a fairer, safer and better regulated private hire vehicle sector, I want to express my full support for the steps that the Government are taking by introducing national minimum standards. We need to rebuild confidence in a system that so many view as broken. This is about giving local leaders power to decide which drivers operate in their areas, and, most crucially, it is about the safety and wellbeing of passengers and drivers.
Let me deal first with the problem we face. Many Members will have heard from constituents who have raised legitimate concerns that the taxis or private hire vehicles that they see operating in their local areas are actually licensed hundreds of miles away. That is because since 2015 operators have been permitted to contract bookings to another vehicle that could be licensed in a different area. It has coincided with the meteoric rise of national operators such as Uber and Bolt, which are permitted to be licensed in multiple areas. The stark absence of any regulation has led to certain local authorities becoming, as the GMB union has put it,
“a licence factory…creaking at the seams”.
No example underscores that more vividly than the activities of City of Wolverhampton Council. In the first five months of last year alone, the council granted more than 8,500 new taxi licences, which is 30 times more than any other licensing authority in the midlands. This has a real and tangible impact across the whole country. Indeed, in Greater Manchester nearly half of all private hire vehicles are now licensed by local authorities outside its 10 councils, and the city region’s “out of area” figure of more than 12,000 has risen sharply from just under 7,000 in 2023. In my own borough of Rochdale, about 40% of private hire vehicles and taxis are licensed out of area.
This is not just an issue of public perception; it is also about safety and enforcement. For as long as the status quo persists and scores of vehicles are operating out of area, far from the authority that licensed them in the first instance, there will remain a deficit in terms of accountability when incidents take place.
Let me add a caveat by saying, unequivocally, that the vast majority of drivers are law-abiding people. They are integral to our economy and to our society as a whole, and I have been delighted to engage with a great number of them since being elected to this place. However, situations arise in which enforcement becomes necessary, and at present licensing authorities such as my own are unable to take action because of the proliferation of out-of-area operation.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that while it is good news that the Government have now proposed national minimum standards, her new clause represents the other part of the Casey review’s recommendations, without which the House would have failed to act on the licensing requirements specified in the review?
Mrs Blundell
I truly support and welcome the Government’s commitment to national minimum standards, but I believe that they must be complemented by a restriction on out-of-area operations so that they can be enforced locally where necessary.
At a recent meeting of the Transport Committee, which is currently holding an inquiry on the private hire vehicle sector, we heard from a licensing officer from Blackpool council. When I asked whether his authority was able to keep track of the drivers operating within it, he stated:
“We are now at a stage where provisions on where an operator can operate vehicles do not seem to matter. We are not even in a position where an operator has to have a licence everywhere it operates; it does not.”
He went on to say:
“I know the limitations of my operational enforcement resource…chasing vehicles all over the country is not something we could deal or cope with.”
I know from conversations with Rochdale borough council’s licensing department that those sentiments are shared there, too. Standards are one thing, but without proper means of enforcement, they will not have the maximum impact on public safety.
I will now move to the substance of my new clause 83. Under the new clause, strategic authorities would have the power to require that journeys that start and end there are fulfilled by locally licensed operators. It would give local leaders power and the choice to adopt that as a solution. Considered together, new clause 83 and the Government amendments would encourage drivers to license locally and would ensure that if things go wrong, both drivers and passengers have the confidence that enforcement measures will be swift, considered and legitimate in the eyes of local authorities and local people. If reinforced by implementing national minimum standards, these two changes could revitalise the sector, and give both drivers and passengers the confidence and certainty they deserve.
I believe that there are no Members present today, no corner of society and, indeed, no drivers out there in the sector who believe the system as it stands is working well. It is oversaturated, with a lack of local accountability and an erosion of the ties between drivers and the communities they serve. The private hire and taxi sector is critical to our economy and for filling gaps in the local transport network, but for too long the safety of passengers and the ability of licensing authorities to do their job have been undermined for the sake of a model that is unfit for purpose. We must bring an end to out-of-area licensing and offer the sector the change for which it has been calling out for decades.
The Bill is about granting power to local people to make their own decisions that will change their communities for the better. This is one such a decision—one that we can no longer afford to avoid.
Andrew Rosindell
I rise to speak in support of my new clauses 85 and 86. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) for supporting both new clauses.
New clause 85 seeks to ensure that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex are once again aligned with the historic county, as they were for many hundreds of years—in fact, for well over a millennium. It was only in 1965, under the London Government Act 1963, that that changed. The entire history of the constituency that I represent has, except for in the past few decades, been a part of the historic county of Essex. New clause 85 would combine the historic Essex with the ceremonial Essex, which I believe would end the confusion and allow the people of my fine county to once again fully celebrate the rich heritage of the county in its entirety.
Let me explain a little further. Across the entire country, the identity of each county is very important to all our constituents. People are proud of their historic county identity, and it is reflected in so many ways—whether it is through sport, social activities, church or the local regiment. Whatever it may be, we are proud of our county identity, and it should not be muddled up with administrative councils, which chop and change, as we are now seeing again today. Historic and ceremonial counties are for cultural celebration and for historic purposes, so the lord lieutenants of the different historic counties and ceremonial counties really should be as one. That would end the confusion.
In my borough, which is the so-called London borough of Havering—everyone who comes to Havering knows that it is really Essex, not London at all—we are constantly confused about where we are. The people of my borough are tired of this, and they want the muddle and confusion, which was caused by bureaucrats in the 1960s, to end. It is a very simple thing to resolve. I say to the Minister that it would not affect any of the local government changes the Government are proposing. It is nothing to do with local government; this is purely ceremonial and historical.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
My constituency is on the outskirts of London—we are not in London; we are very much in Surrey—but we suffer from the fact that many decisions that affect my constituents on a daily basis are made in London, often to our detriment, and we have absolutely no control over them. I recognise the strong point my hon. Friend is making, but even if he is able to withdraw from the administrative unit of London, he will not escape negative decision making by the current Mayor of London.
Andrew Rosindell
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is why fundamental reform of the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London needs to take place. Personally, I do not believe that we need the GLA. I believe we should transfer powers back to local boroughs, towns and communities. If we have some form of authority for London, it should deal purely with the capital—the central part of London. Frankly, do we need a GLA that goes all the way from Hampton Wick up to Havering-atte-Bower, and from Ruislip down to Biggin Hill? We do not; it is an unnecessary layer of government. I would prefer the authority, power and funding to go directly to our towns, villages and boroughs that are controlled locally by elected councillors, not a huge bureaucracy in City Hall that is unaccountable, undemocratic and has very little support among anyone I speak to.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I am interested in how far the hon. Gentleman would propose to go. Would he advocate the abolition for the Mayor of London?
Andrew Rosindell
Yes I would, personally. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will undoubtedly recall that our former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, abolished the Greater London Council. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will remember that very well, because he sat on the GLC at the time. In 1986, the GLC was abolished and what happened? The power went back to each borough across London. We did not have to pay a huge precept. We paid our way for policing and the fire brigade and so on, but generally speaking the powers truly returned—as I hope the Liberal Democrats believe in—to local communities. We did not have an overarching bureaucracy interfering in everything we do, from planning to transport to policing. I would hope that the Liberal Democrats believe that powers should be held as locally as possible.
The overarching bureaucracy in City Hall, which is so unaccountable, really needs to go. No, I do not believe we need a Mayor of London. I believe we need to have local authorities working together where there are strategic matters to be discussed—transport, planning or infrastructure—but we do not need to create a monstrous bureaucracy. Margaret Thatcher was right to abolish the GLC and Tony Blair was absolutely wrong to bring back the GLA, with all its paraphernalia, bureaucracy and huge costs to the council tax payers of the Greater London area. On that note, I ask Members to please support new clauses 85 and 86 to restore our Essex identity and to give us the democratic right to decide our own future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I think some of those points might have been stretching my patience on scope somewhat. I do not intend to put on a fixed time limit. However, Members might like to consider whether they can stay within the bounds of about six minutes, so that I can get everyone in.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want to argue the case for Wessex. [Laughter.] No, I don’t.
I originally came in to support new clauses 67 and 68, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), on the licensing of cabs and others. Unfortunately, he had problems printing out his speech and arrived late, so he is unable to speak directly to them, but I am sure he will intervene on the subject.
Things have moved on since we first drafted new clauses 67 and 68, and I am really grateful. The Government have brought forward a series of amendments—new clauses 49 to 54, I believe—that deal with national licensing. That is a huge step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) eloquently put the arguments for why those provisions are needed, and moved the argument on as well, because out-of-borough licensing is the big issue that is hitting us at the moment.
I declare an interest as a member of Unite—it is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The genesis of our involvement is that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and I convened a meeting of cab drivers who were all members of Unite. The GMB has taken an important role in this as well. It is the first time I had seen a united front of cab drivers, with black cab drivers and other drivers representing all areas of this sector of the economy united in this one demand on proper national licensing and out-of-area provision.
Peter Lamb
I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts to move these provisions forward. I will relay the key points of our agreement on this issue. The key challenge is that since the Deregulation Act 2015, we have a system in which councils no longer know who is operating in their area, on what basis they are operating, and what standards they are operating on. I am directly familiar with how the system has shifted as I was a member of the licensing committee from 2010 onwards. Most significantly, councils have no power to enforce or investigate when things go wrong. City of Wolverhampton council really needs to go and investigate the entire country because of the way in which the systems are operating.
If we are not going to have a national system, the only way we can get back to a system where someone has the confidence that if their daughter gets into an Uber tonight, the council will know who she is, can intervene if she is in danger and will investigate if something goes wrong, is by returning to national standards, and by having a situation where local licensing authorities can once again control who is starting or ending in their patch—not having people coasting in from out of area.
John McDonnell
My hon. Friend got a good part of his speech in anyway. That is exactly what came out of the meeting with the cab drivers themselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North, they put an emphasis on the Casey report and raised their concerns.
My understanding of the Government’s intention is that, having inserted national licensing into the Bill, there will be a rapid consultation on how it will work—that will be excellent—and, with regard to the out-of-location measures, there will be further discussions about the whole licensing regime for cabs. As the Minister said, the legislation is that old that it goes back to the horse-drawn Hackney carriage in the 19th century.
The one point I want to make is that this is a matter of urgency. Everyone I have spoken to feels that it is a matter of urgency because of the vulnerability of passengers. As has been said, the vast majority of people who work in the sector want to provide a good service, which is why they are lobbying so hard for national standards, but there are some rogue operators and they are putting people at risk. We are only as good as the last serious case of abuse in the system. That is why I emphasise to the Government that this is a matter of urgency. If it requires a separate piece of legislation, as I am advised it probably will, we need to ensure that we have spoken to the Leader of the House. I think that, on a cross-party basis, we would give that legislation time and priority, as the dangers are so hefty.
New clause 13, which some of my hon. Friends will talk about, reflects what is happening outside this House: a movement in local communities to have more control of their local community, particularly through local environmental controls. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Government are resisting new clause 13, but maybe the spirit of it will go into the other place. All it is asking for is a review of how the Localism Act 2011 has worked.
I supported the 2011 Act—it was about empowering local communities. The movement that is building for people to assert control over their local areas is significant, and the Government need to take that into account. Perhaps, as the debate moves forward, the Government will look more appreciatively on an amendment like new clause 13 in the other place.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I rise primarily to speak to new clause 26 and amendment 82, tabled in my name, which are related to the changes the Government propose to the assets of community value system.
Members across the House will know from their own communities that playing field space is at a premium, and my constituency is no different. We have fantastic local grassroots sports clubs run by dedicated local volunteers, including our local football clubs, the Cygnets—which has more than 300 girls on its books regularly playing football, and now adult women, too—the Twickenham Tigers and the Hearts of Teddlothians, as well as Thamesians rugby club, among others, all of which are desperate for pitch space. These groups are struggling to meet growing demand because they simply cannot find the space to train and play matches. At a time when we face the twin public health crises of obesity and poor mental health, we must do everything we can to promote and support young people, in particular, and adults to play sport for the immense physical and mental health benefits that it brings.
Yet sitting in my constituency are the much-loved Udney Park playing fields—a 13-acre war memorial playing field—which have, scandalously, lain derelict for more than a decade. Sadly, I do not have the time to bore the House with the long and sorry tale of how we ended up with prime playing field space, which was donated in 1919 under a covenant for the playing of amateur sport, going to rack and ruin. However, since Imperial College decided to sell the site in 2015, successive developers have purchased it at overinflated prices and have, quite rightly, been unable to develop the site due to the various important protections afforded to it. The site has been designated an asset of community value, and despite huge efforts by the local community to buy the land whenever it has been put up for sale by its owners, the two successive owners have refused to agree a price and sell to the community, meaning that the precious playing fields and pavilion have degraded over time.
I warmly welcome the new community right-to-buy provision in the Bill, but it does not go far enough in actually empowering communities to buy precious sites such as Udney Park. New clause 26 would further strengthen the proposed powers where dormant assets are concerned. While the Bill introduces a mechanism for independent valuation where a price cannot be agreed between the seller and a community group buyer, it remains silent on both how that valuation is achieved and what can be done if the seller repeatedly refuses to sell at what is determined to be market value. On the point of independent valuation, I would like to have seen written into the Bill an explicit clause that removed hope value where an existing playing field has been purchased by a community group to continue using it as playing field space; alas, I was told by the Clerks that this was firmly out of scope, and the Government refused to back a similar amendment that I tabled to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
New clause 26, however, provides a mechanism to enable a local authority to engage the compulsory purchase function in the event of an asset of community value lying dormant for five years or more and a market value offer—as determined through independent valuation as set out in proposed new section 86T to the Localism Act 2011—from a community group being rejected, and if the seller has been unable to agree a sale with an alternative buyer.
Extending the right-to-buy power in this way would prevent developers from land banking in the hope of a change in legislation and prevent precious, desperately needed sites like Udney Park playing fields from lying derelict and unused when hundreds, if not thousands, of local residents, young and old, could benefit from them. It would focus minds and encourage the owner to sell when it gets a fair market value offer from a community group.
Together with amendment 82, new clause 26 would help to boost access to more green spaces and grassroots sports facilities at a time when demand is growing, not least following the amazing successes of the Lionesses and the Red Roses this summer. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have been concerned by the Government’s removal of Sport England’s role in national policy. Amendment 82 would support local authorities by ensuring that they have the funding necessary to assess land in their area for eligibility as a sporting asset of community value. As I said at the outset, sport is such an important tool in the fight against the mental and physical health crises facing our young people and adults, and amendment 82 would simply ensure that lack of funding will not be an obstacle to protecting what will be vital sporting assets of community value. I hope that Ministers will take these measures seriously, and I look forward to hearing their response.
Finally, I will touch briefly on amendment 94 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and consequential amendments to it, as well as amendment 4 tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). They both seek to achieve the same objective.
My council in the London borough of Richmond upon Thames is run through the committee system, and it has been run extremely effectively in this way since 2019, in line with its commitment to democracy and transparency. I completely refute the Minister’s earlier comments that a committee system means that a council will not be run efficiently or transparently. Not once in the last six years that we have had a Liberal Democrat council running on a committee system have I ever heard a member of the public say to me, “I don’t understand how decisions are made.” We are actually running so efficiently that the Government have decided to punish our council by cutting its core Government funding in a devastating way that will have a massive impact on services. So I completely refute her suggestion that a cabinet executive model is the way to go.
All elected councillors in Richmond are involved in the decision-making process. Our council does not have the cabinet executive and back-bench structure that the Government feel is their prerogative to dictate out from Whitehall, overriding democratically elected councils. It is a blatant misuse of Ministers’ authority to do that. I hope that this Government will think again on this, if not today when the Bill goes to the other place, because it is absolutely outrageous to override local authorities in this way. They should be given the power and freedom necessary to shape and provide local services the way that they choose to. After all, that is what they were elected by our residents to do.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
I would like to speak to new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), who rightly raises the issue of councillor standards and whose new clause calls for regulations to establish a recall process for councillors who breach their codes of conduct. Although a poignant point, having served as a town councillor and deputy mayor myself before being elected to this House, I believe that we must go further.
I strongly support this Bill’s aim to standardise the structure of local government. In particular, I welcome the reform of our local audit system, as outlined in the provisions. I also commend the Government’s recent announcement regarding new powers to suspend councillors for up to six months for serious misconduct and the introduction of a mandatory code of conduct across all types of local authority in England. These are essential first steps that I wholeheartedly welcome and know from my experience are much needed.
However, I urge us to go further by introducing a dedicated local council standards Bill that addresses the full breadth of the accountability challenges that residents face with town and parish councils—known as very local councils. The Localism Act 2011 created a legislative vacuum by abolishing the standards boards for England and repealing powers to suspend councillors who breach standards. As very local councils are to play an increasingly larger role in the devolution of local services, it is essential that councils are held to the same high standards and that this critical issue receives the detailed parliamentary scrutiny it deserves.
As one of my constituents and a former parish councillor put it, councillors have “little incentive” and “no mandatory training requirements”. Having witnessed at first hand these challenges in local and very local councils, I believe that we must robustly tackle those who bring the reputations of councils into disrepute, undermining the already fragile trust in local politics and doing a profound disservice to the overwhelming majority of councillors who serve their communities with integrity and dedication.
The ongoing recruitment crisis for both town and parish clerks and potential councillors is directly linked to the lack of effective recourse against unacceptable behaviour. There are councils that have gained a local, in some cases national, reputation for dysfunction. The result is that some councils are resorting to offering wildly increased salaries, representing what amounts to danger money for staff for having to deal with toxic behaviours. Experienced, qualified clerks who serve as impartial legal advisers tasked with ensuring that councils operate lawfully are subjected to behaviour that would not be tolerated in any professional environment. The loss of those valuable professionals weakens governance and standards across the entire sector.
To that end, I propose that we should create a dedicated local standards Bill that establishes a comprehensive framework for local council accountability. It should include professional regulation for councillors, with robust oversight mechanisms beyond the mandatory code of conduct. It should establish a properly funded model for monitoring officers through professional regulation fees paid by councils, similar to the current mandatory external audit fees, ensuring that those vital guardians of standards have the capacity to perform their function effectively and consistently across all local authorities.
A compliance scoring system would provide the public with transparent indicators about whether their elected representatives are undertaking best practice and demonstrating financial competence with taxpayers’ money. National internal audit parameters, building on the audit reforms outlined in the Bill, would ensure transparency and consistency of Government standards across all very local councils, regardless of their size or location.
Additionally, the annual governance and accountability statement should include a proper officer declaration confirming where councils have chosen to ignore or disregard professional legal advice, particularly where that represents a breach of their legal obligations. Such accountability made visible and measurable would help to restore public confidence in local governance.
Although the announced reforms begin to address that issue, the complexity and importance of comprehensively rebuilding the standards infrastructure merits dedicated legislation. We cannot allow the minority who tarnish the sector’s reputation to continue creating disparities in community benefit or to drive experienced professionals from their roles.
I emphasise that many local councils across the country and in North Somerset are governed extremely well and genuinely enrich their communities, but as we move forward with devolution we must ensure that town and parish councils are functioning effectively, operating in line with legislation, delivering value for money for their residents and taking heed of legal advice given to them by their proper officers.
We have the opportunity to rebuild trust in local and very local politics, ensuring impeccable standards and levels of accountability. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Government on developing such legislation so that the standards in our very local councils mean a better deal for residents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Dr Ben Spencer.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Yesterday, my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), asked the Minister whether Surrey will get a mayor. He did not get much of an answer—we can only imagine what has led the Government over the past year to get cold feet on the election of mayors going forwards. I want to talk about new clause 1 and amendment 2, on consent for change, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on behalf of the official Opposition.
Surrey and others have been working with the Government to maximise the opportunities of devolution locally. As part of that, there has been quite a debate over the unitary model and whether there should be two, three or one unitary authorities. On the face of it, ideally, going for one unitary would mean savings, but the Government have decided that is not possible, so, through various processes, the decision has been made to have two unitaries. That has all been done in pursuit of a mayor.
A mayor would make a big difference in ensuring that Surrey can, as the Government put it, unlock devolution. It is frustrating that we have got to this stage—all this work has been done—but there has still been no firm commitment that Surrey will get a mayor, particularly when a unitary model is being adopted purely to seek a mayor when, actually, a better model locally would be a single unitary. I see the Minister nodding; I am sure she can see that conundrum and how there is frustration about the fact that a mayor has not yet been announced.
A mayor would bring huge benefits in leading on strategic projects such as the River Thames scheme that I have been trying to push to be built as soon as possible. It would also bring benefits in health, with accountability for integrated care boards—again, I have been calling for that—and on transport locally. I have been calling for a duty to co-ordinate, which I think a mayor with powers would also be able to deliver for Surrey. In housing, I am calling for the prevention of inappropriate local development, which is blighting areas across Runnymede and Weybridge and which will affect both the east and west unitaries when they are set up. In policing, given that the Government have announced that they will wrap up the police and crime commissioners, we need a mayor to take on the role at the cut-off date of 2028.
I beg the Minister to announce, either in winding up, via a written ministerial statement or otherwise the confirmation of a mayor for Surrey and a guarantee that next year’s elections will go ahead. Will she also explain how my constituents can be shielded from other councils’ debt as part of the unitary reforms that are going ahead?
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I strongly support this Bill and was proud to serve on the Committee. The Bill will deliver an enormous transfer of power out of this place and into our local communities. As a former councillor, I know that trusting local representatives to make decisions about local services and issues leads to much stronger outcomes.
I want to speak strongly in favour of the Government’s new clauses 49 to 57, which provide for the introduction of national minimum standards for taxi licensing. I am delighted to see the Government bringing forward those measures, which I and others, many of whom have spoken today, have proposed to tackle the huge problem with cross-border licensing, which is an issue for both taxi drivers and passengers. Right now, local councils have significant flexibility around taxi licensing policy, without a baseline, which means there is huge variance between councils. Yet drivers can operate anywhere once licensed. Unsurprisingly, that creates huge demand for licensing from councils with laxer standards.
Wolverhampton has become the UK’s taxi licensing hub. In the first five months of last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) mentioned, the council issued over 8,500 licences, which is more than 30 times any other council in the midlands. From April 2023 to March 2024, 96% of licences went to people living elsewhere. Wolverhampton-licensed taxis now operate nationwide, and a third of taxis in Manchester are registered in Wolverhampton, 80 miles away. That is not the drivers’ fault, as seeking out the best deal possible is understandable, particularly if it is cheaper or if processing times are faster. However, there are several problems.
First, drivers who do the right thing and register locally are undercut by those going to councils with weaker standards, creating a race to the bottom that harms both drivers and passengers. We must emphasise that drivers want this to be fixed too, so that rogue operators can be dealt with. There is a real democratic deficit: local authorities cannot regulate their own standards effectively and they lose control, as seen in Peterborough in my area, where plans for CCTV in taxis had to be dropped because locally licensed drivers would pay more while others would avoid the cost by licensing elsewhere.
Secondly, climate and emissions aims are undermined too. Peterborough city council will not license a vehicle that is over nine years old, but Wolverhampton allows cars up to 12 years old. There is a lot of variance on that.
John McDonnell
We have all had a go at giving Wolverhampton a bashing. The council has not advertised this licensing; it just deals with it efficiently, so drivers have gone there—but it was not the council’s fault.
Sam Carling
I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said. In fact, I carefully drafted this speech to avoid attacking Wolverhampton in any way, because I recognise that the reasons for this situation are complex. That goes to my next point: overstretched councils cannot monitor conditions, let alone enforce them, for drivers operating hundreds of miles away. If there is an incident in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire involving a driver who is licensed halfway across the country, there is no way that their licensing council can properly investigate and do something about it. It would be like asking Police Scotland to investigate something in Cornwall; it just does not make sense.
Thirdly, there is a huge safety issue. Some councils have less stringent Disclosure and Barring Service checking requirements, they are cheaper, or they have no requirement for CCTV or emission-compliant vehicles, so both passengers and drivers are left without adequate protection when there are incidents. That was a key point of the recent Casey audit on child sexual exploitation and abuse, which identified that some councils go beyond statutory guidance as a means of tackling sexual exploitation, but were hindered by a lack of stringency from other authorities.
That problem was also raised in the 2014 Jay inquiry into child sexual abuse in Rotherham. That rings true with calls from all sectors, including from trade unions such as Unite and the GMB—I declare that I am a GMB member—in their long-running campaigns around this matter, to which I pay tribute. I am delighted that the Government have listened to me and others and adopted the proposals that were brought forward in Committee. I look forward to seeing the detail of what the Government propose for national minimum standards, and I will continue to engage closely.
At this point, I was going to talk about the importance of considering raising the licensing authority level to strategic authorities and transport authorities, so it was brilliant to hear the Minister say just now that we will be consulting on that, because that is the other key part of this story. Together, those two measures could have a profound impact on dealing with the issues in this sector.
Turning briefly to other amendments, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s new clause 45, which will remove the requirement for local councillors’ home addresses to be published. Given the security environment, this is excellent news. I am aware of more than one incident in my region over the past few years of councillors’ home addresses being publicised maliciously online by bad faith actors, encouraging people to intimidate councillors in their homes. Indeed, that has happened in my region on several occasions, so this provision will have a tangible impact on keeping safe those dedicated volunteers from our communities who are trying to do what is best.
New clause 79, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), talks about establishing local accounting officers and public accounts committees in each mayoral strategic area. The Government have been talking about this for some time, and there is a lot of support for these committees to hold local spending to account and provide some real oversight, so I would appreciate some thoughts from the Minister on why the Government are not bringing that forward at this time, and whether they are considering doing so more broadly.
To conclude, I really welcome the Bill. We went through it line by line in Committee, so I know what a difference it will make, transforming local government, pushing power out of this place and empowering communities to make decisions that make sense for their areas. As with the last Labour Government, we are spearheading the devolution we need to unlock the growth and opportunities that have for too long been overlooked.
Alison Bennett
My amendment 34 is simple but vital. It would strengthen the ability of all our communities not only to bid for assets of community value but to make informed, responsible decisions when doing so. At present, communities have a right to bid, yet, absurdly, no guaranteed right to view. We ask our town and parish councils to act as prudent stewards of public money, to conduct surveys, to secure financing and to follow proper decision-making processes, yet we deny them the basic opportunity to inspect the very asset they may be committing taxpayer funds to purchase. This is impractical, illogical and unreasonable.
A recent case in my constituency of Mid Sussex illustrates the problem well. Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common parish council sought to bid for a former church building listed as an asset of community value. I can attest to the value that this building had for the community, because when my children were tiny, they went there during the week. It served as their pre-school and I must say that Cottis pre-school was and still is a wonderful facility, led by Sam. I am still grateful to the staff there for their support and the best start they gave my children.
Throughout the six-month moratorium, despite repeated requests, the parish council was refused access to the building. Only after the moratorium ended, when the property was placed in an auction, did the auction house permit inspections. This left the council with just two weeks to carry out surveys, complete its internal procedures and secure public works loan board financing. No responsible authority could compress such due diligence into that timeframe. Predictably, the parish council was unable to bid, and the building—an asset that it could have afforded, based on the eventual sale price—has now passed into private ownership and been converted into flats, removing a much-needed community venue from village ownership.
My amendment 34 would correct that oversight. It would simply guarantee that community buyers had an early and fair opportunity to view an asset so that they could undertake proper due diligence. It would impose no unreasonable burden on vendors. It would merely ensure a level playing field. If we believe in empowering communities, and if we believe that assets of community value should genuinely remain available to those communities, we must give them the practical tools to act. A right to bid without a right to view is a hollow promise. I urge the Minister to support this amendment and give our councils and the communities they serve a fair chance to preserve the places that matter most to them.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I very much welcome this devolution Bill, and today I speak in support of Government new clause 45 and amendments 153 and 107 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher).
New clause 45 and amendment 153 relate to the essential role of our local councillors. As a recent councillor and leader of Worthing borough council, I can attest to how hard my fellow councillors work for very little remuneration—contrary to public perception—and how much they contribute to the health and wellbeing of our local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) alluded to, as the temperature has risen in politics in recent years, these local residents who have put themselves forward with the aim of contributing positively to their communities have increasingly found themselves the target of online and in-person abuse. While it is no more acceptable for them than it is for us in national politics, we must do all we can to ensure that they and their families are safe. It is therefore good to see that recognised in new clause 45 proposing that council members’ home addresses will no longer appear in published registers of interests.
Amendment 153 acknowledges the different forms of council structure, and there has already been some debate on this matter today. My constituency of Worthing West houses two councils—Worthing borough council is a leader and cabinet system; Arun district council is a committee system. Again, as a former council leader, my preference and experience tells me that the leader and cabinet system is highly effective, but I acknowledge that the committee system can potentially allow greater involvement in decision making across the councillor groupings. With that in mind, I am supportive of the intent stated in amendment 153 that if the local authority’s committee system is protected, a review should be undertaken to see whether it is in the best interests of that local authority to move to the leader and cabinet system.
For my constituency, which is also undergoing local government reform alongside moving to a devolution model, our councillors in Worthing and Arun will need to consider the best option for the area as part of our new unitary authority when these footprints are agreed.
Amendment 107 asks that environmental interests be considered as criteria for community right to buy, provided that the land is not allocated in the local development plan. It is positive to hear already from the Minister today about the protections for local sports grounds. The environmental wellbeing of local communities, alongside economic and social benefits, is an area close to my heart as a public health consultant living on the south coast. Worthing has the smallest amount of green land per head of population in the UK—less than a snooker table per person. We have limited green land left in our constituency’s urban areas, and even though we are undoubtedly blessed with the English channel to the south and the south downs to the north, people do not live in the sea and very few of us live in our national park. Our wellbeing is therefore determined by our densely populated urban strip bordering the coastline.
Our remaining green spaces in this area are incredibly precious for our mental and physical health, air quality and climate mitigation measures. Green spaces can help to reduce our ever-increasing flood risk. I therefore would welcome any additional guidance from the Minister in this area for our current and soon-to-be devolved regions, such as my own in Sussex. The health of our population should be our No. 1 priority, and devolved government is ideally placed to help deliver those much-needed protections and improvements for our communities.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I will speak to new clause 10(a) in my name. Devolution may be in the title of the Bill, but not everything in it lives up to that name. In many respects, the Bill actually takes power further away from the people back towards the centre.
When I look at my constituency, which will be affected by both devolution and local government reorganisation, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), I am particularly concerned about the fate of key community assets. Across Horsham district, parish councils run much-loved services including parks, village halls, allotments and sports fields. For the town itself, the jewels in the crown are the council-run Capitol theatre and Horsham park. Why do we still have a theatre when so many others have closed down? It is because Horsham’s theatre is owned and run by the Horsham people and their local council.
The two-tier local government system was never designed as a means of protecting community assets, but in practice, that is how it worked out, because as a side effect it separated and saved at least some local services from the bottomless pit that is the adult social care and special educational needs and disabilities budgets. Upper-tier authorities’ un-ringfenced budgets, such as those for leisure and culture, have been put to the sword over the years. If Horsham had been run entirely out of West Sussex county council for the past decade, with no district council, we would surely have lost our theatre years ago—it would have been sold off to plug ever-growing holes in the county budget. That sacrifice would have been for nothing, because in reality the SEND and social care deficits can never be met by council tax contributions alone. One day soon, the Government will have to recognise that.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I will address Government amendments 152 and 153. I thank the Minister and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for responding to our concerns at the outset of proceedings on the Bill.
As we reach the end of debate on the Bill, I am struck by how significant this moment is for local democracy and for communities like mine in Sheffield, where residents won a referendum on how the city will be run. They chose to adopt the committee system of governance, and secured a democratic mandate to change the culture of the council. When the Bill was introduced, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), along with the leaders of Sheffield council and grassroots campaigners, made the case for our constituents’ decision to be respected through the inclusion of Sheffield’s example in legislation. As a result, Government amendments 152 and 153 now provide the legal basis for what Sheffield has decided, and will, in turn, protect the democratic process.
Amendment 152 clarifies that the committee system can operate where it already exists, while amendment 153 sets out how a council such as Sheffield can continue that operation through a review and a resolution to confirm that it should remain. Those amendments mean that our system of governance is both recognised and protected. For Sheffield, it means confirming that our referendum result was not just symbolic but an expression of democratic choice. It also means that that choice is honoured, not overwritten, and recognised in law.
I acknowledge the collaborative work that has brought us here. We have spoken constructively for many months with campaigners from It’s Our City Sheffield, which has been instrumental in ensuring that Sheffield’s voice was heard; with local government leaders who have taken on the mantle of embedding a culture of inclusivity and opening up decision making; and with Ministers, to ensure that the Bill protects the system chosen by our residents, and offers the legal clarity needed to support effective local government. For Sheffield, that is the right outcome.
Finally, I would like to express my support for new clauses 67 and 68 and amendment 168, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), and new clause 83 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), on the issue of cross-border taxi licensing. I declare my interest, as a member of two unions—GMB and Unite—that have been actively campaigning on this issue.
Those amendments would strengthen the Government’s new clauses 49 to 57 on setting national minimum standards for private hire, but they go further in explicitly ending out-of-area taxi licensing—an issue that is repeatedly raised by my constituents and has been raised by the Transport Committee, as well as Baroness Casey’s recent review. However, constituents have contacted me to urge slight caution on some of the wording in new clause 83, especially in proposed new section 55C of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, to ensure that it does not lead to the prevention of legitimate cross-border journeys such as airport journeys. To echo the words of Sheffield residents, this is a decisive moment with the potential to resolve a problem that has undermined public safety and the integrity of our licence system for far too long.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I am pleased to speak to several amendments, tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues, that relate to community assets, planning and local democratic engagement. These are practical proposals designed to strengthen the community empowerment provisions in the Bill and make them work in our communities.
The Bill removes the long-standing duty for councils to publish notices in printed local newspapers. In a constituency like Stratford-on-Avon, that is a serious concern. Not everyone is online, especially in our rural villages, where digital connectivity is still patchy, and many older residents rely on the local newspaper for essential information. Printed notices remain one of the clearest ways that residents hear about planning applications, road closures, licensing changes and council decisions that affect their daily lives. They also support a local press sector that has played a vital role in maintaining transparency and scrutiny and informing citizens. I have tabled amendment 28 to keep that requirement in place. It is a simple safeguard to ensure that residents are not excluded from the democratic process because they happen to live in an area with poor broadband or simply prefer print.
Turning to community assets, I have tabled amendments 30 and 32 because the current system contains a glaring flaw. Once listed, an asset of community value drops off the register automatically after five years, regardless of whether it is still important to the community. For many villages and towns, the asset might be the local pub, the village green, the village hall or a community shop. These remain part of the fabric of local life for decades, yet community groups often discover only after the fact that the listing has expired, and they have lost the right to bid.
Amendments 30 and 32 would remove the automatic expiry so that protection does not vanish simply because a bureaucratic deadline has passed. It shifts the burden away from volunteers and neighbourhood groups and ensures continuity for assets that people rely on. It is exactly what the community value regime was meant to achieve.
Linked to that is amendment 33, which concerns planning decisions affecting assets of community value. At present, even if an asset is listed, there is no obligation for planning authorities to give that status special weight. Communities see treasured buildings or spaces demolished or redeveloped despite having taken the trouble to secure recognition. Amendment 33 would allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance requiring planning authorities to consider community value properly and give this weight when determining applications.
New clause 6 goes one step further in safeguarding these community assets once listed. It gives local councils a clear duty to oversee how land of community value is managed. If an owner lets the land fall into neglect or deliberately runs it down to justify redevelopment, councils would have the tools to intervene, including compulsory purchase where necessary. It creates real accountability for absentee owners and ensures that assets meant for community benefit remain so in practice.
Taken together, these amendments reflect a simple principle: devolution cannot just be about shifting powers upwards to remote large combined authorities; it must also strengthen the tools available to people and places at the most local level. Communities know best what matters in their area. They should not have to fight to keep their village hall or their community green space because of arbitrary deadlines or loopholes in planning policy.
Local people have the ability to revive and strengthen the places that they call home, but they can only do that if power is shared with them, rather than concentrated in the hands of a few distant mayors. If Ministers are committed to meaningful community empowerment, they should take these proposals seriously and accept them, along with the wider set of amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Olivia Blake.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I place on record my sincere thanks to the Secretary of State and Ministers for the constructive, open and thoughtful way in which they have engaged with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), as well as local leaders from the council in Sheffield, throughout the passage of the Bill, to solve an issue of great importance to my constituents.
More broadly, the Bill and the amendment before us today mark a significant step forward for local democracy in Sheffield and beyond. The Bill strengthens community voice, empowers local leaders and brings decisions closer to the people that they affect. We can all celebrate its commitment to clearer, more responsive pathways for devolution. It also tackles big issues, such as the national standards that we need in taxi licensing. I declare an interest as a member of the GMB, which has been campaigning on the issue for many years. I am glad that the Minister has grasped the nettle on the tricky issues relating to local government audit, which those of us who have served on the Public Accounts Committee know has been an issue for many years.
I am especially pleased that the Government have tabled amendments 152 and 153, which will allow Sheffield to retain its committee system, and not just for a protected period but beyond that. The amendments reflect a core principle of effective devolution: to enable local areas to shape the governance structures that best suit their needs and democratic traditions, especially when there has been a referendum, as in Sheffield. I pay tribute to the residents who tirelessly advocated for that and worked alongside us to find the best possible outcome.
For Sheffield, the committee system, agreed to by referendum, is rooted in transparency, co-operation and collective decision making, and embodies the values that our residents strongly support. This is a particularly important moment as it highlights the positive partnership that can be built between central Government and local people. It shows what meaningful devolution can achieve, focusing on shared goals and delivering the best outcomes for communities, and that the Government have listened and Sheffield’s voice has been heard.
The Bill is transformational and I am confident that it will help local leaders to deliver our values and priorities, and the aspirations of the people that they serve. I thank all the campaigners, including those involved in It’s Our City, for campaigning on the issue for many years, including in response to the Bill.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I want to talk first about public engagement. Fellow members of the Bill Committee know that I am not convinced that the Bill delivers the public involvement and community empowerment stated in its title, as that is not properly facilitated by the proposed measures set out in the Bill.
In Committee, I gave the Government many options to consider, including citizens assemblies, community wealth building strategies and a national public engagement commission. France has had its “Commission nationale du débat public” for 30 years, which makes real its citizens’ rights to be involved in decisions that affect their environment. It links together the environment and human rights, as set out in the excellent Aarhus convention. At this stage, I am happy to support the new option put forward by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) in relation to community empowerment. It asks the Government to undertake a review and come up with a better plan of the Government’s own choosing, which is quite reasonable and I support it.
I do not have time to go through the many other amendments that I support, but I feel like consensus around many issues is breaking out in the Chamber, as it sometimes did in Committee. However, I want to single out new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), which proposes a community ownership fund, and new clause 19, which asks for the alternative vote system to be used for mayoral elections, not the supplementary vote. In single member elections, the alternative vote gives real choice: people simply choose their candidate and rank them, so there is no second guessing about who might be in the second round. It means a guaranteed consensus-driven majority for the winning candidate, so the Government should consider that.
More broadly, as some Members have noted, I have talked many times about being a member of the London Assembly and holding the Mayor of London to account with a dedicated, funded scrutiny body. The Government should pay much more attention to scrutiny in this Bill at the next stage.
Siân Berry
I thank my former colleague for his “Hear, hear!”
Let me talk about governance systems and the committee system. My No. 1 goal in all this has been to try to keep the committee systems, as the Conservatives’ amendment 4 would do. My amendments 94 to 102 mirror amendments that I tabled in Committee and seek to protect existing committee systems, particularly those chosen by people in a petition and referendum process, as happened in Sheffield. That was driven by people power.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank the Minister, who is not in her place, for taking the time to meet me to discuss my amendments 107 and 108, which concern the community right to buy.
This Bill is one of the most exciting and empowering pieces of legislation to come from this Government. For the first time, communities will be given a genuine first opportunity to buy and own the places that matter most to them. Instead of seeing valued community assets sold off to the highest bidder, residents will be able to step in, organise and take ownership for themselves. That is truly transformative.
In Stroud, community ownership is essential for maintaining services and the environment for rural villages and towns. Community-owned village shops, such as those in Horsley and Coaley—and, indeed, my favourite shop in the world, which is in my village of Uley and is run by fabulous volunteers—keep the villages alive and provide access for older people and those without transport.
Village pubs are dying off. There are campaigns in my area to keep the Rose & Crown in Nympsfield open and, in fact, people have succeeded in making a community pub at the Red Lion in Arlingham. There are also community rooms such as the Trinity Rooms in Stroud, which the community is fundraising to buy, hopefully by Christmas. That is all very exciting. Land in Stroud aptly named the Heavens is being purchased by the community, as is Rodborough fields. This Bill will finally give legal backing to those campaigns, but I believe that we can make one important improvement.
As drafted, the Bill refers to “economic or social interests” when defining assets of community value, but it leaves out environmental interests. That means that wildlife-rich spaces cannot be protected, even when they provide major community benefits, including access to nature and improvements to wellbeing.
My amendments simply would extend the community right to buy to include assets that further the environmental wellbeing of local communities, granting them the ability to buy and, importantly, safeguard nature-rich areas if they come up for sale. I am a GP, and I use social prescribing extensively. Walking in nature is a proven way of getting better without using pills, so I very much urge the Minister to listen to what we are saying. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) quite rightly said that this is about public health.
I know some Members are concerned that these powers could block the house building that we all want so much. That is why my amendments provide a safeguard in restricting the eligibility to land that has not been allocated for development in the local plan.
This Bill represents the biggest transfer of power out of Westminster for a century. It will give communities the right to shape, to buy and to rebuild. In Stroud, we are ready to embrace that opportunity, but we must ensure that the law properly recognises environmental value alongside social and economic wellbeing. That is why I urge the Government to support my amendments to ensure that the Bill delivers the fullest possible benefits for communities up and down the country.
Caroline Voaden
New clause 10, which I tabled, would require the Secretary of State to re-establish the community ownership fund, to which strategic authorities can apply for funding. We have heard from lots of Members in the House today about the value of their local community-owned businesses.
Community-owned spaces are of immense economic and social value to their local area. Businesses across the country under the community ownership model are defying the odds, when small businesses in retail and hospitality in particular are struggling to survive. According to Plunkett UK—I commend its work in this area—business survival rates for community businesses remain exceptional, with a five-year survival rate of 97%. That is radically higher than the 39% survival rate of private small and medium enterprises over the same period. These thriving local enterprises reinvest back into their communities, creating a positive cycle. They also provide exponential benefits to local areas and the people who live there. They tend to source goods and services locally, creating a circular economy in the places where they exist. They support charitable activity, provide fundraising for local causes and improve the aesthetics of our towns and villages through gardening initiatives, improving the quality of our green spaces, encouraging more people to get outdoors and improving arts and culture.
From pubs and shops to community centres and hubs, these spaces are the pillars of their communities, bringing people together and nurturing a shared pride in their town or village. They are the difference between a bunch of houses and a genuine community. At a time when community cohesion is frayed, division is commonplace and we are being pulled apart by dangerous individuals seeking to widen the cracks that are showing in our society, these community spaces offer a way to reunite communities. Through something as simple as providing a place for people to meet and talk to each other, community spaces combat this increase in division with social interaction, enabling communities to come together to celebrate where they live.
Community-owned spaces provide a wide array of volunteering opportunities, employing more than 20,000 volunteers across this country, from young people right through to older people. In a recent survey by Plunkett, 58% of these businesses stated that older people benefit most from their presence. In rural areas such as South Devon, that is especially important. Isolation can happen when people live far from neighbours in rural areas, and in many ways these places help to strengthen the very fabric of rural life for those people.
It is not easy for a community to buy a building or space that is at risk of closure or has been left unused. That is why the community ownership fund is vital, as Government funding is desperately needed to enable a sustained increase in community ownership. A community ownership fund would develop a larger pipeline of start-up groups and build the capacity and confidence of those groups to progress to the trading stage. If it were reopened, it would have a transformational impact by enabling the spread of community spaces and the extensive benefits they bring.
In the three years that the community ownership fund was in place, it saved thousands of cherished community sites at risk of closure. Thanks to the fund, community groups could generate income, build financial sustainability and strengthen community ties. It is the Government’s mission to double the size of the co-operative sector, as set out in their manifesto. It is time, therefore, for them to correct their mistake, to fulfil their promise and to seize the opportunity that this Bill presents by backing my new clause 10 and reopening the community ownership fund.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I come once more to this discussion with a huge passion for devolving power to local areas. The northern powerhouse promise encouraged me to move back home to the north from London in my 20s, and I am so proud to have spent most of my career since then working to grow the local economies in Manchester and Lancashire. The city of Preston, part of which is in my constituency, has the telltale cranes all over the sky and grade-A office space being built at pace. Growth is best when it has local inputs and local impact, and with a two-hour train journey to London, there is no reason that Preston and cities like it should not become a key and critical spoke in our national growth story.
I am hugely grateful for the incredible energy of the Minister and for that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), who poured himself into this Bill for the past year, ensuring that areas such as Lancashire can get the powers they need to turbocharge their growth in the way that only Lancastrians know how.
Today, I will speak about new clauses 63 and amendments 42 and 150, which pertain to neighbourhood governance. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in the Bill Committee, during which I sat through lengthy debates on all these clauses. I have not directly supported the range of amendments concerning neighbourhood governance arrangements and parish and town councils, and on the whole I understand and largely support the Government’s argument against them—namely, that if we are intent on devolving power, we should allow local areas to manage that power as well, rather than dictating from Westminster how it must be managed. However, I wish to mention a number of instances in which I agree with the intent behind the amendments and to say something about the issues that they raise, in the hope that the Government can add helpful secondary legislation or strong guidance to help local areas make these changes a success.
As I observed during the development of plans for devolution in Lancashire, too many residents and organisations told me that their part in the consultation on the process felt tokenistic at best, if it was there at all. I think there is still a broad question for the Government to answer: how will we ensure that the interests of all residents and local groups have been properly fed into local changes, and how will we continue to hold local areas to account for maintaining that engagement?
My constituency contains many parished areas, while in other parts of it local community groups come together ad hoc, so I see the strengths of both formal and informal community leadership. I have been a proud member of my local parish council for many years, and it is often the place where I feel most connected to my community. The Minister has made clear throughout the Bill’s development that town and parish councils will not be affected, and indeed will have every right and opportunity to take on more responsibilities through the Bill. I commend that, and I thank her for protecting this vital part of our democracy.
While I recognise that there is plenty of public sentiment against mandating areas to become parished—which is why I cannot support new clause 63 directly—there is certainly public support for simplified, easily understood structures of government that the public can more clearly hold to account. Indeed, the Government’s own White Paper on the Bill said that its aim was to simplify local government and make it more consistent. We need only look around us to see what happens when people do not understand how our governing structures work and do not feel connected to them. People are increasingly disillusioned, and at a time when our economy is relying on people to come together with new ideas to create growth, despondency is our biggest enemy. While we need to allow flexibility, might the Government be able to show a clear preference for a town or parish council structure in their guidance, and/or ensure or require that any proposed solution involves clear democratic accountability?
I am so grateful to this Labour Government for being brave enough to push this Bill as one of their first priorities. Done is better than perfect for sure, and any devolution is better than none. However, in my decades of working with all types of communities, often hearing things that challenge some of my progressive dreams for and assumptions about this country I love, I have learned that progress and tradition can work hand in hand if we take the best from both. I therefore urge the Government to make the most of the powerful structures we have—town and parish councils, which already run 90% of this great country—part of our future, and to ensure that we truly have accountable democracy at every level so that every person has a voice, as has always been the Labour way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The time limit for speeches is now three minutes.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I will speak in favour of new clause 38, which I tabled. It seeks to introduce measures to prevent developers from using their own surveyors who have a vested interest in downgrading agricultural land in order to secure planning permission—particularly for solar farms—to build all over our countryside, taking farmers’ land and livelihoods.
The new clause was born out of a specific issue that was raised with me in my constituency. In Washford, a farmer called Mr Dibble—no kidding—has a farm in his family’s name. They have been there for generations. Some time ago, developers came to see him with a plan for development on the farm, and he refused. His lease is guaranteed for another generation, but the solar farm developers did not seem to care. He reached out to me because of the unfairness of the situation. I was shocked to find out that the developers had organised a surveyor to visit his property, who had deemed it sub-par agricultural land. Anyone with eyes can see that that is not the case. Farmer Dibble would not have been able to grow the crops that he has on that land had it been of the quality that the developers claimed it was. His land is grade 1 or 2 at the very least, yet surveyors are coming in, paid for by the developers, to say that—surprise, surprise—it is grade 3 at best.
At present, local authorities’ hands are tied. They have no powers to order independent assessments of land quality, nor the ability to pass judgment on the assessments made by others. My new clause seeks to give them that power. It also seeks to enshrine the employment of a land use framework for planning and development decisions. Along with many others in this place, I am sure, I am still waiting to hear the results of the land use framework consultation from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I hope that it follows the principles set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). If a development is proposed for agricultural land that falls outside the land use framework and there are competing assessments of the agricultural grade of that land, then new clause 38 would give local authorities the power to demand that a new, independent assessment of land quality be undertaken. That would stop the railroading of farmers and help to preserve good agricultural land, rather than seeing it built over.
Our farmers are our future. I call on hon. Members to back new clause 38 and new clause 17, which has been tabled in the name of my party.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I have tabled new clause 13 to address a slight oversight in this Bill—namely, that despite its title, it does not give communities any substantially new powers. The strengthening of the tools that local people have at their disposal to purchase assets of community value is certainly very welcome—yes, it is progress—but it is not fundamentally new. New clause 13 is intended to fill in this minor, accidental absence with a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on progress towards, and set out plans to deliver, a new charter of community rights containing seven key elements: a right to a clean and healthy environment; a right to a healthy home; a right to play; a right to grow food on public sector land; a right to roam and swim; a right to participate in decisions shaping communities; and a right to challenge local decisions.
Designed to put power back in the hands of ordinary people, the charter offers a starting point to restore popular agency in our democracy. Each of the seven rights contained within it is based on clear legal proposals, and each builds on long-standing demands that stretch back into England’s history. I will briefly take them in turn. After years of scandals, with ordinary people powerless to stop sewage being pumped into local rivers or their children being poisoned by the air they breathe, the right to a clean environment would give every community the power to challenge proposals that threaten to impose pollution on them.
Similarly, the right to a healthy home would put an end to an era in which permitted development rights have been used to create the slums of the future by housing the most vulnerable in society without adequate space, security, fire safety or proper ventilation. With this right, communities could require that new housing delivers the basics of a happy, healthy life, with plenty of natural light, access to green space and comfort in all weathers.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that housing is a key determinant of public health, and that we should see a right to decent housing as a crucial part of any civilised society?
Chris Hinchliff
I absolutely agree.
The freedom to go out the front door and play in the street or near home is no longer part of many children’s lives, as it used to be. The right to play would reverse the trend of estates being full of signs shouting, “No” and “Do not”, with more space given to car parking than to playgrounds for kids. It would empower communities to ensure that streets are designed to be safe for children, so that they are no longer stuck indoors.
Ever since landowners in the 18th and 19th centuries privatised 7 million hectares of common land that was once shared by ordinary people, the ability to grow one’s own healthy food has been a distant dream for the millions. The right to grow food on public land would unleash the power of grassroots growers, who are currently held back by bureaucracy, to turn parcels of unloved land across our communities into oases of food and wildlife.
Similarly, while most of England is still owned by a handful of aristocrats, oligarchs and corporations, the vast majority of people are prevented from enjoying the glories of vast swathes of England’s countryside. The right to roam and swim would finally recognise that this land is our land, and give everyone the confidence to reconnect with nature by enjoying a responsible ramble or a dip in their local river.
Finally, the right to participate in and challenge decisions would level the playing field between communities, who care deeply about their local area, and the interests of profit-seeking developers. This right would ensure that the voices of ordinary people are properly heard and that they can appeal decisions, just as developers can, so that local councils always listen seriously to both sides, rather than acceding to the whims of overmighty corporations.
I hope the Minister will see that new clause 13 would help ensure that this Bill goes as far as possible in restoring power, hope and optimism to our communities. I look forward to hearing her response.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
When people get in a taxi or a cab, they want to know that they will be safe, that the vehicle is safe, that the driver has had training in a range of different situations, that their specific access needs or disabilities will be recognised and supported, and that they will be treated with respect. Of course, the vast majority of drivers treat their passengers with respect and their vehicles are safe, but passengers want to know that should they have any concerns or complaints, there is a transparent and accountable method for these to be dealt with, and that they know the name and unique number of the taxi operator and the driver, should they need it.
Sam Carling
Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that cross-border licensing is causing huge enforcement problems, because authorities that are miles away cannot properly investigate such issues?
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is another issue that has come up in our inquiry, and I do hope that the Government are addressing the cross-border issue. I will come back briefly to that shortly.
Passengers want to know that the same standards apply across the country, but there are no common standards. In fact, in England there are 270 different licensing offices and the more than 300,000 drivers operate under about 230 different sets of conditions and standards. The Transport Committee is in the middle of an inquiry on taxis and private hire vehicles. We have heard from drivers, their unions, operators, licensing officers, the Local Government Association, disability organisations, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and others. The single most common message we have heard in our inquiry is the need for common standards across England, and not basic minimum standards, but high and absolute standards.
That is why I am delighted that the Government have brought forward new clauses 49 to 57 to be added to part 3 of the Bill. This will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe standards for granting, renewing, suspending and revoking driver and operator licences. It enables actions such as on what is included in driver training, what requires the installation of specific equipment such as CCTV and what level of background checks on drivers is used. By the way, such actions, particularly CCTV, protect drivers as well as passengers.
I welcome the fact that the Government are responding to the calls of many, and not least to the issues raised in Baroness Casey’s report. The last Government set up a task and finish group, but they only published guidance on a set of standards for taxis and private hire vehicles, and they ignored the recommendations of the group, saying only that licensing authorities should “have regard to” standards. That Government ignored the calls, but this Government are delivering.
One of the main issues raised during our Committee’s inquiry is that the current variation in standards encourages licence shopping, which refers to drivers or operators choosing to be licensed in local authorities that have the least onerous standards or the cheapest or fastest processes, even if most, if not all, of their work takes place elsewhere. That happens thanks to the 2015 deregulation brought in by the Conservative Government. According to one taxi firm that submitted evidence:
“The lack of a national standard undermines passenger safety, fair competition and public confidence in the industry.”
On the role of councillors in licensing decisions, we have been told that the councillors responsible for individual decisions on who gets, retains or loses their licence may be put under pressure to make a decision contrary to the recommendations of officers.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I welcome the opportunity this debate offers to lift our eyes to the bigger picture of what a better, fairer country might look like. New clause 13 on the charter for community rights, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), does exactly that, and it represents the sort of change my constituents in Poole are crying out for. It rests on two simple, but transformative principles: first, that communities in England deserve a real say in the places where they live, with a legally enshrined right to challenge local decisions that shape their lives; and, secondly, that people should enjoy basic rights, including the right to a clean, healthy environment and the right to a decent home.
A legal right to a quality home in a healthy environment may not sound like a lot to ask in the sixth richest country in the world, but it is a million miles from the lived reality of so many of our constituents. Poor housing, alongside access to decent healthcare, stable incomes and healthy food, is one of the core social determinants of ill health. Enshrining the rights to a healthy environment and a quality home in law would support the kind of cross-government approach we urgently need to reduce health inequalities. Those rights can be seen in the same vein as the long-awaited socioeconomic duty, which requires public authorities to consider how their policies and decisions can reduce inequalities. Properly implemented, it could help address structured, avoidable disparities in housing and health. I urge the Government to introduce that duty as a matter of urgency.
A Labour Government must raise the bar: not simply building more housing, but building better homes in decent communities at a price that people can afford. That should be our legacy to future generations and it can start now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should be here for the wind-ups. That is a notice. I call the shadow Minister.
David Simmonds
I open by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I hold some voluntary roles in local government. I place on record my particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who served with such distinction on the Bill Committee.
Local government is the most efficient part of the public sector. It is uniquely democratically accountable among our public services. It is also uniquely financial constrained by the requirement for council budgets to balance in-year. We know that the average local authority delivers over 800 different services, which range from public health and child protection to housing the most vulnerable, trading standards, markets, parking and road maintenance. Councils empty the bins, recycle the waste, lend books and care for the elderly, but Governments rarely rise or fall based on what happens in the local government sector. It is not the most dramatic or glamorous part of our state, but day to day, as contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber have reflected, it probably has the most important impact in our constituents’ lives.
As we heard in Committee, and as we have heard in the amendments and in this debate, our local government is under unprecedented pressure due to this Government’s poor decisions. On the track record of my party in office, we saw local authorities using their discretion but for the most part seeking to keep council tax low, with the additional revenue from projects such as the new homes bonus, council tax freeze grant and the approach to business rate grant being implemented to support local businesses and local communities.
Today, with few exceptions across the sector, we see local authorities facing the maximum possible council tax rises, the maximum possible business rate increases and the maximum possible increases in fees and charges, against a backdrop where housing delivery, supposedly the Government’s top priority, has collapsed, despite a legacy of 1.5 million new homes—their target for the whole of the Parliament—with planning permission already granted. All this green belt-grey belt nonsense, which has caused such concern and anxiety to Members and our constituents, is entirely irrelevant. They already have an entire Parliament’s supply of homes with planning consent ready to build. The jobs tax has left our local authorities worse off by £1.5 billion net. It has driven up the cost of almost every local government service, from the care of the elderly and vulnerable children to the day-to-day maintenance of our roads and our environment.
Tonight, what we have before us is this Government’s botched and incoherent restructuring, with no clear vision of what local government in England is even for. When we consider the matters that we will press to a Division, new clause 69 on election cancellations and new clause 80 on statutory notices are among a very extensive list of options. We have heard from one or two Members that the retention of the committee system was democratically approved locally. Although measures adopting the Opposition’s proposals on councillors’ addresses make some minor improvements to the Bill, the cancellation of local elections is a clear example of a mess of the Government’s making.We support our local colleagues in making the best of the very difficult set of decisions that they have to take. However, having been told by Ministers—as the Opposition did when in office—that elections to local authorities that were due to be abolished would be cancelled, that was not what the Government then did. They simply deferred those elections for 12 months, making the waste of taxpayers’ money and the concern of local residents even greater, while raising the prospect of a lack of accountability as this important process goes through.
Siân Berry
The Minister failed to tell us how the tourist tax would be brought forward in legislation. With the announcement coming yesterday, and after all the opportunities they had in Committee and in debates on the Floor of the House, does the hon. Gentleman think that this was merely a case of failing to get the Chancellor’s attention?
David Simmonds
The hon. Member puts to me whether it was simply a failure to get the Chancellor’s attention, but clearly the Chancellor has been busy at every possible opportunity briefing the press about things that may or may not be in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the impact that that has had: driving up Government borrowing costs; driving down business confidence; and driving unemployment up, every single month since this Government took office. Those political briefings have real-world consequences for our constituents’ livelihoods.
For all of those businessowners in the hospitality and tourism sector who have been seeking to make decisions, relying on what they have heard Minsters tell the House, to discover in a press release that this new tax is due to be imposed on them despite the previous assurances of the Tourism Minister, is just one of the many nails in the coffin of the British economy represented by the Bill and this Government’s actions.
In conclusion, when we look at the Bill, we see legislation that makes a complete mess of local democracy: elections cancelled and then deferred; announcements of new mayors that do not make it through to the final announcements about new structures. The Bill takes powers away from communities and gives them to mayors who, as we heard earlier in the case of Surrey, may not materialise at all. It devolves nothing of any significance closer to our constituents and seeks to make our elected local councillor brethren simply the hosts of talking shops, rather than decision makers for their local community. Worst of all, despite the Government’s occasionally lofty rhetoric, the Bill abolishes 90% of the representation of shire England at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. Where is the voice for our constituents in local government under this centralising Labour Government?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
With the leave of the House, I will respond to the thoughtful, constructive and robust interventions from hon. Members across the House.
I will start with a theme that has been raised once again by the hon. Members for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) —that this is a centralising Bill that seeks to take power away from communities and impose on them. I completely and utterly reject that idea. I made this point yesterday, and I will labour it again today: this Bill represents the biggest transfer of power from Westminster and Whitehall to our regions, local authorities and communities. The Government believe that we change the country by putting power in the hands of people who know their patch. That is the principle behind the Bill, and that is what we are determined to deliver.
Let me address the point on local election delays, which has been raised head-on in new clause 69. We understand the democratic necessity to hold elections. People have the right to vote—a right that we absolutely support and will absolutely protect. Labour is up for elections as much as any other party, and our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly, and was not taken lightly when it was made. It is a decision that we will always take with great caution, as it is one that we want to avoid.
However, we cannot accept the new clause, because it is neither rational nor reasonable. It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally that create a challenge for holding elections. While we are keen and determined to press ahead with elections, we are the Government of the day, so we will always take a considered and reasonable approach to this matter.
I turn to the point raised in new clause 17 by the hon. Member for Guildford on the funding of strategic authorities. The hon. Lady was right to highlight the pressure that local government is under. However, I would point out—again, I note the complete cheek of the Opposition here—that that is a consequence of 14 years of austerity and under-investment. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talks about the plight of local government, yet fails to recognise the terrible inheritance that his party left—the huge legacy of denuding and undermining local government that we are now trying to rectify. In 2025-26, the local government finance settlement provided £69 billion for councils—a 6.8% increase in the core spending power for local government. We are moving to multi-year budgets, consolidated funding and a fair funding review, all in order to reverse the decline and under-investment of the previous Government.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress, as we are almost out of time.
On the key question of funding our strategic authorities, we absolutely recognise the vital role that strategic authorities and mayors can play. We are seeing this across the country—that is why we support devolution to mayors and strategic authorities.
On the point about Surrey made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), we want to see strategic authorities and mayors across the country, including in Surrey. However, we are also clear that if we want them to drive the change that we believe they can drive, we must equip them with the resources and powers to do the job that is required of them.
I have a lot of sympathy for the intention behind new clause 17. However, as I said yesterday, there is a new burdens assessment, which will always apply. When new responsibilities are placed on strategic authorities and mayors, the new burdens assessment will be applied to ensure that they are funded appropriately. Indeed, for the priority areas in which we are moving forward with devolution, we are providing capacity funding up front to make sure that they have the capability and resources to do the job at hand. This basic principle will always hold: when we give out responsibility, we will ensure that the resources are there to take on that responsibility well.
Members spoke eloquently about the need to ensure that we are providing strong neighbourhood governance, and we share that ambition. Some Members talked about town and parish councils, and others talked about neighbourhood committees. We are clear that it is down to communities to decide the form and function of neighbourhood governance. We want to see neighbourhood governance in every part of the country, and we will provide regulations that set out the principle of neighbourhood governance and what it should look like. In addition, we will provide non-statutory guidance to support communities as they embark on neighbourhood guidance.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) that we must have strong community engagement is one that we absolutely believe in. We will continue to learn from what we see on the ground and draw on insights as to how we can strengthen community engagement as we move forward.
My hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) raised points about assets of community value and the environment. I thank them for speaking so knowledgably and eloquently about the value that environmental assets can provide. I can reassure them that environmental assets will be captured within assets of community value. Green spaces, parks, woodlands and community parks will all be captured within assets of community value. We will set this out in guidance, as we share the determination that environmental assets are captured within the provision.
More broadly, in terms of community right to buy, we have heard the argument that it is an absolute right. There is a huge opportunity with it, and we will continue to learn from insights on the ground about how it is working and how well communities are able to exercise the power. We will look to strengthen it as we move forward.
Let me address the points raised about local media. We completely agree with Opposition parties that we need transparency and public engagement when it comes to local governance changes, and we are committed to the cornerstone role that the local press plays in our democracy. The Bill makes a small, proportionate change to the publication of local authority governance changes, which is to be communicated to give local authorities flexibility and to allow them to use a range of different mechanisms. The change does not apply to wider publications on subjects such as planning. It is a very specific change to bring about greater flexibility.
Finally, I turn to the point that was made over and over again by Members across the House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), for Crawley (Peter Lamb), for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I recognise their contribution to the debate and their advocacy on the important issue of how we regulate our taxi and private hire vehicle system. I am glad to see that Members welcome the steps we are taking to put in place minimum standards. The minimum standards are an important first step, and we will build on them. We will consult on licensing becoming the responsibility of local transport authorities in order to improve regulation, and we are committed to engaging with our unions, including Unite, and with local authorities and operators to discuss how we can build on this step. We absolutely hear the point that this is urgent and we need to act.
I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments so that we can drive forward the biggest transfer of power in a generation. This is an exciting moment for the Government. We believe that we need to drive change, but in order to do that we must equip every level—from our regions to our local authorities and communities—to drive the change that they want to see in their places. We believe that this Bill is an important first step. We will continue to engage with Members from across the House to ensure that the regulations and provisions in the Bill are matched by tangible change on the ground. I know that hon. Members across the House support our endeavour. We must drive the change that we want to see in our places. [Interruption.] I will keep going. We will continue to engage constructively to ensure that we are playing our part. I hope hon. Members can see that we have engaged with the Bill constructively.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I commend the Minister on her fantastic closing remarks. I emphasise the points made by my hon. Friends—[Interruption.]
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am privileged to be able to open this Third Reading debate following constructive debates on Report. Let me first reiterate my thanks to Members on both sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions during the Bill’s passage.
The Bill cements the Government’s commitment to powering up our regions, rebuilding local government and empowering our communities, which is fundamental to achieving the changes that our constituents expect and deserve: better living standards, improved public services and politics being done with communities, not to them. This Government’s ambition is to bring power and decision making closer to the people who know their areas best. The Bill will truly empower residents to shape the places where they live and work, and from fixing our broken local audit system to empowering mayors to unlock the economic potential of their places, it will set local government on a firmer footing and enable local leaders to deliver a decade of national renewal. These changes are long overdue, and we are now taking ambitious action where previous Governments have failed.
I extend my thanks to everyone who has played a role in getting the Bill to this stage. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for his dedication and commitment to this agenda. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) for his leadership, and for the huge amount of work that he put into developing this impressive piece of legislation. I thank the Members on both sides of the House who scrutinised the Bill in such detail in Committee, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for his constructive and, for the most part, collaborative approach.
Let me also put on record my thanks to representatives of the wider local government sector, especially those who gave evidence earlier this year. They are critical actors in providing the frontline services that residents need and deserve, and, whether they are councillors, mayors, police and crime commissioners or third sector representatives, the House thanks them for their service. I hope that colleagues in the other place continue to take the same collaborative approach that has been taken in this House, and I wish Baroness Taylor of Stevenage the best with moving the Bill forward. I commend it to the House.
David Simmonds
I will speak briefly. There is a high degree of consensus on some of the objectives that the Government have set out. We share the ambition to deliver more homes, and we share the ambition on economic growth and devolution. However, the alternative stimulants that the Government have chosen essentially involve more bureaucracy, more centralisation and new taxes, all of which will stand in the way of the delivery of those ambitions.
We, as an Opposition, are very clear about this. The things that our communities, our constituents and our local businesses want and need are not contained in the Bill. It cancels elections, it reduces local democracy, it centralises power with a swathe of new ministerial diktats, it raises taxes through an unwanted, unbriefed new tourism tax, and it opens the door to new unlimited mayoral levies that can be used at ministerial fiat, not on the say-so of local residents. It is a let-down for those who hoped to support it and a betrayal of the ambition of those who support our local democracy. We will oppose the Bill’s Third Reading.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister said something that was inaccurate during his statement on the G20 summit and Ukraine, when he wrongly said:
“The Green party…says that we should pull out of NATO”.
That is not correct. Our party policy explicitly says that we recognise that NATO, while imperfect and in need of reform, has an important role in ensuring the ability of member states to respond to threats to their security. We support the principle of international solidarity, whereby nations support one another through mutual defence alliances and multilateral security frameworks. Madam Deputy Speaker, what advice can you provide on the Prime Minister correcting the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but she has most definitely put her point on the record.
Business without Debate
PETITION
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Government’s housing targets are forcing a city template on to rural communities against the will of locals and with minimal consideration for infrastructure or environmental impact. That is why my “Save Our Greenbelt” petition has so far received 5,936 signatures. Bromsgrove and the villages, a 79% rural constituency composed of 89% green belt land, has been burdened by an 85% housing target increase, while our neighbouring city, Birmingham, has had its targets slashed by over 30%.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to justify the flawed formula used to calculate the local housing need for Bromsgrove District, reverse the planned reduction in Birmingham's housing target to ensure the burden is shared in a fair and proportionate way and only allow new houses to be built when the accompanying infrastructure is provided.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Bromsgrove District,
Declares that it is wrong for rural Bromsgrove District’s housing targets to be increased by 82% while neighbouring urban Birmingham's targets are reduced by 31%; while noting that Bromsgrove District is 89% green belt and 79% rural and that at least 140 hectares of brownfield land in the south of Birmingham are already available for development.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to justify the flawed formula used to calculate the local housing need for Bromsgrove District, reverse the planned reduction in Birmingham's housing target to ensure the burden is shared in a fair and proportionate way and only allow new houses to be built when the accompanying infrastructure is provided.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003130]
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding pornography. On International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and day one of the United Nations’ 16 days of activism, the reach and influence of online pornography is bigger than ever. We know that sexual coercion is inherent to its production, and violence against women is mainstream within its content. Its use is fuelling misogyny and sexual violence, conditioning generations that abuse is a normal part of sexual encounters.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online”
and
“to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time”.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Gower,
Declares that pornography use is fuelling sexual violence; violence against women is prolific in mainstream pornography; and sexual coercion is inherent to the commercial production of pornography.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform – and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003135]
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to present a petition on the two-child benefit cap. Tomorrow we all trust will be a turning point for children living in poverty, as the third child and subsequent children in a family have been denied vital support since 2017 unless proved to be conceived by rape. To lift 540,000 children out of poverty with the removal of the two-child limit and a further 80,000 with the removal of the benefit cap is something 578 of my constituents have called for through a paper and digital petition against the hardship which they endure.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the impact of the two-child benefit cap in developing a strategy to end child poverty.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of York Central,
Declares that the Two Child Benefit Cap results in parents of families with three or more children born after April 2017 can only claim benefit for the first two children, unless they prove that further children have been conceived by rape; and further that this is a major reason for child poverty, causing larger families hardship, and that this has impacted on 1.6m children since its introduction.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the impact of the two-child benefit cap in developing a strategy to end child poverty.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003137]
Uckfield Community Hospital Surgical Unit
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call my constituency neighbour, Mims Davies.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
I start by thanking, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. I know that it is unusual to allocate Adjournment debates to members of the shadow Cabinet, so I am grateful. I am delighted to be raising this important matter on behalf of my constituents. I appreciate it, and I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my constituency neighbour, will appreciate it too.
Since July 2024, Uckfield community hospital has been entrusted to me as part of my changed constituency. It is one of two small but vital community hospitals in my area, the other being the award-winning Queen Victoria hospital in East Grinstead, which is going from strength to strength. We look forward to the completion of the community diagnostic centre in 2026. It is a buzzing, specialist community facility with great ratings and a vibrantly bright future. I thank all NHS staff in the various hospitals that cover my area, and the wider frontline staff who are there for us in times of need. As we approach the festive season, we are especially grateful to them.
So why do we have what feels like a fragile moment for the Uckfield community hospital? It has the same caring NHS staff and high ratings, but services have been taken from the site, including the formal site manager. Those removals give a sense of great unease. I will give a little history of the site, which, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will already know. A local benefactor back in the 1980s—Mr Arthur Hughes, a generous local farmer—gave the land and £1 million. The League of Friends then raised a further £1 million, which was matched by the NHS, for the people of Uckfield and the surrounding villages to see the facility delivered. The hospital was officially opened in 1993 by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret. The bequest has the vital inclusion of an operating theatre. This can be found in the associated covenants, and it was especially for the small surgical aspects of local day care.
I have visited this fairly new, fresh-feeling, beautifully set and well-maintained community hospital on several occasions, and the welcome has always been warm and caring—local NHS staff taking great pride in their roles to support and administer to the local community. The League of Friends has long played an active part, and frankly a huge financial part, and has been a practical supporter of Uckfield hospital and the resident trust over the past years. Two examples recently include funding X-ray equipment to the tune of £186,000, and ultrasound machines at £60,000. It has not only supported the hospital, but offered extra funding to local GP surgeries, as it is the League of Friends’ philosophy that such funding benefits all local people.
The League of Friends has delivered plans to help upgrade the busy minor injuries unit on site. However, with the surgical unit now mothballed—in reality, it feels like it is closing—the uncertainty is just too much for the Friends. That is reflected in the emails that I have received in the past few weeks and months—even today, ahead of this debate. Local people are worried about the site. I hope that their fears will be allayed tonight.
The wonderful Linda Kenwood, the secretary of the League of Friends, has said poignantly:
“To be treated in this way is very upsetting.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand, and I share her concerns. We have similar concerns in my constituency, where the minor injuries unit closed. The unit was crucial for constituents, and its closure meant that they had to travel further—for almost an hour—to get to the nearest urgent care centre. Does the hon. Lady agree that any future decisions on any unit across this nation should be grounded in the needs of patients, the benefits of local access and the essential role that community hospitals play in delivering a resilient NHS?
Mims Davies
It is a pleasure to receive an intervention from the hon. Gentleman in an Adjournment debate, and I completely agree. That is exactly what tonight’s debate is about, and I thank him for adding to it.
Without a dedicated Uckfield hospital manager to pull it all together, the site has become fragmented—that is the feedback that I receive continually. I have repeatedly heard that none of the individual trusts seems to interact for the wider good of the hospital site and its patients. I have previously written to the Secretary of State for Health on this matter, as I am concerned that if any fire or substantial incident was found at the site, who ultimately would be responsible for the site as a whole and for ensuring health and safety for all?
Let me take you back, Madam Deputy Speaker. I visited the hospital on 4 October 2024 to meet Danielle Gearing, a staff nurse, to see for myself the services offered at the hospital and to find out what was actually happening on behalf of my constituents. Along with the minor injuries unit, there was a full and varied range of out-patient clinics, including oncology, rheumatology, chemical pathology, dermatology, vascular, oral and maxillofacial and neurology, to name a few. Most of these clinics did include the consultant, registrar and quite often a clinical nurse specialist.
Yet that list does not include the other service providers and facilities on the site, such as the health visiting team, diabetes nurses, diabetic eye screening, heart failure nurses, dietitians, cardiac rehab, Parkinson’s nurses and MS nurses. Macmillan is there. Bowel screening is there. There is hospice outreach and the AAA clinic—providing abdominal aortic aneurysm screening—and the list at Uckfield community hospital goes on.
Danielle confirmed that it is a very busy out-patient department, which we hope will continue. We should not forget that at that point the hospital also had a GP surgery, a pharmacy and a mental health facility on the site. The ambulance service also runs a site close to this facility, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will say more on the pharmacy situation shortly.
Out of the blue, in August 2024, the League of Friends received the following in a letter from Dr James Evans, a consultant in critical care and anaesthetics and medical examiner at East Sussex Healthcare NHS trust:
“I am writing to yourselves as a Consultant within East Sussex Healthcare Trust, and Deputy Divisional director of DAS, and as a Clinical Lead for Day Surgery.
I am hoping you will be able to help, and would be grateful if you could take some time to consider this email.
One of my roles is Clinical Lead responsible for the newly built Sussex Surgical Centre (SSC), which is looking to be functional in March 2025. This will be a surgical Hub aiming to improve day case surgery provision across the whole region and hopefully benefiting patients and staff in East Sussex.
Part of my role is related to equipment for the SSC, both ensuring we have the right stuff in place, and sourcing any essential items within a tight budget. Whilst engaged in this task, I have been made aware of some equipment within Uckfield Hospital that was kindly purchased by yourselves over the years. Some of this equipment is expensive and specialist, and extremely useful for the surgeons and whole…surgery team.
I know that equipment purchased by The Friends is intended for use solely within their Hospital, but I was hoping you may be able to consider making an exception at this time.
All of the equipment you have purchased (including a microscope, ultrasound machine and ECG machine) are incredibly expensive, but vital for the successful running of a DSU, and we are struggling within the constraints of our budget to purchase all of the equipment. As you know, the trust is in a dire financial position, and any help would be greatly appreciated.
The items in Uckfield would go a long way to facilitating the above and would be used on a daily basis within the SSC.
I am aware that I am asking a great deal from yourselves at this time but wonder if you may be open to further discussion on the subject.”
This, Madam Deputy Speaker, is literally taking the family jewels in plain sight. Chris Macve, chairman of the League of Friends of Uckfield community hospital, said of their concerns about the possible removal of services from our day surgery unit that they “as yet have had no official communication from East Sussex healthcare NHS trust.” There are still various unhelpful rumours and deep concerns about what was received in this letter from James Evans, and frankly there is still no clarity for the staff, the Friends and my constituents—and your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker. For clarity, the Friends have said—this is what they know—that they “have not been told that this unit is fully closing, but you can understand our disbelief at the insensitivity and the lack of respect at receiving the news in this way. We have a perfectly good operating theatre at Uckfield, fully equipped and staffed, just sitting there doing virtually nothing.”
After a number of rumours increased on 7 October 2024, the hospital staff in the surgical day unit were told unofficially that the integrated care board had agreed to a six-month closure and that they should expect a meeting at the end of October or early November in 2024. As Members can imagine, this was a real shock and morale took a massive tumble. The pilot—the mothballing—began on 2 December 2024, just before Christmas last year, and I brought to the House my worries and concerns for my constituents at that time.
As Joe Chadwick-Bell, chief executive officer of East Sussex healthcare NHS trust, wrote at the time of the announcement:
“Uckfield DSU cannot safely support general anaesthetic or overnight care, and does not carry out surgical procedures on patients with a higher risk of complications, such as those with complex needs, certain disabilities, significant frailty and/or certain concurrent illnesses. In those cases, even day case procedures must be carried out in an acute hospital environment where the full scope of supporting clinical services is on site. Uckfield theatre sessions are not currently well used. The reason is partly due to the safety criteria mentioned above, but also partly because some of the procedures that we previously carried out at Uckfield are no longer commissioned by the NHS. It is also because advances in care mean many of those procedures no longer need day theatres, so are delivered in normal treatment rooms.
Over the course of the pilot, we will evaluate the impact of the changes and consider options for the future of day surgery at Uckfield. It is in all our interests to make the best use possible of what is a valued asset for the NHS in Sussex.”
This pilot is so unfair. Frankly, the surgical unit in Uckfield was condemned to not stand a chance—with no staff, no anaesthetists and treatment figures already manoeuvred by the East Sussex healthcare trust. That is the view of staff. Another blow to the staff at the unit came at the start of 2025, when Kamsons Pharmacy closed—and left, I understand, with some clouds over the terms of its departure. Frankly, why has this happened?
One year on, my residents are not taking this lying down. They have got together a local petition, which at present stands at 6,366 signatures. But it is the uncertainty that is causing local residents a great deal of stress and panic. I will be building on this petition after this debate. People need local services. They need family and friends nearby to help with operations, getting to the hospital and out of hospital, and they need care in the community—all of which this Government are committed to. My residents need answers.
I have had meetings, after much pleading, with three recent chief executive officers of the integrated care board: Adam Doyle, who personally promised me and my casework team updates in early August; Mark Smith; and the newly appointed chief executive officer of NHS Sussex, Karen McDowell, who I had the most recent meeting with last week. NHS England reorganisation and staff changes have left me and my casework team in the dark, just like my constituents under this Government, who I know are committed to local community services just as I am.
I stress again how important the day surgery unit is to providing local care. Uckfield hospital is a vital facility. It must not slip through our fingers. Its staff—some of whom have now retired or left in upset, anger and frustration—are worried. The CEO has kindly written to me since we met and said:
“I clearly heard the commitment of you and the local people for Uckfield community hospital, and am speaking to our commissioning teams who have been working with East Sussex healthcare NHS trust around their pilot specifically on day surgery but also—and likely more importantly—our terms working to develop neighbourhood care, and the potential for this asset within its work.”
I thank her for this letter and share it gratefully.
To recap for the Minister, a thriving surgical day unit has been mothballed. The manager of the hospital has been taken away and not replaced. Anaesthetists have been moved elsewhere and are not accessible. Patients are now directed to other surgical sites. Staff heard out of the blue of a six-month mothballing and were given roles miles away from Uckfield. The League of Friends’ assets have been stripped from the site. A year later, we are still in the dark, with no decision taken and no ICB head willing to put their head above the parapet. We need to know what comes next.
My well-loved hospital is a vital community service. Our town and area are growing at a rapid rate, with a significant amount of housing being built and due to be built. There is difficulty involved in getting around a rural area and there is an impact from the public having to get to Eastbourne.
Lots of people have moved from the coast and from London and have taken the opportunity to work locally, and they expect NHS services on the doorstep. That is why I am grateful to be in the Chamber this evening to ask the Minister to look at this vital matter for me and my constituents and to do all that she can. We need this facility to thrive, with the community hospital and its wide-ranging services backed to the hilt. Crucially, we want the Uckfield day surgery back doing what it should: operating.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) is a strong campaigner on behalf of Uckfield community hospital and its services, which my constituents in Sussex Weald will have used and would want to use, so I too look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Duly noted, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies). I begin by recognising the genuine concern of the residents of East Grinstead and Uckfield, which she has articulated so well, about the future of that local surgery unit. Such local facilities are really important to all our constituents, and it is right that we, as Members of Parliament, advocate on their behalf. She has ensured that her constituents’ voices have been heard both in Parliament and through her engagement with the NHS Sussex board and the integrated care board. We understand that it is difficult to keep pursuing such changes, but as we are all told in the House, we are used to being persistent.
Reducing waiting lists is a central part of the Government’s health mission. I reassure the hon. Lady and other colleagues that we are committed to putting patients first, ensuring timely treatment and bringing care closer to where people live. That is why in December 2024 we published our plan for change, setting out our commitment to return by March 2029 to the NHS constitutional standard that 92% of patients wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to consultant-led treatment.
We are seeing improvements, with more than 5 million additional appointments—more than double our election pledge—and working with the NHS we have cut waiting lists by over 230,000 since we came to office and delivered 135,000 more cancer diagnoses. In August, we confirmed that 100 community diagnostic centres across the country are offering out-of-hours services 12 hours a day, seven days a week, meaning that patients can access vital tests, scans and checks around their busy lives. There are also new surgical hubs, as we have heard, to help tackle the backlog.
Currently, the waiting list stands at 7.3 million patient pathways, with 6.2 million people waiting. That is what we need to change with our elective reform plan—our 10-year health plan is built on that—which has a key focus on improving access to healthcare for everyone and prioritising patient experience, ensuring that wherever people live in England, they will be seen, diagnosed and treated in a timely way, no matter what they earn. To help achieve that, we are investing £6 billion of additional capital investment over the next five years in diagnostic, elective, urgent and emergency capacity in the NHS.
I join the hon. Lady in thanking her local NHS staff for their work to make sure that these improvements are felt by local people. On her specific concerns regarding the trialled closure of the day surgery unit, which as she said is run by East Sussex healthcare NHS trust, I understand how unsettling the decision feels for many people, including the public and, as she articulated, the staff. In preparation for the debate, I met the local NHS leaders. I am grateful to them for their time and their briefing on these issues. It is important to hear from people on the ground on these matters.
Our 10-year plan commitment to move care into the community is a priority for the Government, as the hon. Lady said, but it does need to be coupled with pragmatism and what is best for patients. In this case, according to the latest data held by the trust, almost 90% of patients accessing relevant services at Uckfield live closer to the two main hospitals in Hastings and Eastbourne, and the proposal was therefore to relocate the day surgery unit activity to those two hospital sites. According to the trust, for most patients that would mean treatment closer to home than under the existing offer.
Secondly, the change was expected to increase the overall number of day surgery procedures available to more people, including the residents of Uckfield, so that they could receive surgery more quickly. Local leaders have taken that decision because it is critical to increase productivity in the NHS. By using both hospitals, local and general anaesthetic procedures can be offered in the same place, with greater provision for higher risk patients or those who need overnight stays.
I come on to the findings from the trial to date. Decisions to reorganise local provision are often a disappointment and difficult for many people. It is important that there is a strong case that the move is better for patients, productivity and value for taxpayers’ money. Following a six-month trial, the trust has found that patients did not report any decline in their experience following the move, and concerns were not raised about travel or access. I am told that the patient advice and liaison service has reviewed complaints from the pilot period and has had no negative feedback related to the pilot. The evaluation showed that the trust was able to increase capacity for elective procedures, improve the timeliness of pre-assessment, and provide greater flexibility to prioritise urgent, cancer and general anaesthetic cases. The initial analysis indicated that 88.3% of sampled patients were treated closer to their homes, with an average reduction in travel distance of 10.3 miles per journey.
The responsibility for delivery, implementation and funding decisions on services ultimately rests with the appropriate NHS commissioner rather than with the Government, working closely with providers and local stakeholders, and that includes local Members of Parliament. The ICB has a duty to consult the relevant local authority health overview and scrutiny committee about substantial changes to health services, and I have been informed that the trust is looking to share a paper with the committee in December.
All substantial planned service change should be subject to a full public consultation and meet the Government and NHS England’s tests to ensure good decision making. The hon. Lady made her points extremely about the League of Friends and its great work across the country and in her area. As well as putting this issue on the record, as she has done here, I will ensure that the local NHS addresses the issues that she has raised this evening.
It is important to note that the changes only affect the day surgery unit. I am assured by the local NHS that other services at Uckfield community hospital, which she outlined in her speech and which are central to our plans to make care more local and to provide neighbourhood services, will continue. The opening of the new Sussex surgical centre, which the hon. Lady talked about, backed by £40 million of investment, means that the trust will be able to provide better care for more patients closer to where most of them live.
In closing, may I add my thanks for the great work of the League of Friends? I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue and for her ongoing support for the Uckfield community. I know that she will continue to work with the local NHS on behalf of her constituents and we are happy to continue that discussion with her.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2025
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The draft order, which was laid before the House on 27 October, will make changes to UK legislation that are necessary as a consequence of the Welsh Government’s Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024. That Act establishes a new consenting process for major devolved infrastructure projects in Wales, including significant energy, waste, water and transport projects. The Act unifies the decision-making process for devolved infrastructure projects, with a number of existing consents, authorisations and licences integrated into the new process. That means that devolved projects that were previously consented under various pieces of legislation, including the Electricity Act 1989 and the Transport and Works Act 1992, will now require infrastructure consent under the Welsh Government’s 2024 Act.
The Welsh Government will commence the 2024 Act and bring the new consenting process into force on 15 December. The amendments to UK legislation in the draft order fall outside the legislative competence of the Senedd and are necessary to ensure that the 2024 Act can take effect as intended; therefore, they need to be made in advance of the new process coming into force. As infrastructure consent under the Welsh Government’s new Act has not existed before now, it is not reflected in UK legislation in the same way that other consenting processes are. The draft order ensures that infrastructure consent is treated consistently with those existing consenting arrangements by updating relevant UK legislation.
Article 2 of the draft order amends the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, which provides that an applicant for a nuclear site licence may be directed to notify the relevant public authorities about their application. However, that power of direction does not apply to applications for nuclear generating stations that require consent under the Electricity Act 1989, which has its own requirements for consultation with public authorities. In line with that, article 2 of the draft order ensures that the power of direction in the 1965 Act does not apply to projects that require infrastructure consent under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024, because the 2024 Act also places its own requirements on applicants to consult with public authorities.
When granting infrastructure consent under the new Welsh process in circumstances in which hazardous substances consent is also required, the Welsh Ministers will be able to deem hazardous substances consent to be granted, without the need for a separate application. Article 3 of the draft order amends the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 to create a requirement for the Health and Safety Executive to be consulted before hazardous substances consent can be deemed to be granted in that way. That replicates the process for other consenting regimes, including under the Electricity Act 1989, which require consultation with the Health and Safety Executive in such circumstances.
Article 4 of the draft order amends the Finance Act 2013. Section 130 of that Act, which relates to the annual tax on enveloped dwellings, makes provision about the conversion of a dwelling for non-residential use. It provides that buildings will be regarded as suitable for use as a dwelling until any planning permission, or development consent under the Planning Act 2008, required for the conversion is granted. Article 4 of the draft order ensures that buildings that require infrastructure consent under the new Welsh system will also still be regarded as suitable for use as a dwelling until the point at which consent is granted.
I welcome the Welsh Government’s Infrastructure (Wales) Act and I hope it will have a positive impact on the consenting process for devolved infrastructure projects. The draft order will make the necessary consequential amendments to reserved legislation, helping to ensure that the Welsh Government’s legislation can take effect as intended.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
As we have heard from the Secretary of State, the draft order will seemingly simplify the infrastructure consent processes in Wales for infrastructure projects, including those related to energy, electricity, transport, waste and water, by moving from the current multinational-level agencies process to an approvals process monitored and applied by the Welsh Government.
The explanatory notes to the Infrastructure (Wales) Bill published by the Welsh Government in June 2023 stated that it would ensure
“timely and effective delivery of major infrastructure and low carbon development in the right locations”.
Of course that is welcome, but it cannot and should not be at the expense of local and community voices and input. Any centralisation of planning processes and decisions must remain sympathetic to the needs and concerns of communities who will be most impacted by the new infrastructure, especially that of the scale and nature covered by the draft order. Any changes that are made —even those as relatively limited as those we are considering—must be to the benefit of the people, businesses and communities of Wales, and should not add a route to silence legitimate concerns.
Of course we want a simplified approach to infrastructure and planning that is business, community and, importantly, growth friendly and will help Wales catch up with the rest of the UK. However, given the scale of what needs to be achieved in Wales to make real, tangible change, we on the Opposition Benches are not convinced that these measures represent the change necessary to stimulate and truly accelerate Wales’s economy.
We will not oppose the draft order, but I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could address the following questions. Is there any scope for the Senedd or a future Welsh Government to propose changes to regulations that would make Wales unaligned with the rest of the UK, causing complications? Are the Government confident that the relevant agencies in Wales have the capacity to deal with applications under these licences? What projects does the Secretary of State feel will be most impacted, or benefit most, from these changes in the next five years? Does she see the draft order as a gateway for further devolution? Has she assessed whether the legislation might make consent easier to obtain in Wales than in other devolved nations, and the knock-on effect that could have on projects in other parts of the United Kingdom? What cross-Government work is being done on that?
Jo Stevens
I am pleased that the hon. Lady confirmed that there is no opposition to the draft order. On her main point, about local community input, the Welsh Government have undertaken extensive consultation on the 2024 Act. Both the Act and the regulations were subject to extensive engagement. Two consultations were undertaken, one by the Welsh Government and one by the Senedd. The Welsh Government have also disseminated information on the changes to industry through various events. The Act provides a process that enables local communities to engage in decisions that affect them, as well as flexibility to capture the consenting arrangements for developing technologies. The Welsh Government have attended and presented at events targeted at different key stakeholders involved in the process, including developers, local authorities and the community.
Several of the other matters that the hon. Lady raised relate to what the Welsh Government will do, and I suggest that she writes to the Welsh Ministers on those points. On which projects we expect to be most affected by the draft order, she referred in her own speech to water, transport and energy as examples.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Education (Scotland) Act 2025 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Education (Scotland) Act 2025 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order today. Like all the Scotland Act orders we have considered since the start of this Parliament, this is a result of collaborative working between the UK and Scottish Governments. The order before us will be made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 which, following an Act of the Scottish Parliament, provides the power for consequential provisions to be made to the law relating to reserved matters, or to the laws elsewhere in the UK.
Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action, and I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has taken through 10 orders in the past 12 months. This order makes provisions in consequence of the Education (Scotland) Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this year. That Act of the Scottish Parliament provides for the establishment of a new qualifications body, Qualifications Scotland, to replace the existing Scottish Qualifications Authority. It also creates the office of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland, removing the inspection function from Education Scotland, which is an Executive agency of the Scottish Government.
The UK Government have worked collaboratively with the Scottish Government on the draft order, which is needed to commence some of the provisions of the Act. The order is necessary to ensure that the functions currently exercised by the SQA can be fully transferred to the new body being set up, Qualifications Scotland. This will enable Qualifications Scotland to deliver all the services and products that are currently delivered by the SQA, maintaining the same functional and geographic scope.
The order also makes a number of consequential amendments in reserved areas and to UK, Welsh and Northern Ireland regulations to reflect replacement of the SQA with Qualifications Scotland. These are needed so that existing provisions across numerous regulations can continue to operate in the way they do now. Finally, the draft order is also needed to designate the newly created office of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland as a non-ministerial office holder in the Scottish Administration for the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998. That change is needed to ensure that the person appointed to this role is a civil servant, which is required to support the delivery model for the inspectorate that is being set up by the Education (Scotland) Act.
The order changes the law in a very limited way and only so far as is necessary to give full effect to the provisions of the education Act of the Scottish Parliament. While the order’s provisions extend to the whole of the UK, its practical effect is limited to Scotland. Without the order, there is a risk of disrupting the education system in Scotland and the hard work of teachers and young people across Scotland. It is an example of devolution in action—the UK Government working with the Scottish Government to deliver for the people of Scotland.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. This instrument follows the Education (Scotland) Act 2025, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament in June this year and gained Royal Assent in August. As the Minister set out, that Act dissolved the Scottish Qualifications Authority, established Qualifications Scotland to replace it, and established the role of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland. This statutory instrument enables that Act by amending references to the SQA in UK legislation, ensuring that the qualifications are recognised throughout the United Kingdom. Importantly, that allows the body to operate and be adequately recognised throughout the UK, which is outside the scope of the Scottish Parliament; hence we are here today.
I take this opportunity to thank my MSP colleagues in the Scottish Parliament for their work in challenging the Education (Scotland) Act and holding the Scottish Government to account on poor educational outcomes. I pay particular tribute to my friend Miles Briggs, the Scottish Conservative MSP for the Lothian region, for highlighting the limitations of the Scottish Parliament’s Bill. There are significant questions about whether the legislation makes progress on the wider educational reforms that are so desperately required. We believe that it is a missed opportunity to enact genuine and meaningful reform of Scottish education.
While the order we are considering today is unobjectionable, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to raise the state of the Scottish education system. Once the pride of the country, the Scottish education system has suffered poorer and poorer outcomes. The Conservative legacy in education saw students in England climb the international league tables from 27th to 11th in the world in maths in 2022, while Scottish students continued to slip down the programme for international student assessment rankings in maths and science under the Scottish National party Government—it is a shame that none of its Members could join us this afternoon. Earlier this year, the head of Scotland’s second-largest teaching union said that “education is broken” and that the school system
“has passed the tipping point leading to crisis”.
The “Curriculum for Excellence” is anything but.
At the core of this is the Scottish National party’s desperation to be different for difference’s sake. It is exceptionalism gone too far, and nowhere is that more evident than in the Scottish education system. For once, the SNP Government should take a look at what works south of the border, put their pride and politics aside and emulate best practice for the sake of Scottish students. The SNP has something—lots—to learn from the Conservative party’s legacy, especially in the English school system. However, that is a debate for another day and another place, so I will leave it at that. His Majesty’s Opposition will not stand in the way of this instrument.
Kirsty McNeill
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. While he might not be surprised to discover that I disagree with his assessment of the Conservative educational legacy south of the border, we can all agree as Scots that it is absolutely appalling that a full 42% of Scottish young people today are leaving Scottish education without a single higher or equivalent qualification to their name. For an education system that was once the envy of the world, that is a burning national shame.
This instrument demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Road safety in Ward End, Birmingham
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
Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes
(1 day, 1 hour 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
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential impact of immigration reforms on humanitarian visa routes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate. I will focus today on two groups, Hongkongers and Ukrainians, as the two largest recipients of humanitarian visas between 2019 and 2024. Recipients of humanitarian visas, however, come from a wide range of places, including conflict zones in Africa and the middle east. Hon. Members who wish to refer to broader UK initiatives, including the Afghan resettlement programme, are welcome to do so.
Since 2021, thousands of Hongkongers and Ukrainians have made the UK their home, including many families in my constituency, who now live, work, study and volunteer here. They have become our neighbours, colleagues and friends. I believe our communities are richer because they chose to build their futures in the UK. Colleagues will recall that, after Beijing’s imposition of the national security law and the crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong, there was cross-party recognition that the UK had a moral and historical responsibility to offer a route to those holding British national overseas status—thus the BNO visa scheme was born.
Since 2021, approximately 200,000 Hongkongers have come to the UK and put down roots in this country, working their way towards indefinite leave to remain after five years. That is why that, when the Home Office published its immigration White Paper in May this year, it was a shock for many to learn that the Government intended to increase the standard qualifying period for settlement to 10 years across the board. That created significant uncertainty, especially for Hongkongers, with accusations that the goalposts were moving retrospectively.
Fast forward to last week, when the Home Office published Command Paper 1448 and launched a 12-week consultation on how to implement the White Paper. For Hongkongers, that paper contains an important and welcome clarification: BNO visa holders will be fully exempt from the proposed earned settlement criteria, and will retain a five-year route to ILR. The paper confirms that the Government remain fully committed to the BNO route. The Home Secretary went further on the Floor of the House by noting that this country has
“always supported…the repatriation of Hongkongers.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 547.]
The word “repatriation” is important. It communicates the sense that the UK sees Hongkongers as people who rightfully belong and whose presence is understood and recognised. That is an important and powerful message. I want to place on record my thanks to the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers for their continued commitment.
The headline announcement has not dispelled all anxiety, however, for two reasons. First, the consultation document suggests that, to be eligible for ILR, applicants should demonstrate that they have earned at least £12,570 per year for three to five years. The intention behind that is understandable—to maintain confidence in the system—but the BNO route was never conceived as a classic economic migration route. It is a humanitarian route for people who have demonstrated a uniquely strong attachment to this country.
Many BNO households are income poor but asset rich. They arrived with significant savings and have supported themselves without recourse to public funds. Given the shift to a new culture and way of living, income patterns do not necessarily fit neatly into rigid salary thresholds, which is a concern. Secondly, there is the proposed increase in the English language requirement from B1 to B2. Thousands of BNO holders have already paid for and passed the B1 test in good time. Moving the goalposts to B2 now would shut many people out of ILR in the short term, despite years of lawful residence, work and contribution.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
My constituents in Chelmsford, which has a sizeable BNO population, are concerned about the issues that the hon. Member has just raised. As for the question of economic migration, many of them came here as students or retirees so it is difficult for them to fulfil the criteria, and they feel that the rug is being pulled out from underneath them through retrospective changes to the language criteria. Does the hon. Member agree that that does not make sense and needs to be looked at again?
James Naish
I will come on to five groups who need to be given special consideration, including those that the hon. Member has just mentioned.
Over the weekend, more than 5,000 BNO visa holders completed a survey about the proposals. The results show that if the requirements outlined were strictly applied with no transitional arrangements, only 8% of BNO households would expect all members to be able to apply for ILR after five years in the UK, and 43% said that no members would be eligible for ILR at the five-year point.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent advocacy on this issue, which is much appreciated across the House. In Uxbridge and South Ruislip, which has a significant and important BNO community, I recognise the concerns that he has outlined. I welcome the fact that the Government have moved, but does my hon. Friend agree that, under the amended proposals, so few BNO holders qualifying for ILR would have a real impact on people’s ability to access student finance and study in the UK, and to integrate into society, and that people being unable to access their pensions back in Hong Kong would have a massive economic impact?
James Naish
Yes, I absolutely agree. I will come on to why that issue matters and I will cover both of my hon. Friend’s points.
Given that the route was designed as a safe and secure five-year pathway for intergenerational families fleeing a severe crackdown on civil liberties, the figures are worrying. They highlight the importance of making sure that the small print aligns with the Government’s overarching strong and welcome commitment to the BNO scheme.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Many Hongkongers in Altrincham and Sale West have written to me with concerns about any changes to the pathway for indefinite leave to remain. My hon. Friend is powerfully making the case on how changes to language or income requirements would have a major impact on their lives. Does he agree that the fact that Hongkongers now account for less than 2% of total visa grants should be an important consideration for the Government as they consult on their immigration proposals and on building a fair but balanced immigration system?
James Naish
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to note that applications fluctuate. Certainly, the 200,000 members of the BNO community who are already here are very much part of our community, but the numbers coming through now are much smaller.
That brings me to why this issue matters. ILR is not a technicality for Hongkongers; it is fundamental to their security and their ability to live a full life in this country, as has already been mentioned. Without ILR and, in due course, citizenship and a UK passport, families will be unable to travel safely. Considerable pension savings in Hong Kong can be accessed only once ILR has been granted, meaning that any delay to ILR could push some into severe hardship. ILR is the gateway to home student fee status. Until children in BNO families have ILR, many will be unable to afford university in the UK. Put bluntly, the way we design and implement these rules will determine the safety, socioeconomic security and contribution of tens of thousands of Hongkongers over the next few years.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I am grateful for the speech that the hon. Member is making. He has highlighted many of the reasons why I wrote about this issue for The Atlantic more than six years ago, and why my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as the then Home Secretary, was able to change the law at the time. Does he agree that the importance of this change is fundamental, because it is not just about the ability to integrate here, but about fear of persecution abroad?
The reality is that in our own community now there are many Hongkongers who fear the long arm of the Chinese Communist party, and if they are not secure in their position here, they could be—or at least in their own minds they could be—dragged back to Hong Kong and very severely punished in pretty horrific ways, as Jimmy Lai’s case demonstrates. This is therefore actually about the liberty of British citizens and not just about the right of abode.
James Naish
The right hon. Member has been a tireless advocate for this group of people. I completely agree with everything that he said and I am sure we will continue to work together on these issues.
Over the weekend, I received hundreds of real-life stories from Hongkongers who fell into five main groups, of which a couple have already been referenced. Those groups are, first, self-employed people whose income has varied significantly from year to year since arriving here; secondly, primary carers, typically women, who have purposefully stayed at home to look after young or old dependants; thirdly, children still completing their education; fourthly, older couples who work limited hours for age and health reasons; and finally, families who for practical reasons will not be able to arrange for everybody to study and demonstrate linguistic competency in the next few months.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that this policy framework distinguishes between immigration control on the one hand and, on the other hand, how we treat lawfully present migrants? Does he agree that we must restore order and control to the system for those coming into the UK, but that once people are here, we need to encourage integration and value non-monetary contributions as well, so that we do not skew the system away from the integration that we ultimately need to see for those who are lawfully here?
James Naish
Absolutely. I think that the concept of a retrospective introduction of criteria is what is really concerning residents, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will have been listening to the point that my hon. and learned Friend just made.
With months to go until many BNO families hit the five-year mark, the possibility of a sudden shift has understandably caused anxiety. I therefore ask the Minister to consider the following questions. First, if the Government are to impose a financial test, could this be an assessed contribution at household level rather than for each person in isolation? Secondly, will the Government consider introducing transitional arrangements so that anyone already on a pathway to ILR is not subject to new conditions retrospectively? Thirdly, will the Government consider exempting the BNO route from the changes altogether, having openly acknowledged this group’s historic attachment to the United Kingdom? Fourthly, if these new rules are needed, will the Government look into common-sense exemptions for pensioners, children, disabled people and others whose earning and linguistic potential is likely to remain low?
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. A very large number of people wish to take part in the debate, and I will try to get everybody in, but if there continue to be interventions, some people will not get in. I just ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can shortly bring his remarks to a close so that I can get everybody in. Thank you.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
All right, we will have one more intervention.
Jo White
Thank you, Sir Edward; I will be very quick. I received yesterday a petition from 500 people, so I feel obliged to contribute. Many Hongkongers relocated here, trusting the UK Government’s promise. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) agree that altering the rules after relocation contradicts the spirit in which and the legal ethics under which the route was established?
James Naish
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend and I worked together at Bassetlaw district council and welcomed a lot of Hongkongers into our community, so I thank her for her support today.
I will now turn much more briefly to Ukrainian humanitarian visa routes. It is 11 years since the beginning of Russia’s illegal occupation of parts of Ukraine, and three years since Russia began its full-scale invasion. Since then, over 200,000 displaced Ukrainians have arrived in the UK under Ukrainian visa schemes. However, there remains no pathway to permanent settlement for Ukrainians in the UK, and time spent under these schemes does not count towards the UK’s 10-year route to ILR. A very recent survey of 3,000 Ukrainians by the University of Birmingham demonstrated that this uncertainty is having a deep, emotional and practical toll on that important group.
Like many hon. Members here, I am proud that my constituents continue to support the Ukrainian war effort. In my recent survey, 87% of them said that they support this Government’s continued iron-clad support for Ukraine. I know that many of my constituents would like that support to be reflected in our approach to Ukrainians living in the UK, too. I therefore hope that the Home Office will fully explore how it can enhance the existing Ukrainian visa schemes to provide a route to ILR for Ukrainians deeply embedded in the UK. After all, some Ukrainian children have now spent far more time in the UK school system than the Ukrainian one, and more time speaking English with their friends than Ukrainian. Both Ukrainian adults and children have built vital support networks that they will require as their country is slowly rebuilt, and they should not be forgotten.
I am proud of the BNO and Ukrainian communities in my constituency. In Rushcliffe, Hongkongers and Ukrainians are working in our NHS and care homes, starting businesses, volunteering in community groups and enriching our cultural life. The UK is better off because they chose to come here. I believe that this House recognises their contribution, and I am confident that colleagues will continue to work together to advocate for them. We must ensure that the small print genuinely reflects the spirit of welcome and protection expressed by Ministers, rather than inadvertently undermining it. I look forward to colleagues’ contributions and the Minister’s response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they must bob. As you can see, a large number of colleagues are trying to take part. I shall impose an immediate three-minute limit on speeches. Bear in mind that if you make interventions on your colleagues, somebody may not get in.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on his strong advocacy on this topic.
I welcome the Government’s confirmation last week that people with BNO visas will continue to qualify for permanent residence in the UK after five years. That is the right and fair thing to do for people with such unique attachments to this country. However, the Government’s new consultation has left many of my constituents in Bath concerned about their future, particularly our valuable Hong Kong community. As has already been said, BNOs are not economic migrants; many made an irreversible decision to come to the UK to flee political persecution and repression. For many, returning to Hong Kong is not an option. Changes to indefinite leave to remain requirements could put BNOs in an impossible position: unable to settle in the UK and unable to return to Hong Kong.
One of my constituents is a self-funded PhD student on a BNO visa. He is concerned about the proposed income requirement for ILR. Since any part-time work during his studies could be under the taxable income threshold, it is likely that he will not meet the income requirement during that period. He feels that the UK Government are, in effect, encouraging him either to abandon his PhD in favour of entering the job market or to leave the UK after his PhD studies are complete.
BNO families came to the UK seeking safety, stability and the shared values of freedom and democracy. Retrospective changes risk undermining the spirit of the BNO pathway altogether. The potential for a sudden increase to the B2 English language test is particularly concerning to some of my constituents. Thousands of BNOs are due to become eligible for settlement in 2026. They have been planning and preparing—as we have already heard—for the current B1 English requirement. A sudden mandatory increase to the B2 level, which requires near-fluent conversation and complex argument, is a significant step up from B1 and would be difficult to achieve, especially for many older applicants. For my constituents who have begun the process of settlement while contributing to society, it now feels like the Government are throwing additional barriers in their way.
The Government must look at providing flexibility through a transitional period if they are to press ahead with any of these changes. At the very least, the major wave of applicants in April 2026 should be left unaffected by any of those new rules. I urge the Government to listen.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.
Many families in Warrington South have been in touch with me over recent months, worried about their future. We opened the BNO pathway because it was the right thing to do. We did not do it out of charity but because we recognised a historic responsibility and a bond that runs deep. When the BNO route opened, thousands of Hongkongers uprooted their lives under extraordinary pressure. They arrived self-funded, often highly skilled, and determined to make a contribution.
In Warrington, that is exactly what they have done. They work in our public services. They set up their own businesses. They volunteer. They pay taxes. They have bought homes. They are raising their children here with the quiet hope for stability in a country that they now call home. I welcome the Government’s confirmation that the five-year route to ILR will remain intact for BNO families. That was the right decision: it recognises Hongkongers’ unique position and our responsibility to them. But that reassurance is valid only if the mandatory requirements reflect the same spirit of stability and trust.
The concerns that I am hearing are simple: people feel that the goalposts are being moved in the final minutes. Raising the English language requirement from B1 to B2 and introducing a mandatory earnings threshold for settlement risk shutting out people who have built their lives here in good faith. I have heard from constituents who met every rule set out when they arrived who now fear that they may not qualify because their partner struggles with the written element of the B2 test, or because a family member earns below a threshold, despite working. I have met constituents who have already taken their B1 test, fully prepared to apply for ILR in 2026, who now fear that the standard might change at the last minute.
Additionally, a rigid income requirement risks misunderstanding how many BNO households operate. Many are income-poor but savings-rich; others have one parent working part time to support the family through their transition to a new country. If income is measured at the level of each individual rather than at the level of the household, thousands could be locked out of ILR through no fault of their own. That would be an unintended, deeply unjust outcome, and one that we should avoid.
A longer journey to settlement risks leaving people stuck in limbo, which is no foundation for a stable life. These are our new neighbours, friends and colleagues. They fled political repression and trusted our word—that trust matters. Of course the immigration system needs clarity and fairness, but fairness and the rule of law cut both ways. These families followed every rule: they paid the fees, they made the leap, and they contributed to our economy and our civic life from day one.
I ask the Minister, before any final decisions are made, to listen to the communities affected, to honour the commitments already given and to ensure that humanitarian routes such as those on which BNO families arrived are treated with the dignity and stability that those families were promised. Let us avoid retroactive changes. Let us make sure that transitional arrangements protect anyone already on the pathway. Let us keep the BNO route grounded in the principles it was built on: sanctuary, clarity and trust.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for setting the scene so well on a subject close to all our hearts. This debate is not simply about policy but about the lives of people who will be deeply affected by the impact of the proposed immigration reforms. We must navigate such reforms with care, mindful of our moral and legal obligations to those seeking refuge.
I will speak specifically about people of faith who are persecuted and have to flee to seek asylum. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I reiterate the importance of our duty to protect individuals who have fled their home countries due to violations of religious freedom and human rights. Across the world, countless individuals are forced to abandon everything they know—family, community, culture—simply because they choose to practise their faith or live their life according to their conscience.
Today, over 380 million Christians face high levels of persecution or discrimination. More than 80% of the world’s population live in countries in which their freedom of religion or belief is restricted or severely restricted. The United Kingdom has long been a place of refuge for those seeking safety from oppression, including those fleeing the civil war in Syria and the Taliban in Afghanistan. We provided not only shelter but the opportunity for individuals and families to rebuild their homes in dignity, free from the daily threats, discrimination and violence they once faced. That tradition reflects the best of our British values of compassion, justice and an unwavering commitment to human rights. As the UK has proven itself to be a leading figure in promoting freedom of religion or belief worldwide, we must ensure that those escaping persecution receive the support and protection necessary.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I have also had Hongkongers in my constituency contact me about the changes, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate.
The immigration reforms come with a strengthened commitment to provide safe and legal routes for those who are genuinely fleeing persecution, with a particular emphasis on vulnerable groups such as children. That would be a great step forward in getting rid of the criminal gangs, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need more details from the Government on how these safe and legal routes will work, in order to emphasise their commitment to protect those who are genuinely in need?
Jim Shannon
The Minister is, no doubt, listening. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure the Minister will give a positive response.
We must not ignore the plight of those suffering for their faith: the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan, Christians in Nigeria and the Baha’is in Iran. Faith groups in countless other countries such as Sudan, Eritrea and Myanmar are subjected to unspeakable tragedies. The UK has provided lifesaving refuge to groups fleeing religious persecution through humanitarian visa routes.
When we consider genuine cases of forced displacement due to freedom of religion or belief, it is not a short-term issue. It is important to strengthen the UK’s immigration system to provide greater efficiency and fairness, but in doing so, I urge right hon. and hon. Members, and the Minister in particular, not to turn our backs on those who are targeted solely for their faith or belief. As Isaiah 1:17 states:
“Learn to do right; seek justice. Give the oppressed reason to rejoice; take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.”
We must ensure that, in reforming the terms for humanitarian visas, updated and quality training is provided to decision makers so that they make the right decisions, and so that legal standards are applied correctly in any subsequent settlement decisions. Civil society and non-governmental organisations have a significant role to play in assisting with their expertise, evidence and on-the-ground insight. Their partnership is essential if we are to ensure that those fleeing genuine FoRB violations are given the protection that they so urgently need.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate.
I think there is wide agreement across the House that our current immigration system is broken. It is inconsistent, confusing and, far too often, inhumane. It is right that it falls to a Labour Government to fix it and to build a system grounded in our values of fairness, transparency and humanity. At present, the system does the very opposite.
I will specifically speak about Hongkongers who settled in the UK through the British national overseas visa scheme, many of whom have become proud and valued members of my constituency. We estimate that about 400 BNO status holders now call South Norfolk home. They enrich our towns and villages through work, volunteering, culture and the arts, and they have shown extraordinary resilience after fleeing political persecution.
Following Beijing’s imposition of the national security law and its severe crackdown on civil liberties in Hong Kong, all parties in this House supported the launch of the BNO pathway in 2021. Over 200,000 Hongkongers have since arrived in the UK, rebuilding their lives under the terms we set out. In September, concern filled this Chamber during the debate I led on behalf of the Petitions Committee. The consultation launched on 20 November has exposed new risks that could inadvertently undermine the BNO scheme’s very humanitarian purpose. Let me be clear: if applied to BNO applicants for indefinite leave to remain, an income requirement would disproportionately disadvantage BNO families.
The visa route is fundamentally different from a work visa. It was never designed around employment. People came here as families with stay-at-home parents, part-time workers, students and retirees. Their eligibility depended on need, not on earning power. Many of them face systemic barriers to having their professional qualifications recognised, preventing them from securing jobs that reflect their skills immediately upon arrival. They are not failing the system; the system is failing them. To require three to five years of earnings above £12,570 would not reflect their reality. Many BNO households are income-poor but savings-rich. They moved here under the explicit promise that no financial conditions would be attached to this humanitarian route.
The proposed increase from B1 to B2 English has caused deep worry among BNOs, particularly those nearing retirement or who have already earned their B1 qualification and are months away from eligibility for settlement. B2 is effectively A-level proficiency. For many, achieving it with only months’ notice is unrealistic, and I hazard a guess that it would be unrealistic for many Members of this House as well. We must be cautious not to retroactively impose standards that people could never reasonably meet in that time.
Above all, BNOs are not economic migrants; they made an irreversible decision to come to the UK to escape political repression. For many, returning to Hong Kong is not an option. If we were to shift the goalposts now, we would risk placing them in an impossible position —unable to settle here or return home. That would be a betrayal not only of policy, but of principle. I urge the Minister to listen to the speeches today and to make the progressive changes we need in the immigration system.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate on the potential impact of immigration reforms on humanitarian visa routes.
I am here to speak up for the individuals and families in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire and across the country who arrived here in moments of crisis, conflict and persecution in search of safety, dignity and a chance to rebuild their lives through safe and legal humanitarian routes. My constituents from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong arrived here via those routes, making huge life-changing decisions, fulfilling all the established requirements and believing that the UK would stand by its words, yet they now fear that those promises and the rules-based order is being ripped up from beneath them. To tell them, years after arrival—with many of them just one year away from fulfilling the five-year eligibility requirement for indefinite leave to remain—that the rules are changing is not only unjust; it undermines the very principle of humanitarian protection.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that at the heart of this debate is article 8 of the European convention on human rights? This is a fundamental attack. Let me make myself clear: in attacking article 8, the Home Secretary does not speak for me. Imitating Reform will only lead to further hatred and division on our streets, and that is not the way forward. Forcing people to wait 10, 15 or even 20 years for settlement is not a migration system; it is a punishment regime. It punishes ordinary workers, families and, in particular, children who have built their lives here. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need a fair and humane system, not even harsher hurdles designed to score headlines and create further division and hatred on our streets?
Pippa Heylings
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
I want to turn to the punitive regimes that many of my constituents have fled in coming to this country through a fair system, and to speak principally about those constituents who are British nationals from Hong Kong. From 2021, Hongkongers were offered a humanitarian route to indefinite leave to remain in the UK. That reflected the UK’s historical and moral commitment to those people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their strong ties to the UK by taking up BNO status at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China, following on from their previous British dependent territories citizenship. Rightly, in the wake of China’s national security law in 2020 and the breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, BNO visa holders were promised a clear and safe five-year route to settlement. Even then, that route was more restrictive than for other citizens of former British colonies.
On behalf of the many BNO visa holders in South Cambridgeshire, I thank the Government for the important reassurance that they are exempt from the changes to the length of the route for ILR eligibility. The consultation launched by the Government, however, has introduced other areas of concern for those same BNO holders. I would like the Minister to clarify two points, because although the goalposts for length have not been moved, what constitutes a goal has changed.
First, when the visa was created in 2021 there was no requirement to meet an earnings threshold. The BNO route is a family-based application and each family faces very different situations and conditions, and there are also different divisions of labour in those families. One constituent wrote to me—we know what it means when they write to us with their own stories and fears of transnational repression—about how her family came to the UK as retirees. Immediately, they faced punitive measures by the Chinese Government, who have made it impossible for them to keep their pension—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Lady must sit down.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate, and it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to Labour Friends of Taiwan, given that my comments are about the Hong Kong community.
More than 40 constituents have been in touch with me regarding the BNO scheme. I will not repeat the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, but more than 200,000 people from Hong Kong have used that visa route. I have met several people who have used the BNO scheme to come to the UK, as well as a lot of activists from my constituency, and the two key points they made were that decisions to come to Britain three or four years ago were based on the existing rules and that the proposed new requirements would create real hardship for those who are already working extremely hard to integrate and to contribute to Britain. I would like the Government to exempt the BNO visa scheme from the B2 English requirement, and I welcome the Home Office’s position that the community have a
“uniquely strong attachment to this country”.
We need common-sense exemptions from the language requirement for ILR, including for infants, people with disabilities and pensioners. Everyone in this Chamber will be very aware of the deep historical ties, dating back to Hong Kong’s time as a British territory, and our unique shared connection. The BNO scheme should be exempt from the contributions rule. For many people on the scheme, it is challenging to have annual earnings of over £12,570 for a minimum of three to five years, for a variety of reasons that I do not have time to list. We are not talking about small numbers; we are talking about a large number of people. People both young and old from Hong Kong have been very emotional when speaking to me about the uncertainty of their future, so it is important to get this right.
There are several faith groups in Stockport, and across Greater Manchester and the north-west, but two faith groups in particular have been going out of their way to support the newly arrived community from Hong Kong. St Mary’s church is the oldest parish church in Stockport, and I want to place on record my thanks to Rev. Andy Crook and Rev. Chris Blunt for supporting the community. They have a weekly worship in Cantonese each Sunday, and at the Methodist church in Stockport, the Hong Kong fellowship meets regularly to support people with languages—they also have socials and all of that. I reiterate the cross-party strength of feeling on this issue to the Home Office.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for an excellent introduction and for securing the debate. I ought to draw people’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support I get from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project.
Humanitarian visa routes are an effective tool to tackle irregular migration, alongside efforts to target criminal gangs. From the failure of UK immigration policies under several Governments that focused only on deterrence, we know that that does not impact the irregular journeys of refugees. The push factors are too strong, and it is not hard to see why. Imagine being an 18-year-old young man from Eritrea—a persecuted Christian likely to be conscripted to murder his own people as they flee the evil dictator Isaias Afwerki. He has made his way through the lawless, deadly chaos of Libya, crossed the Mediterranean and found his way through Europe—as if the 30 miles across the channel is a terrifying threat compared with that. As the Home Secretary has rightly said, we need to change people’s calculations at the moment of decision. A viable, safe route will change the calculation of asylum seekers, so that people no longer feel the need to pay smuggler gangs.
We talk about Ukraine and Hong Kong. It is worth bearing in mind how many Ukraine and Hong Kong refugees are in those boats: none, because there are safe routes of one kind or another for those people. In the light of that, the UK-France deal announced in July is absolutely to be welcomed as a framework to build on, because an asylum seeker can apply for safe passage from outside the UK without the need to make dangerous journeys. However, for that to be an effective deterrent or alternative for people, the Government urgently need to ensure that, by the time the pilot is evaluated in June next year, there is some proper data to analyse.
My questions to the Minister are: what steps is he taking to increase the number of people coming to the UK under the UK-France agreement? How is it being advertised to migrants, and how can confidence and trust in the route be increased? Can applicants have a timeline for their applications, so that they know how long they will have to wait for a decision, and so that they do not choose small boats instead? It will not be an alternative to crossing the channel if people do not know about it.
The Government also say that they are looking for community sponsorship to be the resettlement model for the UK. My questions are: how will that be done at scale, what support will the Government offer to communities that want to sponsor, and what changes will they put in place to make the process quicker and easier? Given that refugee family reunion is a safe route, used predominantly by women and children, will the Government’s decision to stop it not push more children and women into the hands of smugglers?
Should we not recognise that the pull factors that bring people to the United Kingdom are not the stuff we hear about benefits, but the fact that we are seen to be a decent and safe country? We should be proud of that.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing this debate and on making such a powerful case. First, I welcome many of the Home Secretary’s announcements from last week about reforms to the asylum and immigration system, particularly the proposal to develop safe and legal routes, and a move to a community sponsorship model that is very much based on the Ukrainian and Hong Kong schemes. I hope that it will break the pull factors that force migrants into the hands of people smugglers and into using the treacherous cross-channel route.
Moving on to the substance of the debate, Hongkongers in Devon is a community interest group based in my constituency. It was founded by Dennis Mak, and it estimates that there are about 1,000 Hongkongers in Devon, most of whom are based in Exeter. Many are teachers, university lecturers, nurses, IT professionals and so on, and they are enriching our community and contributing to the local economy. Our Hongkonger community is exceptionally active, holding Chinese new year breakthrough events, a mid-autumn festival lunch, and dragon boat racing on the River Exe. Both culturally and economically, Hongkongers in Exeter are a valued and vital part of our community.
Having worked with Hongkongers to make the case to Government on a range of issues—including the conditions of their visas, their ability to access funds still held in the Chinese system, and of course Chinese state monitoring of Hongkongers in the UK—I greatly welcome the Government’s Command Paper, published last week, which confirms that British national overseas visa holders would be fully exempted from the proposed earned settlement criteria and maintain a five-year route to indefinite leave to remain, in recognition of their unique circumstances and, indeed, the UK’s historic responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong. I know that the community welcomes that.
Will the Minister comment on how else we might support the Hong Kong community in the UK, in particular the request for a special British identity for their newborns who are born in the UK, in order to guarantee their rights and recognition as integral members of the community in the future? Hongkongers are also asking for a simplified route for BNO passport holders seeking British citizenship. I know that the Government have worked hard to clarify many areas of the visa settlement regime for Hongkongers, and I welcome that. However, my question for the Minister is: how can we ensure that we provide total clarity for those communities?
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important and timely debate.
Like so many of my constituents, I was delighted to hear last week that Hong Kong BNO passport holders will keep their five-year route to settlement. The Liberal Democrats have fought hard for that, so I am pleased to see the Government finally respond to our campaign. Britain and Hong Kong share a special relationship, and nowhere is that clearer than in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam, and across Sutton borough. Thousands of Hongkongers have built their lives, raised families and grown thriving businesses in Sutton. They are part the very fabric of the borough that I am proud to call home.
Although I welcome the Government’s decision, my inbox and social media have been flooded with messages from BNO holders who are rightly demanding further clarity. I therefore call on the Minister to answer their three most pressing concerns. The first relates to the new requirement for earnings. Will the new earnings requirement for settlement status above £12,570 be applicable to BNO visa holders? Many Hongkongers are retired, studying full time or caring for children or loved ones. That requirement will cut directly against the humanitarian intent of the BNO visa. Any new sustained and measurable economic contribution test or minimum income rule risks permanently excluding those entirely legitimate residents. Those Hongkongers are already fully integrated in their communities and contribute to British society in non-financial ways. Earning less does not mean contributing less; their contribution might not always show on a payslip.
The second concern relates to the English language requirement. Will the new English language requirement of B2 be applicable to BNO visa holders? For many families, that will be a huge and unexpected hurdle. Tens of thousands of BNO visa holders will reach the five-year point and become eligible for settlement in 2026. A sudden increase to B2 level without adequate notice or transition would throw many vulnerable residents off balance and deny permanent status to people who have lived, worked and put down roots in Britain for half a decade.
Thirdly, on the 20-year route protection, I am extremely concerned that the combination of the new 20-year baseline for refugees on the core protection routes and the suggested additional 20-year extension for anyone who entered as a visitor will apply to Hong Kong political exiles who have no access to the BNO visa scheme. Many young activists, particularly those born after 1997 or whose parents never registered for BNO status, have no safe and legal route to the UK. They are compelled to travel to the UK as visa-free visitors and only claim asylum once inside the country. They fear that declaring an asylum intention at the border would lead to detention or being refused entry and returned to Hong Kong. They are often subjected to surveillance and oppression by Chinese authorities while in Hong Kong, and have needed the time in the UK to prepare adequate evidence to present to the Home Office. These are political refugees fleeing persecution in Hong Kong at the hands of the CCP. Imposing a 40-year wait for settlement on brave young dissidents would be wholly disproportionate. In refusing to consider Hongkongers for this type of exemption, we do not simply adjust a policy; we threaten the humanitarian corridor that has long connected two nations through history, culture and a shared belief in freedom.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing today’s debate.
In a dangerous and dystopian world, our word must be our word. It must be honoured. Many have fled to our land for sanctuary, safety and security, and we cannot change the terms retrospectively; nor should we change them for those to come. We rightly have made commitments to people who have embarked on their settlement journeys, from the horrors of Taliban Afghanistan, to our BNO friends from Hong Kong who have fled the human rights abuses of the Chinese regime, young people who have arrived under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees schemes, and our good friends from Ukraine who have come to the UK because of the sanctuary and human rights we have extolled and spent 80 years leading.
I will say it plainly today. I believe the Government have got this wrong. Their analysis is political, not factual, and their propositions are unacceptable. I agree with all the hon. Members today who have made such pertinent points in this debate. I appreciate how the Tories absolutely destroyed the system. They built the backlogs, did not put the staffing into the Home Office and lost focus and urgency, weaponising our systems. They did not have functional pathways. But all of these things speak of the pace that is needed, not slowing the pathways down.
It has been wrong not to have the humanitarian routes available to so many, and I welcome the Government now putting those in place. But it is right that we honour the schemes already in existence and create the right culture for our country to be safe and secure for others fleeing dangers, so that they have security here as well.
On the issue of language proficiency, what we need is functionality around language. I therefore ask the Government to think this through carefully again. Also, we know that many will not make the earnings threshold. They will be predominantly women who are carers of children and adults. I therefore call for an impact assessment to understand how gendered already our pay is in this country, and how the policy will press into that space and discriminate.
As somebody who represents a human rights city—the only human rights city in England—articles 3 and 8 are not to be questioned. We need to ensure we have secured the right human rights framework and use it to protect people at home and abroad. If we lessen rights for others, it lessens the rights of us all.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing today’s debate. As I have said before, Wokingham is home to a strong Hong Kong community who have had a positive effect on the area. Many have written to me to express their grave concerns about the Government’s immigration reforms and what they mean for them and their loved ones.
First, there have been significant changes to the language requirements for ILR. Previously, those applying for the BNO visa had to pass a B1 English test; now they must meet the higher B2 standard. That creates unnecessary barriers, especially for the elderly, and those with families and with trauma from their experiences in Hong Kong. Will the Minister reassure my residents that ILR English requirements will remain at B1?
The proposed income thresholds for BNO visa holders have created an awful lot of anxiety. Many Hongkongers contribute to essential sectors in Wokingham and across the country, even though their salary may fall below the proposed £12,570 threshold. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not impose a new income threshold for BNO visa holders?
The Government’s new 20-year residency requirement for refugees would inflict serious hardship on those fleeing Chinese persecution from Hong Kong, particularly those who could not access the BNO route. Does the Minister recognise that applying these rules to Hongkongers who missed out on the BNO route is unfair and inhumane?
Many of my constituents have shared their anxiety with me about the Government altering immigration requirements while they are mid-application. That is seriously undermining the trust built with Hongkongers and violating any sense of good faith. Will the Minister reassure Hongkongers in Wokingham, and across the country, that the rules for BNO visa applications will not be altered mid-process? BNO visa holders are not foreigners; they are British nationals. It is time the Government treated them as such.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate, which could not have come at a more pressing time following last week’s announcements.
These suggested reforms are unlikely to deter people from seeking asylum in the United Kingdom—however they arrive—nor will they assist in integrating asylum seekers and refugees into our communities. We hear Ministers speak frequently of the need for stronger integration and better community cohesion, but at the same time they are determined to posture as being tough on immigration. That inherent tension between the desire to appear hardline and the need to foster cohesion means that the Government’s approach is likely to fail and may well create more problems than it resolves.
The Government want refugees to contribute, yet having their status reviewed every two and a half years gives employers little incentive to offer stable employment. Equally, asylum seekers have the right to work only after waiting 12 months for a decision from the Home Office, and even then only in a limited set of roles. Once again, there is the appearance of being torn between professing an interest in integration and a desire to appear performatively cruel towards refugees and asylum seekers.
I welcome, in principle, any expansion of safe and legal routes. The introduction of tight caps suggests that the number of people who will actually benefit will be very small. The displaced talent mobility pilot, for instance, provided places for just 100 applicants. More troubling is the implication that only the exceptional, the talented and the skilled are deserving of refuge. That is not what the 1951 refugee convention says, and it is not a principle that any compassionate country should embrace. Refuge is a protection owed to people because they are fleeing persecution, not because they meet a labour market threshold.
In truth, the UK receives less than 1% of the world’s refugees; most remain in neighbouring countries. While the finger is pointed at migrants and asylum seekers, the reality is that working people have far more in common with an asylum seeker living on £49 a week than with a billionaire. The real threat does not come from those arriving in small boats but from those arriving on super-yachts. We should be tackling inequality and holding the super-rich to account, not scapegoating migrants.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I cannot comment on the content, but the delivery of the last speech was certainly very powerful.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate.
Let me say at the outset that I will focus my remarks on the Hong Kong community in my Bolton West constituency. In Westhoughton, Lostock and across Bolton, Hongkongers have enriched our schools and supported local businesses, and they continue to make a meaningful contribution to local life. I pay particular tribute to my constituent Po, who is a fantastic champion in the community. She has done tremendous work not only to assist Hongkongers in my constituency but to speak with folk across Westhoughton and further afield about her experience and that of others who had to flee persecution and the crackdown on human rights in Hong Kong.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to retaining the five-year route to settlement via the BNO via. That is the right course of action and I am pleased that the Government have heeded my concerns and those of many hon. Members in this House. I fully back the Government’s determination to reduce irregular and unlawful migration. But the BNO scheme is not a standard immigration pathway. It was created in response to a political crisis in Hong Kong, reflecting our historical responsibilities and moral obligations. Families in Bolton took life-changing decisions in good faith, leaving jobs, uprooting their children and starting again, based on the rules as they were. Altering any rules now would be retrospective and, frankly, could undermine trust. The proposed requirements in the Home Office’s immigration White Paper could fall hardest on the most vulnerable: home-makers, who are often women caring for children or elderly relatives, and students who came under the original terms but could be disadvantaged.
The BNO route was never intended to filter visa applicants by income, qualification or employment. It was designed as a safe, fair and non-discriminatory avenue for people seeking stability and safety—nothing more. The Hong Kong community in Bolton has more than fulfilled their end of the bargain. They have paid the full immigration health surcharge, moved at their own expense and contributed through work, volunteering and entrepreneurship. My constituents have concerns about the proposed changes, especially, as we have already heard today, about the raising of the English language requirement from B1 to B2 level and—quite understandably—the introduction of an earnings threshold of £12,570 for three to five years. With the political situation in Hong Kong deteriorating, uncertainty here in the UK only adds to the pressure that families already feel.
I will press the Minister on three points. First, will he definitively rule out any retrospective changes to the BNO settlement pathway? Secondly, will he recognise BNO holders as a distinct group, who have deep historical ties to the UK? Thirdly, will he offer transitional arrangements for those forced to come here via alternate routes due to the political pressures they faced in Hong Kong?
The Hong Kong community in Bolton West placed their trust in the UK. We must honour that trust with integrity, by ensuring that the promise we made is the promise we keep.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate, which is important because it speaks to who we are as a country and how we uphold commitments to all people fleeing persecution.
Earlier this month, the Prime Minister acknowledged that racism is “returning to politics” and that
“racist rhetoric, divisive rhetoric…makes people feel very scared.”
That recognition is welcome, but the Home Secretary’s asylum proposals in the “Restoring Order and Control” policy paper have undoubtedly prompted widespread criticism from refugee support organisations and others. However, I commend the recognition across the House that we need an immigration and asylum system that is both controlled and humane. That balance is not only possible; it is essential.
Unfortunately, the debate on this subject has become toxic. Stories claiming that refugees would be stripped of valuables provoked fear. Thankfully, the Home Secretary has clarified that no such policy exists. But criticism of policy is not an attack on democracy; it is proper scrutiny in a properly functioning democracy.
One of the most troubling reforms is the proposal to review refugee status every 30 months, potentially over decades. Framed as reassessing the status of safe countries, the proposal raises serious legal, practical and moral concerns, as highlighted by the Refugee Council, Amnesty International and others. The Home Office already struggles with backlogs, and repeated reviews would leave people in constant insecurity. Amnesty warns that the policy could trap refugees in limbo, undermine family life and integration, and breach the refugee convention. Refuge must mean stability, not a fragile, temporary status.
The British Red Cross highlights further concerns: family reunion may be delayed or blocked; reassessing core protection every two and a half years risks instability; and ending statutory asylum support could push vulnerable people into destitution.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
My understanding was that the Government’s immigration plans were geared towards tackling so-called illegal immigration, such as channel crossings—although I would argue that they are in fact irregular, not illegal, because it is not illegal to seek asylum.
The measures we are discussing today are about retrospectively making regularised migration rules more stringent. As such, they will not have any impact on channel crossings, but will instead cause fear and uncertainty for many settled, tax-paying families. This is not just about Hongkongers; there are people from all over the world who are equally deserving of our compassion and integrity. Does my hon. Friend agree that to tackle channel crossings—
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better to tackle channel crossings by introducing more humanitarian visas and, once we have, not pulling the rug out from underneath people?
Andy McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent point. Indeed, that is one of the things the Red Cross highlighted. Narrow safe routes alone will not prevent dangerous journeys. The Public and Commercial Services Union report “Welcoming Growth” recommends processing claims within six months, and legal, English language and employment support for refugees. Such measures would protect people, reduce costs, speed up integration and enable people to contribute to society.
Will the Minister say whether unaccompanied children and families who are in danger will be exempt? Can core protection be granted for five years to provide stability and reduce bureaucracy? How will the Government safeguard against the unfair loss of support? Will family reunion remain accessible, with the piloting of a humanitarian visa system to provide legal protection?
The way to build a fair, humane and effective system is to invest in faster processing; get it right first time; provide legal, language and employment support; and strengthen humanitarian visa routes. If we truly want safe alternatives to dangerous channel crossings, to combat smuggling and to maintain control of our borders, the path forward is thoughtful reform that supports those who are genuinely seeking sanctuary and integrates people.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for safe and legal routes for refugees. That is how we, as a country, can stop the dangerous small boat crossings, which put lives at risk, and provide sanctuary for those who are fleeing their former homes for their lives. However, there is cross-party concern, ably led today by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), that the Government are seeking to limit and restrict the two successful humanitarian visa routes for those from Hong Kong and Ukraine.
In my Woking constituency, we know how life-changing a functioning immigration system can be. Since 2015, we have welcomed more than 300 refugees from Afghanistan, Syria and especially Ukraine, and they have been resettled in our community. They arrived after fleeing conflict and persecution, and Woking has worked hard to rebuild their lives. Humanitarian visa routes must enable more stories like those in Woking, but that will not happen if the system becomes harder, slower or less certain for the people coming here. I join colleagues from all parties in urging the Minister to reassure Hongkongers and Ukranians who are worried about their future.
Under this Government, we have seen the suspension of the refugee family reunion visa. That is not acceptable. It was a vital safe route that allowed close relatives to join loved ones who had already been granted asylum in the UK. It is due to reopen in spring 2026, but with more restrictive rules. It is also apparent that new skilled or student visa routes for displaced people will initially be capped in the low hundreds.
Without more legal routes, such as work and student visas or family reunion, people who have nowhere safe to return to may be forced on to the irregular and often dangerous routes that put lives at risk, and that the Government say they want to stop. We do not want to force human beings who are desperate to avoid a life of slavery and crime into dangerous channel crossings. Britain has a proud history of responding to people fleeing war, oppression and unimaginable horror. Communities such as mine in Woking continue to show that compassion works when the Government match it with leadership and resources.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I pay tribute to the residents of my community who have opened their arms to numerous Ukrainian families who have fled the war. It worries me that, time and again, I am asked to step in to help Ukrainian family members who are getting visa extensions for one member of their family but not for others. That is creating real concern among those families, who have fled war and conflict, that they are going to be split up. Nothing in the Government’s proposals does anything to deal with the huge backlog of cases. Does my hon. Friend agree that none of this will work unless we deal with the millions of people who are stuck in the system?
Mr Forster
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate not just for his West Dorest constituency but for the refugees who have made it home. The previous Conservative Government deliberately ran up a huge asylum backlog of 90,000 cases, which now results in £2 million a day being spent on asylum hotels. They did that because they wanted to put asylum seekers off. That failed, it has cost the taxpayer dear, and it is showing that the UK is not as welcoming as we should be. I worry that the new Government are making not the same mistakes but different mistakes in the same vein, by saying that refugees’ cases have to be reviewed every two and a half years or so. That will put unbelievable strain on the Home Office, and it worries my constituents who are refugees, as well as those who are compassionate and care about refugees.
As a country, we should be building on our proud success of supporting refugees. We should not be placing new barriers in front of people who are already vulnerable. If I may conclude with a football analogy, the Government plan to move the goalposts and change the rules for those with humanitarian visas after the match has kicked off. That is fundamentally unfair and un-British, and Parliament must not allow the Government to do it.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I thank you for chairing the debate, Sir Edward, and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for allowing Members the opportunity to discuss the impact of the reforms on humanitarian visa routes. I also congratulate him on his recent appointment as patron of Hong Kong Watch, an organisation that has done a great deal to scrutinise successive Governments and to help to communicate essential information to those from Hong Kong who have sought refuge. He joins an illustrious collection of individuals, including current and former elected officials from across the House.
The humanitarian visa route set up under the previous Government sought to recognise the scale of the crisis we experienced at the onset of this decade, whether that be the reprehensible invasion of Ukraine or the complete mistreatment of the existing rights of Hongkongers, which breached commitments enshrined in international agreements and law. I think Members from all parties would almost unanimously agree that it was right that such schemes were set up, and that it was necessary to put forward an offer to ensure that those in great danger, and to whom we have a historic responsibility, received protection.
When we reflect on the context of such schemes, it is right that the immigration reforms appreciate the context. As such, I reiterate that the Conservative proposals on the change to settlement, which were made months before the Government’s own, always stated that they would have no impact on BNO visas and those from Ukraine, given the unique nature of those routes. Many constituents have reached out to me in fear that this Government would not continue that position.
As mentioned, the Government announced last week that those on BNO routes would not be impacted by the changes to settlement. That finally gives them and many others the clarity they have been asking for. It also raises the question of why the Government could not have offered sufficient clarity earlier. Despite the unnecessary delay, I welcome the Government’s decision, and I echo the sentiment expressed by those in the community who are very pleased to see it.
As we consider settlement, it is worth acknowledging the work done on the BNO visa. The previous Government not only instituted a scheme that has seen thousands of people come to this country—with over 166,000 people having arrived in the UK as of June 2025—but brought forward support for those who came. That included funding for 12 welcome hubs across the UK and demand-led funding for local authorities to provide English language and destitution support in England. That work underscores the seriousness with which the Conservative party viewed the integration of this community.
Sarah Bool
I think we would like to hear from the Minister, so I will push on.
Although it is unsurprising, given the continuing restrictions on freedom, the fact that the Government assume that those who arrive on the BNO route will settle after five years, and that those who switch on to the route will also settle after five years, demonstrates that the route has been broadly successful. A qualitative study of the visa route for MHCLG showed that participant responses overall suggested they felt supported by the UK Government, and people with BNO visas were grateful for the existence of the route.
I appreciate that specific challenges and difficulties remain, such as the need for greater engagement with programmes to improve integration. Nevertheless, we can already see some of the immense contributions that those who came through the pathway are making both to this country and to the Hong Kong diaspora. For example, only recently Chloe Cheung won the 2025 Magnitsky award for outstanding young human rights activist. She is one of the numerous people, including young individuals, who have had bounties placed on their heads by the Chinese Government for exercising their democratic rights. The complete undermining of the safety of those individuals and of the UK’s sovereignty is wholly unacceptable, but it is welcome that those individuals are resolutely fighting for the values that underpin the necessity of the visa.
However, as has been expressed in the debate, questions still remain about what the Government’s broader changes will mean for this community. What will BNO visa holders and their dependants need to demonstrate in respect of new income or economic contribution requirements? Will the current English language standard for settlement on the BNO route be maintained at B1, or will it be B2? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those born after 1997 have protection? I appreciate that those questions do not necessarily have simple answers but, given the concerns about the lack of clarity expressed recently by the community, it would be helpful if the Minister could outline answers to those matters.
Ultimately, we believe there is a great deal more to do to reduce levels of legal migration, so changes to settlement are appropriate. However, as is the case with many such changes, there will be an impact, and transparency about the precise impact will always be welcome. I hope the Minister will agree that the Government should do as much as possible to express clearly the impact of the changes on people who have come to the UK through humanitarian routes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their considered contributions. I know this topic is of significant interest and concern to my hon. Friend, and that has come through clearly in his and others’ contributions, for which I am grateful.
A fair amount of ground has been covered, and I will address as many of the points raised in the debate as possible, but first I want to set the discussion in its wider context. That means acknowledging that the immigration and asylum systems that this Government inherited were not working as they should. After years of chaos and dysfunction, the British people had lost confidence in the state’s ability to fulfil one of its most basic functions: deciding who can come to our country and who must leave. It has fallen to this Government to put that right, and that is what we have been working to do ever since the general election.
We have taken decisive and important steps to stabilise the systems. The foundations are much stronger thanks to those efforts, but now we have to go further. That is why we published our immigration White Paper earlier this year, and why last week we brought forward the most significant asylum reform package in modern times. Through those plans, we are determined to restore order and control. We cannot go on as we have with systems that are failing or broken. Change is urgently needed, but I assure hon. Members that we pursue these reforms with a keen sense of our international and historical responsibilities, and a recognition that this is a fair and tolerant country that welcomes those who come here legally to contribute and that is compassionate to the plight of those fleeing peril.
Last week the Home Secretary announced a fairer pathway to settlement and launched a public consultation on the proposed new earned settlement model, and earlier this year the immigration White Paper set out an increase to the default qualifying period from five years to 10 years. That, in general, is not open to consultation, and individuals will need to meet certain requirements to be granted settlement. They must have a clean criminal record, speak English to the higher A-level standard, have made national insurance contributions for at least three to five years, and have no debt in this country.
Individuals will have the opportunity to reduce the length of the qualifying period to settlement based on their contribution to the UK’s economy and society. Those who make a sustained and measurable contribution to this country will be rewarded with a shorter path to settlement. A reduction in years may also be earned by speaking English at an advanced level, known as C1.
We propose that settlement is delayed for those who contribute less to our public life, including those who have claimed benefit payments. A long penalty would also be applied to those who have entered the country illegally, which aims to strongly discourage entering the country via those routes. That follows the announcement of a new 20-year settlement path for refugees who remain on the new core protection route.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) did not let me ask this question earlier, but is it not true that the safe and legal routes have been all but destroyed except for BNO and for Ukrainians? It is really important that the Government restore safe and legal routes to this country to make sure that everybody can actually benefit from our safety and our respect for human rights.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for that good point. Safe and legal routes are part of the solution. We are not making these changes to the immigration system to please any part of the political spectrum; they are about solutions, such as safe and legal routes and harsher penalties for those arriving illegally. I will talk more about safe and legal routes shortly.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister set out what the English requirements and the earning requirements will be for someone with a learning difference? Clearly, those requirements will be significantly different from those for the wider community. How will they be assessed?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for a very good question. Within the 12-week consultation, we will consider vulnerable groups. I reassure hon. Members that more detail is coming on the exact requirements. When we say “A-level”, we are not talking about our A-level standards—applicants are not going to have to study Shakespeare and poetry. The standards will be for foreign language speakers, but more detail will follow on the English language requirements.
We will continue to offer a shorter pathway of five years to settlement for non-UK dependants of British citizens. We will retain existing safeguards to protect the vulnerable, including settlement rights for victims of domestic violence and abuse. The EU settlement scheme and grants under the Windrush scheme are not within scope of the proposed reforms, so those routes will remain unchanged.
The earned settlement consultation, officially launched on 20 November, will be open for 12 weeks until 12 February 2026. We have had nearly 60,000 respondents to that consultation so far, and this debate is useful for feeding in the views of constituents, so I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I encourage all hon. Members to ensure that their constituents are aware of the consultation so that it reaches as many members of the public as possible. As the Home Secretary set out last week, the reforms are underpinned by values that are truly representative of our country: contribution and fairness.
Andy McDonald
Will the Minister reaffirm that the act of seeking asylum is not illegal or unlawful—in fact, it is lawful under the refugee convention? That appears to have become somewhat muddied and clouded in this debate. Would he like to clarify the Government’s reaffirmation of the principles of the convention?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. Claiming asylum is not illegal in itself; it is on the person to claim asylum in the first safe country that they travel into. That said, we are opening more safe and legal routes to ensure that we contribute to helping people in need from around the world, and more detail will come on them.
Turning specifically to the BNO route, the Government remain steadfast in our support for members of the Hong Kong community in the UK and are fully committed to this route, which will continue to welcome Hongkongers. We fully recognise the significant contribution that Hongkongers have already made to the UK and the role they will continue to play in the years ahead. That is why we have confirmed that those on the BNO visa route will continue to be able to settle in the UK after living here for five years, subject to the mandatory requirements. The BNO route is a unique immigration route that was established following China’s passing of the national security law and reflects the UK’s historical and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong.
Pippa Heylings
I have three questions on those mandatory requirements and minimum thresholds, which are in a way being applied retrospectively. First, will the minimum salary threshold for three to five years be applied retrospectively to BNO visa holders? Secondly, will the tax contribution requirement be applicable to all family members, including non-working dependants? Thirdly, on the change to the language requirement from B1 to B2, and given that some of my constituents have only one more year remaining, has the Minister assessed whether test centres, resources and staff are available? Would equivalence to B2 be accepted, such as someone having passed a university degree in the English language because Hong Kong was a British dependent territory when they got their degree?
Mike Tapp
I will come on to that detail shortly. To warn the hon. Lady in advance, however, we are in the consultation period.
Retaining a five-year settlement period for BNO visa holders provides certainty to Hongkongers and ensures that the UK continues to honour its historical commitments. The BNO route will be included in the new earned settlement framework, with those holding a BNO visa given a five year reduction from the 10-year qualifying period.
The new mandatory requirements for settlement are basic requirements that we think are reasonable for people to meet if they settle here, but we are interested in views on whether certain groups should be exempt from them. I stress that no decisions have been made on that, but I have listened to hon. Members today. We are consulting on the transitional arrangements for those who are here, such as vulnerable groups and those within the BNO route.
We are also consulting on the English language levels that a number of hon. Members have spoken about today. Several hon. Members made a strong argument about assets versus income, which will be taken into consideration when making these decisions, as will the possibility of extending the route for those born after 1997. I am also interested in the survey mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe that was completed by 5,000 people, and I would like to see that over the next 12 weeks before these decisions are made. I have taken away a number of questions, including those from my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race). I am keen to go dragon boating with the community to listen and learn more from them—perhaps at some point over the next 12 weeks. A number of other points have been made and repeated, all of which have been taken away for consideration.
The UK’s support for Ukraine remains steadfast. Together with our partners and allies, the UK stands in solidarity with Ukraine and condemns the Russian Government’s unprovoked, illegal and premeditated war. I am proud that the British people have shown incredible generosity to the Ukrainian people, opening their homes to those seeking sanctuary. Since the launch of the Ukraine schemes, the UK has offered or extended sanctuary to more than 300,000 Ukrainians and their families through the Ukraine family scheme, Homes for Ukraine scheme and the Ukraine permission extension scheme.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for the positivity of his replies. His commitment is very clear. I asked about persecuted Christians; in the few minutes that he has left, can he assure us that protecting them is also part of Government policy?
Jim Shannon
Of course. I talk incredibly fast, so I will try to slow down. I asked about the Government’s concessions for people who are persecuted across the world. It is really important to have those concessions, so that Christians or people of any religious faith know that if they want somewhere to go, the United Kingdom is available. I need that reassurance, if the Minister does not mind.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I apologise for not hearing him the first time. Yes, this is a consideration for the safe and legal routes, and I fully agree that issues of faith and persecution must be fully considered within them.
I will make some progress. The Government have already taken significant steps to further extend support. Since February 2025, individuals in the UK under one of the Ukraine visa schemes have been eligible to apply to the UPE scheme for permission to stay for an additional 18 months in the UK. On 1 September, the Government announced that the UPE scheme would be extended for a further 24 months, following the initial 18 months’ permission. That will provide further certainty and stability for our Ukrainian guests, so they can continue to benefit from the same rights and entitlements to access work, benefits, healthcare and education. More information on the extension will be made available in due course.
I turn to article 8. The Government’s asylum policy statement sets out our plans to tighten the application of article 8 of the ECHR, specifically on claims relating to the right to family and private life, to ensure that it reflects a fair balance between individual circumstances and the UK’s economic and social interests. There is no risk of abandoning the ECHR, which underpins trade deals, peace agreements and returns agreements; this is about making it fit for purpose in modern times. We will reform the application of article 8 by setting out a clear framework, which will be endorsed by Parliament, for those seeking to enter or stay in the UK who do not fall within our family policies.
On humanitarian visas more widely, this country has a proud history of providing protection, and we continue to welcome refugees and people in need through our safe and legal routes. However, it is important that safe and legal routes are sustainable, well managed and in line with the UK’s capacity to welcome, accommodate and integrate refugees. That is why, as set out in the asylum policy statement, we are developing new safe and legal routes to offer sanctuary to those genuinely fleeing war and persecution from around the world, in line with the capacity of UK communities to support new refugees.
James Naish
I thank the Minister for his response and for the many issues he has dealt with. In the remaining 45 seconds, I want to say that we in this Chamber all recognise the challenge that the Government have in balancing illegal and legal immigration. It is an immense challenge, but the tone today has reflected the fact that we collectively see humanitarian visa routes as distinctive, important and reflective of our values as a country—who we are and who we want to be as a nation. I therefore welcome the contributions of 14 Back Benchers from across the United Kingdom, and I hope that those listening feel reassured that this House will continue to stand for fairness and dignity, and for the UK being a place of sanctuary.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential impact of immigration reforms on humanitarian visa routes.
Level 7 Apprenticeships
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I will call Sarah Gibson to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered level 7 apprenticeships.
In the interests of transparency, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Before entering Parliament, I taught architecture at the University of Bath and I ran an architectural practice. As my entry states, I still hold an advisory role with the university and I am in the process of winding down the business. I have additional connections in that I was a Wiltshire councillor on planning committees. It will therefore come as no surprise that I am deeply committed to both education and the built environment. In addition, I represent a rural constituency in the west of England, which has no university, but does have an outstanding college of further education, Wiltshire college and university centre, with strong apprenticeship programmes.
A recent Government assessment identified acute areas of deprivation across all four towns in my constituency, driven in large part by limited access to education and skills. For many young people in rural areas, apprenticeships are the only realistic route.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Investment in level 7 apprenticeships is so important. Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to keep up investment in vocational education facilities, and will she join me in congratulating Yeovil college, which has been awarded more than £2 million in Government funding to upgrade its engineering facility? That is the kind of investment that we need more of.
Sarah Gibson
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s congratulations to Yeovil college.
The option to study while earning is crucial to reduce barriers, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is distinctly the case for architecture—an industry that historically has been run by a narrow, predominantly male, section of the middle class, and where the apprenticeship route has begun to make a real difference. Benchmarking by the Royal Institute of British Architects shows that apprenticeships have achieved a far better gender balance than the wider profession has ever seen, with level 7 entrants last year almost at parity.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate, and I reiterate her point from my experience with level 7 apprenticeship funding at Queen’s University in Belfast. It was disappointing to hear that, from January 2026, public funding for many level 7 apprenticeships will be removed for those aged 22 and over—a blow to the industry. Does she agree that further financial constraints on universities only hinder opportunities for our constituents, and that more must instead be done to support them in advancing their educational skills?
Sarah Gibson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.
For underprivileged children, apprenticeships are a fantastic route into higher education. Certainly, in architecture, apprenticeships mark genuine progress in opening the door to a profession that has been closed to those from lower incomes or from under-represented backgrounds.
The Government’s decision to restrict apprenticeship funding to those aged 16 to 21 threatens that progress. A level 6 architectural assistant apprenticeship takes four years, meaning that anyone starting after school will be at least 22 before progressing. Others complete a three-year undergraduate part 1 degree first. In practice, almost no apprentice reaches level 7 before the age of 21 —in fact, in all my years in the business, I have never met anyone who completed the entire course before the age of 25. This decision simply removes the apprenticeship route altogether for architecture.
The consequences for the country are quite serious. Skills England has estimated that more than 250,000 additional workers will be needed by 2028 simply to maintain current construction output. Architects are explicitly identified as essential to delivering the Government’s own target of 1.5 million homes.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech about the reason for keeping level 7 apprenticeships. She talks about construction, but has she considered the impact that the loss of level 7 apprenticeships will have on town planners as well? Arun district council has relied on the chartered town planner apprenticeship scheme to train its own generation of town planners, because it is incredibly hard to recruit into local authority planning departments. The council is really worried about the impact that the change will have on planning, a profession that we know is really important if the Government are to achieve their agenda of building 1.5 million homes.
Sarah Gibson
Absolutely. Right across the built environment, careers take a long time, and therefore we need to be supporting different types of people into those careers at a later age. If we want to meet housing targets, we need planners, architects and surveyors. Otherwise, we will not meet our net zero commitments and we will not be able to unlock the large-scale retrofit of existing homes that is needed and that, as we know from experience, requires technical support to get right. We cannot meet those ambitions while simultaneously shrinking the pipeline of qualified professionals across the built environment.
In addition, the Government’s proposal is prejudicial to those already in the system. Level 6 apprentices cannot access the same undergraduate student finance as their full-time counterparts. Although a full-time part 2 student may receive up to £46,000 in support, a level 7 apprentice progressing to part 2 would receive only £10,000. The very pathway that has enabled young people without family wealth to enter the architecture profession risks becoming a dead end.
The Architects Registration Board has been undertaking major reforms of the initial education and training of architects. It has stated that a key plank of those reforms has been to increase access to the profession for those taking non-traditional routes and, in particular, those from disadvantaged backgrounds or minority ethnic groups. The apprenticeship route in architecture is still in its infancy, but it is a very important part of the wider strategy that the Architects Registration Board is trying to achieve.
Architectural practices are overwhelmingly small and medium-sized enterprises. They rely on the growth and skills levy to train apprentices; without it, they simply cannot take them on. The engagement that the Architects Registration Board has had with trailblazers, employers and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has led it to conclude that the removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships could close off this route entirely. The benefit of being able to learn while you earn, in a profession that takes seven to 10 years to qualify for, cannot be stressed enough. Extending the date until which those over 21 can receive funding would help to reduce the cliff edge and would give universities, learners and employers time to adapt.
I therefore ask the Minister the following questions. What assessment has been made of the impact of restricting level 7 funding on the future diversity of the profession that requires this level as part of its final qualification? What impact will this restriction have on the ability of the profession to deliver the homes and infrastructure that the country desperately needs?
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, West Dorset is rural and has no university, but we have a further education institution in the shape of Coastland college’s Kingston Maurward campus. We know the skills gap that is emerging in rural Britain and the need to give people an opportunity to progress. Level 7 apprenticeships provide the technical capability, but there are broader issues around welding, engineering, agriculture and the other services that are vital to delivering the home-building target. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must do more to support the further education institutions that are providing the workers of the future to help us to meet the targets she is talking about?
Sarah Gibson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am a strong believer that apprenticeships are a way to make further education open to a wider group of people, particularly in rural areas.
Will the Minister consider raising the eligibility age to 25, extending transition arrangements and enabling level 7 apprentices to access full undergraduate student finance for the built environment professionals? Finally, if the Minister is unwilling or unable to do that, would he at least consider extending the current date for the funding withdrawal for those over 21, to minimise the disruption while new apprenticeship models are developed? Extending the date until which those over 21 can receive funding could at least help to reduce that cliff edge that the Government are preparing to shove the apprentices off, giving universities, learners and employers time to adapt to the new model.
These are modest, practical steps with widespread support from across the built environment sector. Without them, we risk losing the first real breakthrough, one that opens the door to the architectural profession for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, in the past 30 years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) on securing this important debate and on her considered speech on a subject where she has considerable experience, as she set out. Before I respond, I should add a declaration of my own: prior to working in politics full time, I worked for a leading global civil engineering consultancy, and have a pension with them.
As colleagues know, apprenticeships are a new and very welcome addition to the Department for Work and Pensions from the Department for Education, following machinery of Government changes set out in September. Whether at debates like this or out and about in our constituencies, it is brilliant to hear about the incredible impact that apprenticeships can have for learners, employers and our communities. This Government are on a mission to create an apprenticeship and skills system that drives growth and leaves no place or person behind. Within that, we want to ensure a particular focus on young people, who for too long have not been able to access the apprenticeship opportunities they need to get ahead.
We all know how valuable apprenticeships can be for young people in building confidence and ability at the start of their working lives and the longer-term opportunities they offer for increased earnings and career progression. We also know the benefits that young apprentices in turn bring to businesses through fresh perspectives and the chance to mould a workforce motivated to make a difference from the get-go. That is why it is such a scandal that, under the last Government, apprenticeship starts for young people fell by 40%. We therefore want to balance the programme back towards young people at the beginning of their careers.
In order to create more opportunities for young people at the start of their working lives, we need to prioritise public funding towards them. That is why, as confirmed in June, from January 2026 the Government will no longer fund level 7 apprenticeships except for young apprentices under the age of 22 and those under 25 who are care leavers or have an education, health and care plan in place.
Skills England was asked to provide insight into the impact of removing funding from level 7 apprenticeships. It engaged with more than 700 stakeholders from various sectors, employer representative bodies and young people. It was clear that, although apprenticeship training at level 7 is important for meeting the skills needs of the economy, alternative routes are well supplied. Skills England’s evidence suggested that there was unlikely to be a significant or unavoidable fall in the supply of these skills in the long term post defunding.
We are encouraging more employers to invest in upskilling their staff members aged 22 or older to level 7, which delivers benefits to both the business and the individual. Large numbers of level 7 training options, equivalent to master’s degrees, are available to employers, and those options include non-apprenticeship routes. It will be for employers to determine the most appropriate training, and that will enable Government funding to be rebalanced towards young people.
Skills England also did not find a strong enough economic rationale to exempt a small group of level 7 apprenticeship standards from de-funding. Although level 7 apprenticeships can be, and often are, a valuable route for some disadvantaged learners, a significant proportion of such apprentices are from non-deprived backgrounds, and they are significantly less likely to be deprived than those at lower levels. Compared with other apprenticeships, level 7 apprenticeships generally also have a higher proportion of older learners—particularly, for example, the senior leader apprenticeship. I recognise that the hon. Member for Chippenham was talking about architecture, and later in my contribution, I will refer to some of the points that she made on that subject. However, 99% of apprentices on that particular apprenticeship are over the age 25, so there is a specific issue there that the Government are seeking to address.
We have seen thousands of people take advantage of level 7 opportunities, and that will continue under our new approach, but we are shifting that focus to funding younger learners. As part of our ambition to rebalance apprenticeships back towards young people, it is vital that we also create more opportunities at lower levels for younger people. We know that currently it can be hard for people at such a young age who have a rough but not exact idea of what they want to do to access training that supports them to take the first steps in their careers. That is why we have introduced new foundation apprenticeships as a key first part of our growth and skills offer, to give young people a route into careers in critical sectors, enabling them to take a wage while developing vital skills.
The first foundation apprenticeships were launched in August in the construction, engineering and manufacturing, digital, and health and social care sectors. To support businesses to make the most of those opportunities, we are providing employers with up to £2,000 for every foundation apprentice that they take on and retain in their industry. It is great that there is already demand to broaden the availability of foundation apprenticeships, and work is under way to identify other sectors in which they would be welcomed.
I want to respond to some of the comments from the hon. Member for Chippenham about the architecture sector. As I said earlier, I recognise her specialism in the area and I understand her argument that level 7 apprenticeships have opened up access in architecture. In terms of the extent to which level 7 apprenticeships, compared with lower-level apprenticeships, attract people from more deprived backgrounds, we do not see anything like the number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds at level 7 that we do in other areas. I appreciate that there may be an impact when compared to the typical architecture student, but looking at level 7 apprenticeships in the round, we do not see that consistently.
The hon. Member for Chippenham is correct to highlight skills shortages in sectors that are key to delivering homes and infrastructure. As I said, the lower-level routes that we are looking at—foundation apprenticeships —have a particular focus on sectors such as construction and engineering. That will make a significant contribution to starting to address some of the skills shortages. However, I accept that for particular professions, such as surveyors and town planners, the level 7 apprenticeship route is a mechanism through which to fill key roles through which local authorities can build infrastructure.
On the subject of architecture—I appreciate that the hon. Member for Chippenham framed it as a prejudicial approach—student finance is available for people to undertake the masters qualification, subject to the usual criteria. However, overall, it is about this Government’s commitment to ensuring that apprenticeships are a mechanism to support people at the start of their careers. That is why we are so determined to make the change that we are making, to ensure that it is under-22s who benefit most from the support that is available.
The hon. Member for Chippenham asked a specific question about what assessment was done on architecture. I hope that she will forgive me for having not done my homework about her background, as I thought that I was responding to a general debate on level 7 apprenticeships. I will write to her separately to ensure that I address the points she made about flexibility and more time. I did not know I needed to be specifically equipped to respond, so I will come back to her. I hope, however, that I have explained the rationale on level 7 apprenticeships more generally.
Jess Brown-Fuller
Will the Minister outline the possible impacts on local authorities taking on a town planning role? There are serious budget constraints on local authorities. It is hard to keep and retain staff in a planning department, especially when they are attracted to the private sector. Local authorities use level 7 as a key tool to upskill the workforce, which aids retention. If the Government are to achieve their mission to build all those new homes, does the Minister agree that the apprenticeship route is important?
Andrew Western
I certainly agree that apprenticeships are an important route. The hon. Lady will be aware that there has been a significant shortage of town planners for some time, and I do not think it is reasonable to characterise these changes as the cause. I am not suggesting that that is what she is doing, but we need to be careful. She is arguing that this may exacerbate an existing problem.
We have a broader challenge with town planners that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, they tend to qualify and go to the sort of civil engineering consultancy that I used to work for, to earn lots more money. Based on the call for evidence and the information collected by Skills England last year, we are hopeful that we can work with a number of employers, including local authorities—accepting funding constraints—and the NHS, because specific nursing routes have been excepted, having been considered a challenge early on, to look at whether they can fund level 7 apprenticeships directly. We think that is more feasible than at a lower level of apprenticeship, because there is often a long-standing existing relationship between the employer and the potential apprentice. The evidence suggests a greater willingness to invest in individuals, because employers recognise their skills and talents, and have been working to develop them for some time.
Sarah Gibson
My specific point earlier was about some of the built environment professions being different from big engineering firms; they are not Jaguar Land Rover. A large architectural firm—even the largest ones in London—probably has no more than 50 to 60 employees. They are small businesses and, in the same way that local authorities are constrained, they are not in a position to finance their apprentices. They rely on the levies because they are just not big enough as businesses. That makes a difference to the sector, as does the fact that it is one qualification, not a separate thing. The constraints in the profession are quite acute because of the size of the business. That makes a difference—it is not the NHS.
Andrew Western
If I suggested it was the NHS, I apologise, because that was not my intention. Established long-standing relationships, where an employer has invested, mean that level 7 apprenticeships may be a space to encourage conversations between employers and existing staff members, because they have proven their value.
I appreciate that architecture has a particularly long, challenging and incremental qualification route, which is the best way to describe it. That is why it is important that, when there are challenges and employers are not in the position to offer a post-graduate financing route, that that remains available. As I said, I will come back to the hon. Member for Chippenham on the questions she raised about her sector, as I had not realised we were going to drill down so particularly. She is right that architecture firms come in all shapes and sizes, from large consultancies that have an architecture or built environment function embedded in them, to out-and-out architecture practices that may not be that large. I undertake to come back to her in writing on those issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Violence against Women and Girls: London
(1 day, 1 hour 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
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls in London.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. Violence against women and girls remains one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations in the world. The statistics are stark and frightening: according to Refuge, there were more than 159,000 reports of domestic abuse crimes in Greater London in 2024 alone, and globally almost one in three women have been subjected to physical or sexual intimate partner violence at least once in their life. As an ongoing survivor of domestic abuse, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, I know that it can affect women at all stages and in all aspects of their life. It damages health and wellbeing and undermines democratic freedom and our pursuit of equality. Urgent and immediate action is overdue.
Survivors are complex and multifaceted beings, and we are being let down by systems, structures, institutions and processes. Today, I aim to set out why there continues to be a need for a multifaceted approach and for a strategy that is both comprehensive and cross-departmental, going beyond criminal justice to social security, employment, housing and so on, to address perpetrators while empowering survivors. The Minister has been deeply committed to this area, and I will continue to engage constructively with her work, including through the work of the APPG on domestic violence and abuse, in the interests of victims and survivors in London and far beyond. This debate aims to further our mutual interests and our commitments to survivors, regionally and nationally, in anticipation of the upcoming new VAWG strategy, which I understand may be published very soon.
Parts of my speech, like much of my work over the past year, will be about responses to this problem beyond the criminal justice system, but I want to be clear that there can be no question but that the criminal justice system woefully lets down survivors. I continue to be concerned about perpetrators being released too early from prison, as well as the abysmal prosecution and conviction rates. The lack of independent and high-quality legal advice for survivors is concerning, as is the lack of available legal aid funding. That sits alongside the postcode lottery of who is able to receive support from an independent domestic or sexual violence advocate. The importance of funding, to enable frontline workers to help survivors navigate the complexity of the criminal justice system and access lifesaving legal advice, cannot be overstated.
Distrust of the police continues to be at an all-time high. Not dealing properly with abusers in their own ranks undermines trust. The Casey review, in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard, was a damning indictment of the Metropolitan Police Service: it found the force to be institutionally sexist, racist and homophobic. This is also reflected in the abhorrent behaviour shown in the recent “Panorama” documentary. Survivors in London simply need to be given the confidence to come forward and report abuse when it occurs, without the fear of not being believed or the prospect of facing penalising consequences themselves.
During last year’s debate, I spoke about the London Victims’ Commissioner’s stalking review, which found that 45% of stalking victims withdrew from the justice process and a further 41% saw no further police action on their complaints. The review evidenced the disastrous consequences of the confusion and lack of awareness among police and prosecutors: that police continue to treat incidents as single events, meaning that stalking goes unrecognised and patterns of behaviour are not properly understood.
In my own experience, the current stalking legislation allows stalkers to be colluded with and encourages repeat behaviour, punishing victims who resist and reject their stalker’s behaviour. As the review detailed, the phenomenon of “moving forward” or “threat management” strategies is well recognised in research, but is in practice too often weaponised against victims, who are blamed for not being the “perfect” victim. I know this all too well. I was pleased to learn that the Home Office is now carrying out a review on stalking legislation. It is my hope that the outcome will be to pivot stalking investigations and prosecutions towards a suspect-focused lens that does not place the onus on the victim to prove that their stalker has achieved their aim.
As of November last year, domestic abuse protection orders had been piloted by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice in parts of south London, including Croydon, Bromley and Sutton, and in Greater Manchester, with the intention of providing victims with the option of being protected from non-physical abuse and controlling or coercive behaviour, with immediate protection following an incident of abuse. This is a civil order that can span different courts, as I understand it. It would be helpful to understand whether the Minister believes that that has been a success, and whether there is any intention of a wider and more permanent roll-out.
It is imperative to end impunity by holding perpetrators accountable, with support and consideration at every stage of the criminal justice system. Not only do the law and the court systems let us down, but they are even being used by our abusers, including through stalking by way of the courts—in other words, lawfare. It is striking that my and other women’s experiences of vexatious litigation continue to be commonplace in the court system, including in family courts, where some of the gravest injustices and harms are reproduced.
The momentous decision to remove the dangerous presumption that all parents, even abusive ones, should have involvement in their children’s lives is therefore incredibly welcome. I have no doubt that hon. Members will be discussing that in this week’s Backbench Business debate, but I highlight it today because I note that it was made possible through cross-departmental working between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I look forward to seeing the process of placing it on the statute book.
Just as the impact of violence against women and girls is vast and far-reaching, so must the solution be. As I have mentioned, a whole-system approach is vital. Indeed, I understand that the upcoming VAWG strategy aims to distinguish itself from VAWG strategies of previous Governments in that way.
Since last year, I have been campaigning for greater protections for survivors in the workplace. Unexplained absences, lateness and negative impacts on performance can feature in an individual’s working life. For many survivors, abuse continues in the workplace: often, their partner turns up at the workplace or stalks them outside it—something I know at first hand. For some, the workplace is the only safe environment to seek help. In debates on the Employment Rights Bill, I called for measures such as flexible working, paid leave and domestic abuse policies in every workplace, like many other hon. Members in this House. I know that that continues to gain support across the House and in the other place.
I believe that being a member of a trade union is the best way for workers to ensure that their rights are upheld. That is certainly the case for survivors. Indeed, many trade unions have been pioneers in this area, such as USDAW, which has ensured alternative payment arrangements, and facilitated one-off payments and flexible working in a number of retail stores across the UK. That is just one example of the work being done by trade unions. The End Not Defend campaign, led by trade unions, trade union activists and workers, is also seeking to bring sexual harassment at work within the scope of the Health and Safety Executive. I reflect on the statutory guidance for the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which reminds us how pivotal the role of an employer can be. Strengthening survivors’ rights at work is the crucial next step towards realising the commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
Safe and affordable housing, including social homes, for women and girls escaping is an urgent necessity, and protection from eviction for survivors is essential, including in London. Domestic abuse is a housing issue. There is a reason that my ex-husband and his supporters continue to focus on my living arrangements and regularly try to use the media, and even spur on the far right, in this regard after all these years of attempting to pursue a vexatious case against me about my housing. I want to be clear that I will not be hounded out of my home.
There is no doubt about it: the funding crisis for domestic abuse services and other support continues to be catastrophic. Ringfenced investment for refuge provision would recognise refuges as specialist, trauma-informed services and would reflect the expertise required to deliver them. I understand that there is a London-wide grassroots support fund for specialist “by and for” services. Funding is ringfenced for specialist services, but I believe that it must fully recognise that many “by and for” services, such as Southall Black Sisters, are well established and experienced at working with a range of communities across intersectionalities. They should never be left at risk of losing funding.
The cost of living crisis is exacerbating economic and financial abuse, with low incomes, rising poverty and soaring rents leaving people feeling trapped in a relationship even when they need to leave. It is therefore no coincidence that the ongoing violence against women and girls crisis comes after more than a decade of attacks on social security. I have never been more alarmed at the risk at which women and girls are being placed by the proposed cuts to welfare. It is well evidenced that they are more reliant on social security and public services, which means that they are more severely impacted when public services and social security nets are cut. I am particularly alarmed by the cuts to disabled people’s benefits, including the health component of universal credit, given that disabled women are twice as likely to experience abuse. That is why it is crucial for disabled people to be the sharpest focus of investment, not cuts.
The current political climate has created a toxic and dangerous atmosphere for migrant women, with immigration status and the fear of deportation being used as control tactics by perpetrators. I am therefore reiterating my calls for a firewall between all public services and the Home Office, so that every survivor can report abuse and so that perpetrators cannot evade justice by weaponising immigration status in order to silence, abuse and control. That is something for which the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, I and many others have long campaigned—and, yes, it also remains a matter of urgency that the no recourse to public funds rule be scrapped and that there be an end to the hostile environment.
Globally, we know that violence against women and girls continues to be exacerbated by conflicts. In Haiti, women continue to face gang violence, including pervasive sexual violence. In Sudan, the continued reports of mass rapes are incredibly horrific. In Gaza, women and girls are being killed, starved and expected to survive with absolutely nothing, so tackling violence against women and girls must include a ceasefire and stopping all UK arms being sent to Israel or anywhere else to kill women.
At home, we must acknowledge that in London and beyond, targeting refugees and anti-migrant scaremongering will not benefit the majority of people. Traumatising already traumatised people, including women seeking asylum in the UK because of violence that they are fleeing, will set back the progress being made to eliminate violence from our society. Most importantly of all, it will harm the very victims and survivors who need support. Systemic discrimination is making it harder for individuals to seek help. Fears of discrimination or bias, such as racism, Islamophobia, homophobia or transphobia, are exacerbated by instances of people being denied assistance and access to public frontline services.
When speaking about my own experiences, I have been particularly anxious not to participate in perpetuating tired, racist tropes against Muslims, because we all need to be clear that that does nothing to empower women and girls. Rather, racism is a driver and facilitator of abuse, leading to the voices and lives of ethnic minority women being overlooked and devalued. It is so fundamental that the VAWG strategy is actively anti-racist. I am pleased that a definition of honour-based abuse is now being committed to, and that the Home Office is working with “by and for” services to develop the definition accordingly.
It is impossible to cover all the types of violence against women and girls in the time I have today, but I have tried to set out examples to illustrate that violence against women and girls is not a side or separate issue. At its core, it is a question of equality and of the type of world we want to live in. It is intrinsically connected to structural discrimination, exploitation and the intersection of different oppressions, so it requires joined-up thinking and bold and brave initiatives. That is what I hope the next VAWG strategy will have at its heart.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that even if they are on the list, those who are able to should bob at the end of speeches if they want to catch my eye.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for leading today’s debate and for her strength of character as well. I have had talks with the hon. Lady and I understand there are things in her own life that she has dealt with. She shows a character and a courage that I admire and that many others in this House admire as well, so I thank her for bringing the debate forward.
This problem is a huge issue across the world, particularly in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so I am pleased to take part in the debate, first to support the hon. Lady in highlighting the issues and, secondly, to represent the people of Northern Ireland, in solidarity, about the problems that we have back home. I listened intently to the hon. Lady’s comments. The statistics and stories are shocking and saddening. She has undertaken great work on the APPG on domestic violence and abuse, and I am aware that she has opened up previously on her own experiences of that—things that we really need to take note of. We must do more, of course.
It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. None of us will be disappointed with her response at the end of this debate, because she has lived all of these stories. Many moons ago, way back when we first got to know each other in the House, she brought all those personal stories from her own constituency—they were raw stories, I remember. I used to get quite upset sometimes when she told us about things that had happened. I am pleased to see her in her place, because I am sure she will be able to speak out for every woman and girl not just in London, but further afield. As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse outlined, this occurs not just in London but across the world, and she gave examples as well.
The Met police conclude that the crime of violence against women and girls in London has increased significantly; it rose by 37% between 2018 and 2023. According to the London Assembly, in the year up to January 2025, recorded sexual offences rose by 7.4% compared with the previous year, so we are unfortunately seeing a trend—I suspect that it is a trend in society. I am going to give some of the stats for the Northern Ireland; the Minister will know them. They are incredibly worrying and disturb me greatly. We should note that that figure of 7.4% is only what is recorded. We know that often women do not feel confident to come forward for numerous reasons, so that figure could be the tip of the iceberg.
Although the debate is centred on London, I would not feel right if I did not mention Northern Ireland, and others would think it wrong of me, especially since the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned problems elsewhere. I want to give some stats about Northern Ireland just to put things into perspective. I raise this subject continually and will continue to do so to increase awareness of the dire situation. According to a report by our own Ulster University, almost 98% of women in Northern Ireland report experiencing at least one form of violence or abuse in their lifetime. Can Members imagine that? Of every 100 women we see in Northern Ireland, 98 have experienced abuse of some sort.
Domestic abuse instances are very high. For example, in the year ending 31 March 2025, almost 30,000 domestic abuse incidents were recorded by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Furthermore, in the 12 months to this date, there were six domestic abuse homicides in which all victims were females. Since 2019, PSNI data indicates that some 30 women and girls have been murdered by men. We have the worst stats in the whole of the United Kingdom. The Minister has spoken about that and has answered questions in the Chamber. I have asked her questions and she has responded. The figures are shocking, but this is a reality for thousands of women on a daily basis. Violence against women and girls is not rare; it is about walking with keys between the fingers, checking a friend gets home safe, or hearing a bang next door and thinking, “Should I intervene? Should I go and see if everything’s all right?” It is worrying, but unfortunately, the experience of so many has become normalised—and it can never be normal.
Everyone in this place has a role to play, and we must ensure that our services are approachable so that women feel they can come forward and, more importantly, be believed. When they go to report such behaviour, they should know that someone is there with a listening ear, prepared to take their story on board and do something. Behind every story that has been heard today or in the past stands a brave individual who, perhaps at one time, was not sure that she would escape and seek help. Those stories are testament to what support is available.
To conclude, we do not talk about this topic lightly. It is heavy—it is supposed to be, to help people understand the seriousness and scale of the problem. Statistically, the situation has gotten worse, and I want to do more to encourage people to be part of the conversation. We all need to praise those strong and brave women and girls who have told their story. Let us remind those who are afraid to speak out that they are not alone, and that we will all do our best in this place to ensure that they can safely access the help they need. I look to the Minister, as I always do, to commit to that. I understand that she will give us a response on London and the mainland, but I know that she has an interest in Northern Ireland because of what is happening there, so I look forward to her response. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse again for sharing her story.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
There are seven people bobbing and 38 minutes left, so the arithmetic is relatively simple: just over five minutes each. I will not impose a time limit, unless somebody abuses the situation.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing the debate. Since she has come to Parliament, she has been a tireless campaigner on this issue and a real credit to her community and any victim of violence against women and girls.
The damning statistics are so well reported and have been well noted in the debate so far. Although this is a national challenge, in London specifically, almost 160,000 domestic abuse crimes and more than 25,000 sexual offences were reported to the police last year. We know that those figures actually underestimate of the scale of the problem, because so much goes unreported. Silence is not consent; it is the result of a system that fails to empower survivors.
As we all know, the effects of violence against women and girls are often too deadly. Across the UK, a woman is killed, on average, every three days. Just think about that for a moment. Behind those numbers are mothers, daughters and sisters—precious lives cut short too soon by a death that was entirely avoidable. Their names and stories must never be forgotten, and today is our opportunity to honour each and every one of them.
When instances of violence against women and girls occur, victims should be able to turn to the police, but, too often, women lack trust and faith in our police—and their concerns are not without merit. Reports of misogyny and sexism in police forces remain commonplace and continue to undermine confidence in policing. Just last week, former Met police officer David Carrick received another life sentence for sexual offences. Let us be very clear: today, on our streets, purporting to keep our young women safe, are police officers. When one of Carrick’s victims attended hospital following being assaulted, she was warned that it would be difficult to seek justice as the law protects its own. That is emblematic of a view held by many that officers close ranks and protect their own rather than listening the voices of survivors. The only way for the Met to rebuild trust is to take action when officers fail to meet the high standards that we all rightly expect of them. I know that the Met and its leaders have promised action, and I am sure that any changes will be well supported by us all.
No one should have to plan their route home, clutch their keys, or second-guess whether a street is too dark or too quiet to walk down. As a mother of two girls, I should not be having to think about when the right time is to tell them what side of the road they should walk on or how they should seek help, or to take them to learn Muay Thai and boxing at a local gym, because I feel that that is the only way I can protect them in this day and age.
In my constituency of Tooting, I launched my Safe Space campaign, signing local businesses up to offer a place of safety to anyone on local streets. The situation is critical, but there is cause for hope, and I welcome work done in London to create our city’s own violence against women and girls strategy, which champions prevention and education while placing responsibility squarely on perpetrators to change their behaviour. I know that our Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, cares deeply about this, and with over £17.7 million invested in specialist support, the strategy recognises that harm often begins with words and attitudes, and it seeks to restore trust in justice.
In Wandsworth, our Labour-run council has been proactive in addressing violence against women and girls. It has doubled investment to address violence against women and girls, which has allowed for the employment of a domestic abuse specialist in the housing team and the creation of an advocacy service to help women to navigate the system. These measures will go a long way to supporting those in desperate need of help.
While this work is much needed and welcome, we surely all see that there is much more to be done. Violence against women and girls does not occur in a vacuum. It is born out of misogyny. It is born out of the sexism that goes unaddressed on our streets, in our workplaces and in our schools. We need a continued focus on early intervention and education to address the root causes of the violence that impacts too many women and girls. The online world has become a breeding ground for extreme misogyny, targeted at young boys and often glorifying violence against women. Finally, survivors must feel empowered to come forward. That can only be done by driving up standards in our police forces and fixing our justice system, so that all victims are believed.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and I thank and salute the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for her bravery and determination in bringing this debate to this Chamber. That we are discussing violence against women and girls in 2025 is a sad indictment of our society, but, simultaneously, it is really encouraging to see so many people determined to take the scourge head on.
I have four points to address. The first concerns the cultural stigma and cultural sensitivity that some societies still hold on to. Violence against women has never been acceptable, is unacceptable and will never be acceptable, and we must engage with communities to address and tackle the issue head on. Many eastern cultures—I am going to demarcate them by religion—revere women to the utmost level. Hinduism, the oldest religion in the world, has millions and millions of men bowing down to goddesses every single day. Sikhism was founded on the principle of parity between the souls of both males and females. In Islam, women are revered to such a degree that the way of salvation and paradise is that, in such a strong monotheistic religion, if prostration was allowed to anybody but God, it would be to a woman—their mother.
We must overcome cultural insensitivities, and I commend the work done in my constituency of Leicester South by Sharma Women’s Centre, Wesley Hall and Zinthiya Trust, which all provide education and a support network for all women but particularly for those from minority communities. I am really concerned about this year’s cuts to the victims core grant, which may leave victims of rape, domestic violence or stalking with even fewer resources. Will the Minister ensure that private charity organisations on the frontline are funded appropriately by the Government?
Secondly, there is education. We are breeding a generation for whom sexual violence—consensual or not—is the norm. In a 2025 YouGov poll of teachers, almost 80% of respondents said that that was a huge problem across British schools. Nearly two in every five secondary school teachers who responded said they hear misogynistic remarks every day. Staff are not immune either. A Unison and UK Feminista survey found that 10% of female support staff in secondary schools have experienced sexual harassment, mostly from male pupils. More than half of teachers say that misogyny in school has worsened. What is the Minister’s Department doing to ensure that classrooms are safe for both women and girls—both staff and pupils?
Thirdly, there is the criminal justice system. Sexual abuse trials in London have an average waiting time of 18 months, but in my city of Leicester it is three whole years. Recently I met a constituent who, after years of being a victim of sexual abuse, finally summoned up the courage to leave her partner and bring forward a case against him, only to find that her case was postponed not once, not twice, but three times, while her abuser walks freely in her neighbourhood. Such long delays exacerbate anxiety and trauma, so much so that Jasmine House in my constituency, a Rape Crisis centre, tells me that many victims simply drop their cases. They want to get on with their lives—they want to get married, they want to have children; they cannot wait for five or six years to explain to their family members that they have to go to court for a case. In the past year alone, over 280 rape prosecutions collapsed because the victim withdrew.
Finally, in the real world misogyny does not just stop at schools; it is invading our digital spaces. According to Amnesty, 85% of women who spend time online have witnessed online violence and 38% have been the target of such violence. Reports from Ofcom show that black women and girls are more likely to be targeted with toxic, dehumanising and misogynistic content.
With the Online Safety Act 2023 taking effect, social media platforms have now signed up to voluntary guidelines to ensure that they combat misogynistic abuse, coercive control and the sharing of intimate images without consent on their services. Ofcom has been tasked with enforcing those new rules, but without any mechanism for enforcement. Given the voluntary nature of the guidelines, the companies might just ignore the key mechanisms to tackle violence against women and girls. Will the Minister’s Department work closely with Ofcom and other Government Departments to ensure that digital space can be better protected for all our women and girls?
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this debate. I admire her courage and her continued fight for a better future when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls. I support her quest to make the lives of women and girls safer.
In 2023, the Metropolitan police recorded 8,800 cases of rape, which translates to a staggering 24 reported rapes per day. However, when we consider that recorded rapes make up only about 20% of cases of sexual violence, we realise that the true extent of this crime is—shamefully—much larger. Nearly every woman in London has a story to tell. Hundreds of thousands of women carry around the hurt and trauma of sexual violence, even if their stories never make it on to the front pages.
Since becoming an MP, I have received many distressing emails from constituents, some as young as 14, who have recounted their experience of sexual violence and harassment: women and girls who told me that this time they had escaped, but they dreaded to think what might have happened if they had not. Women and girls should not have to live their lives as a series of lucky escapes, constantly feeling relieved that on this occasion they were not assaulted. To be able to walk around safely without fear is a bare minimum—it is a basic human right. Yet the lived reality of so many women and girls in London and across the UK is a cycle of fear and relief, with their terror assuaged only by a sense of gratitude that they are safe—this time, at least.
Women and girls who do experience sexual harassment or violence are blamed for it: blamed for walking alone at night, for wearing the wrong item of clothing or for sending the wrong signal. In my constituency of Ilford South, a young woman called Zara Aleena was walking home. CCTV footage showed another young woman running into a shop because she saw the horrible monster who was following her; she felt threatened and went into the shop for safety. A second woman on the same journey, on the same fateful night, ran to her home. She was on the main road, Cranbrook Road, and she lived very close. She ran home, and she too was safe. That meant that the monster moved on to Zara, who was tragically killed. She was only walking home—that was her crime; she was simply walking home. What gives anybody the right to sexually assault, rape and then kill somebody simply walking home? A young law graduate with a career in front of her was taken in her prime.
Sadly, there is a new form of sexual violence that shows these rape myths for the empty victim-blaming narratives that they are. The growing prevalence of technology facilitates the creation of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes. Recently, there have been growing reports of boys as young as 12 using nudification apps to create deepfake nudes of their classmates and teachers. Girls are seeing realistic images of their faces superimposed on to a naked body that they do not recognise. Such images are then often sent to their friends, classmates and even family members, shattering girls’ self-esteem, body confidence and trust in others for years to come.
This debate is about sexual violence in London, but this type of technology-facilitated abuse transcends borders and regions. With these technologies, the perpetrators do not even need to be in the presence of those who they choose to victimise. Ten years ago, we could not have conceived of this type of crime; now teachers have to tackle a crime that did not even exist when they were growing up, unequipped with guidance to support pupils, parents or themselves. That scares me. I think about the constituents who have written to me. This is a new type of crime that they will have to hope that they are safe from. This is a new way in which men can assert power, control and entitlement over women and women’s bodies.
I know that the Government are working hard to tackle the growing prevalence of such gender-based abuse, including by criminalising the creation and sharing of intimate images and deepfakes through the Online Safety Act, but we must do more. First, we need a joined-up approach between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that women and girls are protected from technology-facilitated abuse and that the advancement of AI technology does not come at the cost of women. I desperately urge the Government to enforce an outright ban on nudification apps, as recommended in Baroness Bertin’s pornography review. Many such nudification apps are widely available and advertised specifically to appeal to young men and boys, operating on a premium business model and encouraging users to share the app with others. A few weeks ago, the Government announced an updated curriculum—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I draw the hon. Member’s attention to the time. He is beginning to run into that allotted to other hon. Members. I assume he will draw his remarks to a conclusion.
Jas Athwal
My questions to the Minister are: why do the majority of women not report crime? Why is the prosecution rate so low? Why do men feel it is okay to inflict pain on women and girls?
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate and making such a great contribution, drawing on her personal experiences before widening it out to London, the country and the world. This issue does not have borders and is not limited to a single socioeconomic class, religion or area of the country.
I congratulate the Minister on the success of her domestic abuse protection orders, which hit 1,000 this week, in keeping survivors protected while they are at their most vulnerable. I thank Treasury Ministers for their financial inclusion strategy, which is starting to address economic abuse, and Ministry of Justice Ministers for tackling the ongoing abuse in family courts. We are all looking forward to the VAWG strategy: its publication and its ambition to halve violence against women and girls. That is a goal we can all get behind.
Although it is the UN’s International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, we in Milton Keynes call it White Ribbon Day. I will focus on why that is and on prevention. Milton Keynes is the first White Ribbon city. White Ribbon is very close to my heart because it was started by men in Canada after the shooting at an École Polytechnique. A man went in and shot women engineering students because he had not got a place at engineering school. Like many of us here today, those men in Canada were sick and tired of the rhetoric that women were somehow at fault—maybe they should have locked the door of the classroom; maybe they should have behaved differently. They recognised that the problem was started by men and needed to be solved by men.
What does it mean for Milton Keynes to be a White Ribbon city? It means that more than 160 companies, organisations and charities have become White Ribbon accredited: from the YMCA to the MK Dons; from big corporations to small, niche ones; from voluntary groups to the city council; and from the police to the fire service. Thousands of individuals have also signed up, together making the pledge to never commit, excuse or remain silent about male violence against women.
We all know that this is not all men; the difficulty is that too often the majority of men, who would never consider committing or excusing such abuse, remain silent. The issue is about empowering them to be active bystanders and to know how to comfortably walk into a situation that does not feel right and call out their friends’ behaviours in pubs, changing rooms and other places. Alternatively, it is about empowering them to talk to a co-worker who used to be a fantastic, performing female colleague, but who has all of a sudden gone quiet: to know that there is a reason why and what to do with the answers.
We need to do this not only in Milton Keynes, but right across the country. MPs from across the House have signed up to White Ribbon. I thank Mr Speaker and the Madam Deputy Speakers for their commitment to making us the first White Ribbon Parliament in the world, setting an example for the country. I know they are progressing on that as quickly as they can. Parliament is a workplace, not a lifestyle. We have seen incidents right across this Estate that, unfortunately, do not bring it pride. The catering staff, the MPs and everyone else who works on the Estate need to feel safe, as do the visitors who have meetings and tours here. Members of Parliament must be held to the highest standards because we are setting the example against the misogyny promoted online.
I conclude by talking about the Online Safety Act 2023. There is a huge campaign against the Act, but it is making real progress. It does need to make further progress in some areas—not just releasing guidance on how platforms can help protect women, but also making it mandatory, doing work on deepfakes, addressing the 850,000 consumers of child sexual abuse imagery and tackling the grooming of children on gaming platforms and on end-to-end encrypted sites.
We can and must do more, and this is the moment. We have the Government commitment, we have personal ministerial commitments in different Departments and we have the cross-party commitment. We have the commitment and demand from voluntary groups, mums and dads, and our sisters and daughters. Today is the day we make that change.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this crucial debate and for the incredible work that she has always done to shine a light on this issue.
I want to be absolutely clear that we are discussing specifically male violence against women and girls. The word “male” is often omitted, giving us the neat acronym VAWG, but when we leave it out in discussion, we remove the perpetrators from the conversation and the focus shifts solely to victims. While the protection of survivors must always be a priority, we cannot treat this as a women-only issue. This is not a female issue at all—we are not the problem. It is and always has been a male issue. There is no action that a woman can take that will ever justify her harassment, assault, rape, abuse, femicide, mutilation or any other of the horrific crimes committed by men against women and girls.
Violence against women and girls is not inevitable; it is the predictable outcome of a society that still treats women’s safety as optional rather than fundamental. If we are serious about ending violence against women and girls, we have to start with prevention, and that means embedding consent and healthy relationships in education in every single school. Our focus has to be addressing the culture that raises some men and boys to believe that such behaviour is acceptable. We must confront the gaps in our criminal justice system that in practice decriminalise these offences, signalling time and again that they can be committed with little fear of consequence.
I am a London MP and violence against women and girls is definitely a city-wide problem. We have heard and will continue to hear statistics that show its scale. For most women, this violence can occur anywhere—at home, at school, at work, on a night out, walking in a public space and even when travelling on public transport. Most women and girls in London will have a story about harassment on the capital’s public transport network. The data suggests it is harder to find a woman who has not experienced such harassment, although we know it is rarely reported.
Of the incidents that are reported, the figures paint a very stark picture. Last year, more than 120,000 crimes of violence against women and girls were reported to the Met, with alarming levels on public transport. In the first half of 2025, 907 sexual offences were reported across Transport for London services, up from 879 in the same period the previous year. On the Elizabeth line, there was a 247.8% increase from 2023 to 2024, followed by a further rise this year. On the underground, offences rose to 856 cases from 745 the previous year, and on the bus network, reports rose by 28.6%. Again, we know these figures represent only a fraction of the true scale of offending.
Surveys have found that more than half of women in London have experienced sexual harassment on buses, the tube or trains. A significant proportion of women who have experienced this harassment and assault never report it. Transport-related incidents are no exception. Too many women who do come forward are not believed, are treated as though they are the problem rather than the victim, or witness at first hand the shortcomings of investigations. They are told that the perpetrator could not be identified because the carriage was too busy, that the CCTV was not working, or that nothing can be done on this occasion but they should report it if it happens again. Those responses erode confidence that the police are willing or equipped to deal with such cases, and they add to the wider crisis of trust in policing that women and girls feel acutely.
Perpetrators are effectively given the green light. They know their victim may not report, and that even if she does, the chances of being caught, let alone prosecuted, are slim. This creates a vicious cycle. Fewer reports lead to fewer prosecutions, fewer prosecutions remove any meaningful deterrent, offending escalates, men become emboldened, and women feel increasingly unsafe on the city’s transport networks.
I recognise that the Mayor of London and TfL have expanded poster campaigns to encourage reporting and bystander intervention. It is important that these things are done to improve our culture, but we need more. We need far stronger co-ordination between TfL and the British Transport Police to identify and catch offenders. We need concrete, measurable action to improve conviction rates. We need every institution involved—TfL, the British Transport Police, the Met, City Hall—working together with absolute clarity and purpose to tackle harassment, protect victims and hold perpetrators to account. Women and girls should be able to travel across our city without fear for their safety. We urgently need to get a grip on this issue.
As I come to the end of my speech, I want to make sure to make the point that, as well as prevention, we need to ensure that when women speak out, they have somewhere safe to go. Too many specialist support services are still struggling to keep their doors open, and the services that do exist are often inaccessible to black women, migrant women and women with insecure immigration status. A refuge that a refugee woman cannot access is no refuge at all.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Stringer. Just before the debate started, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) light-heartedly said, “You do know this is a London debate?” He was right to ask the question, because my constituency is about 120 miles away from this room, but I am here today to talk about one perpetrator: a man who is responsible for raping and sexually assaulting hundreds of women, and used his money and power to escape justice right here in our nation’s capital. The man is Mohammed Fayed, the former owner of Harrods and various other businesses. For years, he was known as a flamboyant businessman marked by personal tragedies. He was the father of Dodi Fayed, who died in the car crash that killed Princess Diana.
Today, though, Mohammed Fayed is more rightly remembered as something else entirely: a prolific sexual predator. The scale of his crimes is staggering. Despite the excellent reporting that has blown the scandal open in the last eight months, it remains too little known. There are more than 400 known survivors of Fayed—I am proud that we are joined by some of them in the Public Gallery—and still more women are coming forward; the Met police is currently investigating almost 150 allegations against him. As well as numerous accounts of rape and sexual assault, he is accused of drugging women he planned to assault and trafficking women across international borders. His crimes are now rightly seen as one of the worst ever corporate sexual abuse scandals. This was abuse on an industrial scale.
Fayed died in August 2023 aged 94. He escaped justice. However, he did not act alone, and his network of enablers can still be held to account. Who were the people who helped this billionaire to abuse hundreds of women? There was a security team led by John Macnamara, a former Metropolitan police detective who tailed and threatened women Fayed had abused to enforce their silence. There were lawyers who churned out non-disclosure agreement after non-disclosure agreement and failed to sound the alarm. There were doctors hired to carry out invasive medical exams, including sexually transmitted infection testing, without informing the women what they were being tested for; the results were delivered directly to Fayed, not to survivors. There were senior Harrods staff who at best turned a blind eye and at worst groomed young girls for their boss.
The scale of these crimes raises serious questions about the Met and the Crown Prosecution Service. More than 20 women approached the Met with allegations against Fayed during his life. Survivors say that their concerns were brushed under the carpet. The force is now investigating its own conduct under the direction of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Meanwhile, the CPS has admitted that it was twice handed evidence against Fayed by the Met and failed to prosecute him.
Survivors need answers. They have already waited far too long for justice; the earliest known allegation against Fayed dates back to 1977—almost 50 years ago—and significantly predates my existence. Their wait must end. That is why I and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) formed the all-party parliamentary group for survivors of Fayed and Harrods. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—I am glad she is in her place today—for serving as officers for the APPG.
My co-chair, the hon. Member for North East Fife, and I came to this appalling scandal in different ways. For me, it was through my constituent Keaton Stone, who is in the Public Gallery. He is the man whose research underpinned the documentary on Fayed’s abuse that blew open the story last year. Keaton, whose wife Sophia is a survivor, has spent years meticulously gathering evidence against Fayed. He has asked me to champion the cause in Parliament on behalf of all survivors. My co-chair is a former police officer with sexual offences training—the only woman in the Commons with that experience. She has used her platform to advocate for women and girls, making Parliament a safer place to work, and to oppose corruption in the police. She was approached separately to become a parliamentary champion. We are eager to work together with other Members to drive this agenda forwards.
The first priority will be the Met’s ongoing investigation. It is an opportunity to pursue all those who enabled Fayed, and the force must cast the net as widely as possible. Given the trafficking allegations, and because some alleged offences were committed at his estate in Scotland, we urge Police Scotland to look again at this issue and ask that our forces work with international partners where appropriate. After decades of delay, that needs to happen fast; officers must bring charges swiftly. Survivors are understandably wary, given that they have been let down by the Met in the past. We will help to keep tabs on the investigation and ensure those questions are answered.
Civil claims against Harrods are also important, with hundreds of women seeking compensation for the abuse they suffered. For survivors, though, this is not about money—no amount of money could make up for the trauma they underwent at this man’s hands. It is about recognition that their employer could and should have kept them safe, and failed to do so. Those cases should be being dealt with much more swiftly.
Fayed’s businesses, the Met and the Crown Prosecution Service are all implicated in this scandal. That is why, ultimately, we must have a full inquiry. Survivors deserve answers and the public should know the whole truth. We must learn the lessons so that crimes like this can never happen again.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing the debate. I am honoured to work with her on the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse.
I also want to pay tribute to the Minister. Her determined and courageous leadership has seen sweeping changes, including the news today that domestic abuse protection orders have protected 1,000 victims since their introduction last year. She has pioneered a new national centre for violence against women and girls, putting VAWG on a similar footing to counter-terrorism for the first time. Raneem’s law has embedded the first domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms. Following years of campaigning, honour-based abuse will have a statutory definition.
I want to focus on healthcare. Health services are too often overlooked in efforts to tackle domestic abuse and VAWG, despite domestic abuse costing the UK healthcare system £2.3 billion. Investing in healthcare-based responses reduces missed opportunities to support victims, ultimately saving money and lives. In my previous life, I worked on the SafeLives report “We only do bones here”. It was titled after a survivor who gave evidence, who said that when she disclosed to her A&E doctor that she was experiencing domestic abuse, he told her:
“We only do bones here, not that relationship, mental health stuff.”
He then sent her away, without even referring her to a specialist service.
The report found that four out of five victims never go to the police, yet in the most extreme cases, victims reported attending A&E up to 15 times. That demonstrates the urgent need for specialist domestic abuse support in healthcare settings. Independent domestic violence advisers, co-located in A&E or maternity units, can identify victims earlier and ensure that women are supported to be safe, ending the awful process of patching up victims, only for them to return a few weeks later, beaten further.
We know that victims are far more likely to disclose abuse in health settings. Research found that hospital-based IDVAs generate a net saving of £2,000 per victim in health costs. Embedding IDVAs in hospitals is key to improving referrals and outcomes, with nine in 10 victims reporting improved safety after hospital-based IDVA support. Support at primary care level, through brilliant evidence-based interventions such as IRIS—identification and referral to improve safety—is also crucial.
Time after time, we read domestic homicide reviews calling on health professionals to share information that could have saved the victim’s life, but cultural change in health is stubborn. I remember meeting a senior doctor and asking why information sharing was proving so difficult. I will never forget his answer:
“I will be honest. I fear a letter thudding on the doormat with the GMC’s logo more than hearing that one of my patients has been murdered.”
Where is “first do no harm”? I know the Minister will agree that the role of health will be crucial in the VAWG strategy.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the clear funding crisis facing specialist women’s charities. That is not new, but the rapid closure of services is. Just as we approach a once-in-a-generation VAWG strategy with an incredible commitment to halve VAWG in a decade, there is a real fear that the expertise we will need to rely on may not exist unless an emergency funding package is issued quickly. I hope that the Government will consider amendments I tabled to the Victims and Courts Bill, which will soon move to the Lords, including one that would create a statutory duty to commission specialist services for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence—women and children. It is absurd that support for the most traumatised and vulnerable victims is not even a postcode lottery; no one anywhere has an actionable right to say, “I deserve specialist support.” We will never truly protect women and girls when the spaces that heal and rebuild them are so easily dismissed.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate and sharing her tragic experiences for the benefit of others. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on launching the APPG for the survivors of Fayed in Harrods, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain)—a huge scandal that affects women across the country.
There has been lots of talk in recent years, and indeed in the Chamber today, about changing social attitudes—educating men to stamp out violence against women and girls at its root. We have all heard the terrifying statistics that seven out of 10 women have experienced some form of sexual harassment in public. Each London borough faces more than 2,000 domestic abuse offences and 4,000 incidents annually. Even in the context of known under-reporting, the Metropolitan police recorded an average of 24 reports of domestic violence per day in 2023. It is important that we also bring into sharper focus the crucial fact that we have a role—not just as legislators gathered here today, but in the wider public sector and its various arms of governance and jurisprudence—and a responsibility to lead from the front. I echo the call by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for us to become the first White Ribbon Parliament, which would make a small step in that direction.
Although it is true that, far too often, changes in this place happen because of a changing world beyond our gates, it is also true that, in many ways, society looks to the state to take the moral lead on the fundamental issues of equality and justice. When the state is failing in its duty to take that moral leadership, we do not just compound the problems; we actively undermine efforts happening across society to tackle them. Sadly, in the case of violence against women and girls, I fear that that is exactly what we are at risk of doing, if we do not redouble our efforts to stamp it out.
Perhaps nowhere is that more pressing and concerning a matter than with the Metropolitan police. It can no longer be denied or ignored that there are elements in the force who hold views entirely incompatible with the state taking this issue seriously. Although commendable work has been done by Commissioner Rowley, who I have met and I trust is treating the historic mission with the gravity required of it, recent events have underlined that this is still a serious, systemic problem. The recent revelations broadcast by the BBC’s excellent and sobering “Panorama” investigation about officers based at Charing Cross station, leading to the dismissal of four officers, was shocking and profoundly depressing. To reference just one particularly demonstrative example of the unacceptable behaviour that was uncovered, Police Sergeant Joe McIlvenny, an officer with nearly 20 years’ service in the Met, was dismissive about a pregnant woman’s allegation of rape and domestic violence after a colleague raised concerns about the decision to release the accused man on bail. He replied, “That’s what she says.”
The station had been the focus of an investigation by the police watchdog—the Independent Office for Police Conduct—into bullying and discrimination nearly four years ago. It found that some officers had discussed hitting their girlfriends, shared offensive and discriminatory comments, and joked about rape in a private group chat, and yet nothing changed. Those are not isolated incidents, nor am I latching on to the most recent example for ease. We know there is a systemic problem in the Met: the Casey review in 2023 told us that one in three female officers had experienced sexism at work, and that around one in ten had experienced sexual harassment or assault. Four years on from the death of Sarah Everard, we are left asking whether work is really happening at the pace required to root out those men from the force.
Fundamentally, this is about trust. We would always encourage any woman fleeing violence, or looking to report an assault or harassment, to find a police officer and seek their protection. That is a fundamental tenet of a free and fair society. However, like many men across London, I simply cannot provide them the total guarantee that doing so will mean they are met with the support of someone who understands and respects the problem they are facing or, more importantly, who understands and respects women themselves and all the manifold challenges they face. That is an awful place for society to be.
The uniform of the Met should be a symbol of trust, not a shield for misogyny, hatred and racism, but too many officers have broken that trust. Policing is done by consent, and trust in the police is essential for the safety of Londoners. Incidents such as the ones I have mentioned undermine that trust.
The Home Secretary has a responsibility to intervene and work with the Met to tackle this behaviour, owing to their unique role in its governance. I invite the Minister to tell us in more detail what the Government are doing not only to tackle the misogyny that spurs violence against women and girls across society but, crucially, to address it closer to home—in the arms of the state directly under the purview of the Home Office.
It is not just in policing that these issues rear their ugly heads, but across other arms of the state too. The Crown Prosecution Service, perhaps most notably, is failing victims of violence against women and girls so frequently that it undermines the confidence of women everywhere that they can ever truly seek justice. I know this quite vividly. When I met Claire Waxman in her role as Victims’ Commissioner for London, I heard about women left waiting for months, even years, with their lives on hold while cases crawl through the CPS. I have also listened to the stories of many of my constituents who have had to retreat from seeking justice, despite the awful things that have happened to them.
One constituent was kept waiting for two years while her abuser was released on bail, only to be told that, even though what had happened to her constituted common assault, a charge of actual bodily harm could not be pursued due to the time that had elapsed since the incident. That is despite the fact that several lawyers, during that period—while she was waiting powerlessly for the CPS to move forward—agreed that the incident met the threshold for ABH.
Colleagues, I sincerely invite you to consider the scale of that Orwellian, Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare: the powerlessness, anxiety and exhaustion it wrought on my constituent, and the distance we have allowed ourselves to travel as a society from the promise of justice for all by allowing the CPS to become so gridlocked. It is so backed up and broken that it is telling female victims of crime that they cannot seek justice through the state system because of the system’s own failings.
In case anyone doubts that those failings are not serious or speak to a lack of evidence, let me tell the House about another constituent of mine who was assaulted in broad daylight on public transport during rush hour, in full view of CCTV cameras, and who is still waiting now, two years later, for the CPS to move forward with charges. The situation beggars belief. It is utterly unacceptable.
I ask the Minister to outline in significant detail—and I strongly underline the word significant—what exactly the Government will do to sort this mess out. To return to the point on which I began these remarks, just as the state often looks to society for guidance on social change and progress, so too—and perhaps more powerfully, or at least more meaningfully for those of us in this place with our hands on the levers—does society look to the state for an exemplification of the kind of society we want to live in. We have a moral obligation to lead from the front.
The state will never be the active, positive player in the field that it ought to be—an ally to all those who seek to root out the misogyny that plagues us and sprouts the poison of violence against women and girls—until it is absolutely committed, acting seriously and with pace, to getting its own house in order.
The vaccine against the epidemic of violence and abuse that women face in our society will be administered in our schools, our youth centres and the hubs that remain, in our homes and community groups, in the mass media, but critically, too, on social media. It will also need to be inculcated in our police stations, court rooms, hospitals and many arms of the modern state—and, indeed, here in this Palace, which sits at the heart of the state. Only then will we see the revolution in safety that is needed for women and girls in London, and put an end to the horrifying statistics and stories that we have heard today.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for bringing forward this vitally important debate. She spoke bravely of her own experiences.
It is foundationally important that everyone in this country is able to go about their lives in the knowledge that they will be kept safe. That includes being kept safe from the powerful—be that crooked and despicable police officers, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), or wealthy and successful businessmen such as Mohamed Al-Fayed, protected by a network of expensive lawyers. I am proud to join the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) as an officer of the newly launched all-party parliamentary group for survivors of Fayed and Harrods.
Given the particular physical threats that women and girls can face, both in the home and at the hands of strangers, we must pay particular attention to the threats posed specifically to that group. The previous Government took steps towards recognising those unique threats, including by, for example, launching the grooming gangs taskforce. In its first year alone, that taskforce arrested more than 550 suspects, and it extended protection to more than 4,000 victims and survivors of grooming and rape gangs, the vast majority of whom are women and girls.
In their manifesto, this Government promised to take further action, with a view to halving violence against women and girls over the next decade. In March this year, the then permanent secretary of the Home Office promised that the strategy would be published before Parliament’s summer recess. In July, the Minister promised that the Government intended to publish the strategy in September. In October, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) wrote to the Minster for an update. Last week, as I am sure the Minister will remember, I asked her again in the House of Commons Chamber. Today, we are still waiting for the Government’s strategy to be published. It is complex, cross-departmental work, but victims, survivors and their advocates are concerned at the delay.
When the strategy does arrive, the Government must be absolutely sure that it covers the full breadth of risks to women and girls. We must not shy away if identifying those risks might create uncomfortable conversations, including around subjects such as immigration.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse and the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) shared their views on the relevance of migration to victims and survivors. It is also relevant to conversations about perpetrators. The Government refuse to publish full information, but the indicative data that we have suggests significant variations in crime rates by nationality and immigration status. According to data obtained from the Ministry of Justice, foreign nationals made up a third of all convictions for sexual assaults against women. For context, foreign nationals make up between 11% and 12% of the population. In London, where foreign nationals account for roughly a quarter of the population, foreign nationals were responsible for up to 47% of sexual offence charges last year. That suggests that foreign nationals are disproportionately likely to be the perpetrators of sexual assaults against women.
Each and every case of sexual assault is wrong. Perpetrators must face the full force of the law, regardless of their nationality, and it remains the case that statistically, the most dangerous place for a woman is her own home. However, we should be able to have an informed debate about whether mass migration is making the problem worse, particularly when a large number of recent migrants come from countries where attitudes to women are very different from our own. That means publishing the full official data on criminals’ nationalities, including for offences that disproportionately affect women and girls. It also means fully engaging with the impact of mass migration as part of any strategy designed to tackle the problem.
Over the past few decades, we have seen, in the starkest terms, the results of failing to address difficult questions head on. It is exactly that aversion to uncomfortable truths that led so many in the British state to cover up the rape and grooming gangs that have devastated thousands of victims, mostly young girls, across the country. In London alone, we have heard in recent months that many historical cases of sexual abuse across the capital feature the tell-tale red flags of grooming gang abuse.
Will the Minister please assure us that the Government’s proposed national inquiry into grooming gangs will properly investigate historical cases in London? Will the Minister also please tell us whether the Government collect data on the nationality and immigration status of those who commit violent crimes against women and girls? If so, will the Government make it available to the public, and if not, why not? Will the Minister also tell us whether the Government’s strategy to tackle violence against women and girls will address any potential implications of mass migration for the safety of women and girls, no matter how uncomfortable those discussions might be? The aim to halve violence against women and girls in a decade is laudable. What metric will be used to determine whether the Government have succeeded in halving violence against women and girls, and what are the start and end dates? Did the decade start on the date of the last general election? If not, when did it start? Will the Minister tell us when the Government’s strategy will be published? I know that many people in London and across the country would appreciate the certainty and clarity that a concrete date would provide.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.
First, as everybody else has done, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) who, at some personal cost to herself, always speaks up on these issues, and does so with clarity, brilliance and bravery. She always approaches the issues with solutions in mind. People across the political divide want to see solutions and to work with the Government, and that is what we should seek to do. I will go through every one of the issues raised by my hon. Friend, and then cover as many of the others as I can. I cannot promise to be completely detailed, but I can follow up with a level of detail.
I suppose I should start with the criticism that has come to me around the delay to the violence against women and girls strategy. Last week, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) asked me in the main Chamber about the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) writing to me to ask when the strategy will be published. My answer is simple: it will be out imminently. About now, I am satisfied that the strategy is as good as it could possibly be. That has taken lots of detailed work across every Government Department. It is not just tokenistically saying, “Enough is enough.”
But I did not need to wait for a piece of paper or something to be published on a Government website. Since I have been in this position, and since this Government have been in power, we have announced that we are providing £53 million in funding over four years to roll out the Drive project across England and Wales. We are introducing a range of measures on sex offender management and stalking through the Crime and Policing Bill. We are investing £13.1 million in a new policing centre for VAWG and public protection.
We have launched the new domestic abuse protection orders—raised by a number of Members—on which the previous Government passed the legislation then did nothing for four years. We are investing nearly £20 million for frontline support to victims and in other projects, including increasing investment to organisations such as Southall Black Sisters, who have been mentioned, and specific increases to ensure that women can remain in refuge if no recourse to public funds is an issue.
In 2024, we announced a funding increase of £30 million, making a total investment of £160 million for the domestic abuse safe accommodation grant. As others have said, we have also banned strangulation in pornography and made fundamental changes to the family court—something that many in this Chamber, including myself, campaigned for a decade to get across the line. I apologise for the delay in ensuring that every Government Department was doing absolutely everything it possibly could to get to where it needs to, but that did not stop me from cracking on with as much as I possibly could in the meantime.
When I had the job of the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, I spent my time, almost week in, week out, with the then safeguarding Minister—the previous Government did not call it VAWG—looking at solutions and at different places. As I said in my letter back to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford—and I say this to the hon. Member for Weald of Kent now—my door is always open. Not once since I have been in this role has anyone from the Opposition Front-Bench team come to talk to me about possible solutions or things we could work on together, but I absolutely send out that message.
I have met with Lib Dems and Conservative Back Benchers. I feel like I see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) more than my husband, such is our life in this place. I have met Members of every different political hue on my own side. On this we are united. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent is welcome in my office with solutions, ideas about the frontline and detail. I extend that offer with great respect, and I truly mean it. I had great relations with my counterpart before, and I never ever sought to make headlines rather than helping the frontline. As someone who has been in her position, I offer that advice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse spoke clearly about the need to go beyond the criminal justice system. She and other Members, including the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), mentioned the Charing Cross incidents. What can I say? It was absolutely horrifying. I do want to speak up for some, though: a female officer featured in that documentary was trying to fight for the remand of a violent offender. It is easy to forget that some brilliant people were shown in that documentary—brilliant police officers who were trying to fight for the right thing. We need to make sure that those are the people who rise to the top of the ranks in our police forces.
To do that, the Government plan to lay out, I think at the beginning of next year, a whole-systems reform of policing. Much of that will be about violence against women and girls because, for example, for the last 10 years or however long the police have never been asked to have any performance framework on violence against women and girls. We can talk about collecting data and which metrics we will use; well, based on the last decade the starting point is zero. We will take an overarching measure from the crime survey, which has been undertaken for the first time this year. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent might know that the data on which we will measure the metric was released earlier in the year.
On stalking, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse talked about the review by Richard Wright, who I met this week. He was the prosecuting barrister in the case of Alice Ruggles—a very tragic and famous stalking case. I very much look forward to his work in respect of the legislation, which I imagine will be relatively quick. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and I have spoken before about what is currently wrong with the legislation for a section 2A stalking charge. I very much hope to come back and talk about that.
Domestic abuse protection orders have been hailed today in the newspapers—the photo they used of me made me realise I need to get a haircut. I cannot stress enough how I am often a bit cynical, including when we were writing domestic abuse protection orders into the law under the previous Government, who wrote nice words on goat skin. I have been a cynic about all protection orders, as a person who has them, and as a person who has worked with them and watched breaches not be followed up by policing. That leads to some of the issues everybody has spoken about in terms of confidence in policing. If an order is breached and no one does anything, you do not call the police the next time, and that might be the time you get murdered.
So I went into it trepidatiously when we came into government. The orders are now used in both the Metropolitan police area and in Greater Manchester, and they have already started to roll out to three other police forces. The plan is absolutely to roll them out across every area—I certainly want them for the women where I live. I am seeing cases of a breach of an order leading to nine months’ imprisonment within a week of the incident happening, and with the woman never having to step inside a courtroom. That is what I want to see from an order regime.
Luke Taylor
The feedback from the local police force in Sutton, which is part of the trial, is that they find them incredibly helpful. There is a ringing endorsement for the orders and we look forward to seeing them rolled out more broadly.
Jess Phillips
Honestly, police officers in the Met and in Greater Manchester, where I have visited them undertaking these orders, are so very grateful. Some tweaks have come out of the pilot, which is the reason for doing a pilot. Some of them are legislative, some are about resources and some are about offender management. The fundamental thing is that they allow the police to do proper, good old-fashioned policing. It means they are responding. We are not waiting on a victim to say, “This person breached it.” They are going out, talking to them and finding out if the order has been breached. I really want to see the state taking the administration off the woman.
It was shared with me that in just one part of the Greater Manchester pilot—I will definitely get the colloquial thing wrong if I say which bit of Greater Manchester—there had been a 76% reduction in repeat offences just in the cohort that had been given domestic abuse protection orders. Anyone who looks at the Government’s mission and who knows anything about domestic abuse and violence against women and girls will know that we cannot halve anything unless we stop the repeat. The repeat is a massive problem, so seeing a 76% reduction in that cohort already is very good.
People have spoken about employers and the need to make sure that they are included in the strategy. There was a great mention of the brilliant work done by USDAW, and organisations such as Lloyds giving staff two weeks’ paid leave. There are brilliant examples. We cannot keep saying that this is everyone’s business and not expect employers to take part. I have to say, actually, that there is quite a lot of enthusiasm—my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) said that the businesses in her area really want to take part.
On the ringfences in respect of refuge accommodation, part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 created a ringfence for housing-related statutory support. This Government have increased the amount of money in the last year by £30 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse gave a good example of it being done well in London, and some of the money being used for specialist “by and for” services. She identified the fact that we really need to bottom out where services are commissioned well and where they are not. It is a different story across the country, so it is nice in this debate about London to be able to say that I have seen good practice undertaken in London in this regard, through the Mayor’s office working with local councils. I have seen bad practice elsewhere. We need to make sure that there is a standard in the country, no matter where someone is. It is the same for policing and for the CPS.
As I said, I see the hon. Member for Strangford more than my husband; I feel like he has always been in the room. I have a special place in my heart for Northern Ireland and will continue to work with the devolved Administrations over there.
Many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) very clearly, mentioned the issue of David Carrick, and other issues of trust in the Metropolitan police. The first part of the Angiolini review has already reported, and reporting on the second part is imminent. The Metropolitan police promised to follow up on the Louise Casey review. I speak to Mark Rowley many times—he is actually from Birmingham—and the Home Office is making sure that the Metropolitan police is following up on all those things. More broadly, we need to change the regime and reform police vetting and standards, and disqualify people when they commit some of these crimes.
Apologies that I did not respond to everybody, but I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse her minute to wind up. I promise I will answer all questions in writing—to which everyone behind me thinks, “I wish she had not said that!”
Apsana Begum
I thank the Minister for her comments and her commitments. I look forward to the much-anticipated VAWG strategy—hopefully as a nice gift for everyone to read over Christmas—and to working constructively with her in the interests of all survivors, regardless of their backgrounds.
I am very grateful for all the contributions today, which touched on not only a wide range of issues but the various local contexts. It is all very valuable and I hope that, over the next 16 days and beyond, we can all speak to our colleagues and make sure we are speaking to everyone in our areas about how we can continue to engage in the 16 days of activities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls in London.
Bike Theft: Loughborough
(1 day, 1 hour 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
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I will call Dr Jeevun Sandher to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of bike theft in Loughborough.
Thank you for allowing me to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I raised the important issue of bike theft in the main Chamber a few weeks ago, when the Minister kindly provided me with an overview of what her Department is doing to address this incredibly important issue. I thank her and the House for allowing me the opportunity to speak and ask more about it today.
Motorbike theft is a scourge of my constituency, threatening the basic sense of security that people should enjoy. People worry that one day they will wake up unable to get to work, and their concern and frustration is on the rise as criminals act with impunity. Every person in our community and across the country deserves to feel safe, and that starts with giving the police more powers to tackle crime, getting more officers on the street to prevent antisocial behaviour, and working with the local community to stop bike theft for good.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He has referred to the stats in his own area. The Police Service of Northern Ireland notes that the number of motorcycles or scramblers recovered by owners in Northern Ireland is relatively low: for example, in 2022, only 30 out of 136 were recovered. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while the theft statistics are fairly high, the recovery statistics are really low? He underlined the need for the police to have more powers; perhaps the Minister could indicate what those powers might be. Will the Minister give any advice to the regional Administrations to make sure that we tackle the issue better together?
Dr Sandher
It is fair to say that bike theft is a scourge across our nations and islands. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The issue of motorbike theft in Loughborough was brought to my attention during my campaign, and the full scale of the problem has become clearer through time. I will mention some constituents who came to me about this issue: Sarah Staples, whose husband was followed home in broad daylight by criminals whose sole intention was to steal his motorbike, and Stephen Hughes, who also raised bike theft with me. When I asked about the issue in my constituency, I heard story after story of bike theft and attempted bike theft.
Across the country, an average of 59 motorbikes are stolen every single day. That is 21,000 motorbikes and mopeds this year alone—thefts from driveways, back gardens and even locked garages. Criminals are acting brazenly, without care for the consequences. One in five bikers will have their vehicle stolen in their lifetime—that is 11 times more likely than for car owners. The culprits are also far less likely to be caught. It is not just in the case of motorbikes that the rise in theft statistics is worrying: a 30% rise in e-bike ownership means a new lucrative target for thieves who can cash in on vehicles that are hard to trace and quick to resell.
When I raised this issue with my constituents and put it out on social media, the post received thousands of views; tens of constituents came back with cases of stolen bikes, and dozens more with stories of attempted thefts. Several people spoke about how motorbike thefts were becoming so common that it was almost impossible for them to insure their bikes. Let us imagine someone not being able to insure their car because it was at risk of getting stolen—this debate would be taking place in the main Chamber, not Westminster Hall—but this issue is still very serious for those who are affected.
We know that motorcycle theft is driven mostly by organised gangs. Some opportunists steal mopeds and scooters for short-term use and recklessly abandon them by the wayside. Others target high-value vehicles for resale, export or dismantling. Many openly boast about their criminal activities on local community forums and social media, making a mockery of those who cannot stop them and those whose bikes and possessions are stolen from them.
One constituent told me about their scooter being taken from the forecourt of a petrol station. They were too scared to intervene because of how threatening the people looked. Another person told me about a would-be thief threatening to kill them when prevented from stealing their motorbike. Another constituent’s teenager saved for months for a moped to take them to college, only for it to be stolen from their drive in broad daylight. There is also evidence on social media of a network specifically set up to sell and source stolen bikes in Loughborough.
Too often these criminals are getting away without being punished. They are acting without consequence, unafraid of being caught and laughing as they ride away with stolen property. For them, stealing bikes is low risk and high reward, but for my constituents, of course, it is not. Bike theft is not a trivial matter, and it is certainly not a victimless crime. It affects young apprentices travelling to work at 6 am, students commuting to lectures, teachers coming home from work and employees finishing late shifts in factories and other workplaces across the country, who depart after a long day only to find that they can no longer get home.
We can tackle the scourge of bike theft only by working together—as members of a community with a stake in one another’s wellbeing. Leicestershire police, I am pleased to say, recently launched Operation Original to great success. It is joining local officers with the force’s drone team and road policing unit, with specially trained police on unmarked motorbikes going the extra mile to keep my community safe. I thank the officers for that and for the arrests that they have made, the 42 vehicles stopped, the 13 motorbikes seized and the four individuals cautioned for driving offences. Since the operation began, reports of stolen vehicles have dropped by 36% in targeted areas. That is a dramatic reduction in crime in such a short space of time.
We have heard the police say that the operation has been “a great success”, and that they have
“disrupted criminal activity…and taken vehicles off the road which are being used to commit crime. We are…making full use of the range of tactics available”.
But there is more that we must do, and that I must do, to raise awareness of bike theft in our community. This is about continuing to be vigilant, promoting prevention strategies and understanding what we can do to support one another and help to prevent crime. It is about making sure that bikes are locked, keeping them covered to make them harder to steal, and reporting thefts to the police so that we can fully understand the extent of the problem.
The Government are supporting us nationally, and I thank them for that. The Crime and Policing Bill will give officers extra powers to seize and crush more bikes, and there will be stronger antisocial behaviour orders to clamp down on offenders who repeatedly terrorise communities. All of that is deeply welcome. On top of it all, of course, our aim is to increase police numbers to ensure that more officers are available on our streets. In addition, we can do more work to help officers get the training they need to pursue motorbikes so that they can catch those responsible, unencumbered by rules and regulations that make it harder to stop criminals, rather than easier.
I ask the Minister to set out the work that she and the Department are doing, not only on stopping crime in general but specifically on motorbike and bike theft in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages and, of course, across the country. Every person deserves to feel safe in their community, but that is clearly not possible when they are seeing their property at risk of being stolen from their driveways in a threatening manner that undermines the very sense of safety that all of us should feel in this country. Bike theft is not something that we can simply brush aside or ignore because it is convenient to do so. We must refuse to back down in the face of intimidation by investing in our police, working with the local community and tackling the scourge of bike theft in Loughborough.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer, and to take part in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) on securing this debate and on leading the charge in Parliament for more action for his constituents on bike theft. He was right when he said that if cars were being stolen to the same degree that bikes are, there would be more of an outcry. It is right that he and other Members raise this issue, because it is deeply personal to many of our constituents.
There is not just the inconvenience, the cost and the burden of having a bike stolen, but the fear of further crime and the feeling that someone will have about their community and their safety within it when it appears that people can get away with such crimes without any consequence. I want to support my hon. Friend’s campaign and to help where I can.
As always in such debates, it is a shame that we cannot have a dual debate with multiple Ministers saying what they are doing, because I know that my colleagues in the Department for Transport, for example, would be keen to explain how they are looking at cycling and bike theft. We are working with them and other Government Departments. I will set out some of the things that we are doing in the Home Office, however, which I hope my hon. Friend will support and which I hope will help in the fight against knife theft—sorry, bike theft.
I will set out our approach to crime and policing. For too long, what is often seen as lower-level crime has been accepted and not pursued in the way that we would want it to be. I have many conversations with policing colleagues—I was having some today about knife crime, hence my mis-speak just now—and there are really interesting connections between what is perceived as lower-level crime and more significant organised crime. The more that our police gather intelligence about where there are connections and where thefts are more systematic and linked with serious organised crime, the better our policing will be.
The first principle is that no crime is too small. Across the piece, whether it is retail crime or bike theft, we and our communities expect the police to investigate and to do what they can. People do not always expect there to be an outcome to such investigations, but they want crimes to be investigated. They want the evidence to be used where it can be, and they want to understand and to be kept informed about what is happening with their case.
The second principle is that policing is best done locally. We can prevent crime if we create a climate where it is very clear that there is policing in our neighbourhoods and on our streets that will not tolerate theft. My hon. Friend talked about different types of bike theft. In some cases, kids might steal a bike and then discard it when they have had their fun, as they see it. Others are stealing to order for a higher value and have more links to criminal networks. We need to tackle those things differently, but the principle of having police in our communities who are policing our streets, being vigilant, understanding what is going on and building up an intelligence picture of their local community is key. That is why we will make sure that there are 3,000 extra police on our streets by next April, and why we are spending £200 million on top of the multibillion-pound settlement for our police forces.
Leicestershire police has plans to grow its neighbourhood team by 56 full-time equivalent officers in this financial year. That physical presence—being where the crime takes place—will make a real difference. We are also looking at the data. In fact, we are doing lots of work to map the areas of significant crime and where the risks are, and we are making sure that the police intervene where we need them to.
My hon. Friend talked about working with the local authority and there are things that we can do. We can improve street lighting and CCTV, and we can design our streets with better technology that helps us to catch criminals.
My hon. Friend mentioned the new powers that we are introducing, and I will touch on two of them. The first concerns the way that criminals override locking systems to steal vehicles, including motorbikes and cars. We know that that electronic compromise is now the predominant method of vehicle theft, so in the Crime and Policing Bill we are introducing a ban on having any of these electronic devices. At the moment, if someone uses them to steal something, it is a crime, but just having them is not. However, there is no reason to have these devices other than to steal things, so we will be changing the law to criminalise the possession, importation, making, adapting, supplying or offering to supply an electronic device that can be used to steal a vehicle.
The second thing we are going to do will make a real difference. Indeed, I was on a visit with Thames Valley police last week, and we spoke about the difference this change will make in tackling bike theft. Officers should be able to enter and search premises where they reasonably believe that stolen items, such as GPS-tracked bikes, are located. At the moment they need to get a warrant before they can go in, but we know that that takes time, and by the time they have done that the bike might have been moved on. Where GPS tracking shows that an item is behind closed doors, we will facilitate the swift seizure of what we know to be stolen property, and the police will be able to go in and get it without needing a warrant. That will be a valuable tool for tackling bike theft.
What happens to those bikes after they have been stolen is also really important and we need to tackle that piece of the pie as well. Ministers in other Departments are looking at using the Online Safety Act 2023; I am very interested to see how that plays out. There are now duties on social media and tech companies to prevent the advertising of stolen goods. If people are selling bikes online that turn out to be stolen, there is a duty on social media companies not to allow that. It is relatively early days to see how the Online Safety Act will play out, but we should all be monitoring how it works to prevent the sale of stolen goods online. That applies not just to bikes, but more widely; I was in a retail crime meeting earlier where we talked about how items from shops more generally are sold and how we tackle that in the online space.
My hon. Friend talked about the campaign that his local police have done, which sounds as though it was very successful, using drone teams and the road policing unit, with everybody working together. In the few weeks that I have been in this role, my experience has been that when the police put their mind to tackling a problem, they are supremely good at doing it. The problem is that our police struggle with resourcing and huge bureaucracy, so they do not have enough time to do the things that we want them to do—but once they decide that something is a priority, they get results really successfully. That operational policing response is really important.
That example from my hon. Friend’s local area also speaks to the need to ensure that our police have new technology. For 14 years, there has been a lack of investment in policing; through those years of austerity, we lost not just police officers, but any investment in new infrastructure. We know that drones can be revolutionary in policing, but we need to ensure that the police are funded in the right way to buy the kit that they need, so we will be bringing out a police reform White Paper, building on our decision already to save £100 million through the police and crime commissioner model.
We will shortly introduce a police reform Bill, which I hope will enable our police officers to do what we want them to be doing—focusing on physical crime in their communities and spending less time on bureaucracy, using AI and other new technology that can free them up to do other things. A central policing function will deal with some of the crime that is best tackled at a national level, so that the police can deal with issues such as bike theft in a targeted way.
Using that intelligence-led approach with policing locally is important. Some good work is shared through a couple of national bodies that come together to look at some of these issues. For example, the motorcycle crime reduction group brings together Government and representatives from all the different sectors—manufacturing, insurance, the police, the security industry and rider interest groups—to reduce theft. That is a useful place to spread best practice. The national vehicle crime working group, which is led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and their vehicle crime lead, brings together vehicle crime specialists to look at emerging trends in response to this kind of crime and to talk about good practice and strategies to dismantle the wider criminal groups that are responsible for that level of crime.
Across the piece, I reiterate that bike theft is a significant crime. We should take it seriously, treat our communities with the respect that they deserve and expect better. We can do more in terms of the design of bikes to design out crime. We want members of the public to do what they can; my hon. Friend talked about the need to make sure that bikes are properly locked and that any theft is reported, and that is crucial.
Bike marking is also important, so that people know the model number. The police—in Thames valley, say, since I was talking about Oxford—often talk to me about the number of cases where bikes are stolen, but the people who report the theft to the police do not know the number on the bike, so there is no way of marking it. People should ensure that they take a picture of their number or that the bike is marked in some way so that they can tell the police. There are a couple of online spaces, such as BikeRegister, where bikes can be registered. That can also help if the bikes get stolen.
We need to bring our policing back to our neighbourhoods and make sure that we are following the evidence in terms of emerging patterns of bike theft, which can be linked to more serious organised crime. We need to have the right legislation in place so that the police can act when they need to and work across Government Departments to make sure that we are pulling every lever we possibly can to design out and reduce this kind of crime.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It has been a useful opportunity to talk about some of the challenges that we face. As ever, I welcome more ideas and suggestions from his constituents and from him on what else we could do.
Question put and agreed to.
Pension Investment in UK Equities
(1 day, 1 hour 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
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered pension investment in UK equities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I think all hon. Members would agree that UK pension funds are hugely important, primarily to the millions of future pensioners, but also to the many scale-up businesses that are seeking additional investment and need extra capital for growth. They are also an important part of the UK’s capital markets more broadly.
The UK has the second largest pool of pension capital in the world, but only 4% of it is allocated to UK assets. UK defined contribution pension scheme assets are set to grow from around £500 billion in 2021 to £1 trillion by 2030, an increase of 100% over nine years, and that growth will accelerate faster beyond that date. The key issue I wish to focus on is how we are to regulate, manage and enable the future form of that pool of capital, and the appropriate oversight of regulators or Government—if any—of the way it is managed.
As I think all Members want, the Government have stressed the growth imperative and its prioritisation, but under-investment in the UK economy will be a significant dampener on growth. Over the past 25 years, allocation to UK equities by UK pension funds has fallen from more than 50% to 4.4%. Since the global financial crisis, the UK has under-invested, both in absolute terms and compared with our G7 peers. Our investment-to-GDP ratio is around 17% to 18%, compared with our peers’ 20% to 25%. That investment gap accounts for around £100 billion.
The Government have introduced meaningful reforms. The closure of defined benefit schemes has resulted in large amounts of capital being moved from equities to bonds. Although that was a rational response to match the profile of obligations of those schemes, it is questionable whether it is optimal for the wider economy. That eagerness to match payouts to known obligations of a defined population has perhaps encouraged a lack of ambition in investment in the wider economy.
What has happened progressively with DC scheme regulation is passive tracking rather than active investment. We have prioritised the minimisation of costs over returns. That has incentivised more and more funds to invest in cheap asset classes, almost alternating their investments, with fixed income, property and indexed funds being used. That is very frustrating, because over the past decade we reached consensus on auto-enrolment, and there was an emphasis on saying, “Oh, we mustn’t have any fat-cat fund managers taking too-big fees”. There was an anxiety about that, which drove an oversimplification of automated fund management. It allowed everyone to say, “The fees are very low”, but we did not have the right focus on performance and whether we were investing in the right things in the economy. It is obviously cheapest for a fund to go to passive, as it does not require active management and the skills that come with it.
There have been previous fundamental reforms, such as the removal of dividend tax credits. Before 1997, when a UK company paid a dividend, it was accompanied by a tax credit, and pension funds could reclaim that credit in cash from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That meant that pension funds effectively received dividends gross of tax, boosting their investment returns. That reduced the effective yield on UK equities held by pension funds by around 20%, which was then the tax credit rate. There have been changes, with ISAs introduced in 1999 and self-invested personal pensions being widened in 2006, but this has removed the focus on UK investment.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the change from defined benefit to defined contribution and the impact of the taxation changes that brought that about. Would he care to comment on whether he sees that as part of an unwitting repricing of the return on risk, which has impacted not only on pension funds, but more widely? He said that pension fund investment in the market is down, but retail investment in the market overall is also down very significantly. It feels like the British people as a whole have lost their appetite for risk, and that might be because the return on risk is now too highly taxed.
John Glen
Perhaps unsurprisingly, my right hon. Friend anticipates an argument that I am going to move on to about the wider culture of awareness of where investments are happening in our pensions, how important that is, and how we need to be cognisant of the gap that exists.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) referred to the impact on Britain, but there is an impact regionally as well. Many workers in Northern Ireland are enrolled in UK-wide pension schemes and equity systems, and their long-term financial security depends on those schemes being able to generate strong, sustainable returns. When the right hon. Gentleman presents his proposals and asks to the Minister, can he try to obtain an assurance that whenever legislation comes through, similar things will happen in Northern Ireland, including for my constituents, thereby giving us all the equality we should have in this system?
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. In a moment, I will speak about what needs to change and where we need to get to.
Returning to my argument, the Pension Schemes Bill, which will have its Report stage next week, has made some welcome progress—I have to acknowledge that to the Minister. It has received significant cross-party support in many areas. The consolidation of DC schemes to provide greater scale and move away from a fragmented system has long been a journey that most people would see as desirable, but we must think about the scale of capital that our growing companies need. I am concerned about how quickly some of those changes will take place. Having been in intense dialogue with the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority when I was in the Treasury, I know that these things do not happen quickly enough. I urge the Minister—though I know he does not need much urging—to be robust in ensuring accountability on the delivery of some of these things.
To advance our understanding of the shift away from equities and towards bonds, let me note that in 1997, UK pension funds held 73% of their portfolios in equities and 15% in bonds. Those figures now stand at 34% and 43% respectively. I have talked about the particular aversion to UK equities, with UK pension funds investing 4.4% of their funds in domestic equities, compared with an international average of 10.1%. However, at the same time, the UK provides pension tax advantages worth more than £48 billion. That is £48 billion of taxpayers’ money that is essentially there to enrich our contributions and lay down a marker for the future. At the moment, though, there is no expectation that any of that is invested in the UK—this relates to mandation, which I will discuss now.
Around half of DC funds are in global allocations. My concern is that outflows from UK equities will continue as that global allocation continues and relative growth is seen in other markets, such as the US. As other economies grow, the UK part of the pie will automatically shrink, which means less money going into UK firms from these sorts of investment funds. As that passive fund practice becomes more prevalent, businesses such as the ones in Northern Ireland mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) are simply off the radar. They do not receive any analysis, and mid-cap and small-cap firms lose out, with pools of capital never being available to them. As such, that 4% investment in equities is likely to continue to fall.
The big point I want to make is about what people think of their pension schemes. New Financial, a well-known and respected think-tank connected with the City, did a survey of 1,000 working adults in the UK with a pension. That survey graphically highlighted what a “low level” of understanding people have of their pensions and the
“disconnect between their expectations and the industry.”
It said:
“On average, people thought 41% of their pension was invested in UK companies or the UK stock market (out by a factor of five to 10 times)”,
and, staggeringly, that
“two-thirds of people said pensions should invest more in UK equities even if the returns might be lower than investing in other markets.”
There is clearly a gap in knowledge and understanding. I advocated against the Department for Education’s backstop; I did not make much progress when I was in Government, but I am glad that this Government have made progress on financial education in the Department for Education and that it has now become part of the curriculum. This is a key chapter that is needed in that textbook.
I am anxious that the answer should not be for the City and pension fund managers to say, “We know best, we have a fiduciary duty—don’t worry about it.” Auto-enrolment has helped provide them with enormous funds to invest, but the disconnect between public expectation and what they are doing with those funds must and should be addressed. The vast majority of consumers investing in DC schemes do not change from their default allocation, although they are of course able to do so. Those defaults require approval, so alongside a campaign to get people to understand what is happening with their pensions and where their money is being put, it is worth asking people to verify what proportion of their pension savings are being invested where. They have that discretion; if they do not exercise it, that investment will default to whatever the scheme is going to do, and the scheme will likely continue in a similar way.
The London Stock Exchange Group tells me that by 2030, overall investment in UK equities by DC pensions would increase by around £76 billion—potentially as much as £95 billion—if this option were used. That is not mandation; I think that would be overreach, but I am sympathetic to the disconnect that exists. We must find a way to open up a proper discussion and increase awareness of the gaps where money is currently not being invested. I recognise that the Government have maintained a reserve power to mandate, although I doubt they will ever use it. However, I believe that individuals should be more empowered to take decisions, and I think they would be more empowered as active members of a DC fund. At the moment, they are not exercising that right. Consumers do and must have a choice about how their pensions are invested, and proposals to amend how default funds are allocated do not, and should not, prevent people from choosing exactly how they want to invest their pension pots.
There are so many opportunities in this country, such as in life sciences—my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) has a great understanding of that sector. When we are looking for that scale-up capital, the lack of funds in the UK to provide options for series B and sometimes series C funding is manifest. I just feel that we are missing an opportunity. I will understand if we do not go for mandation—I am sympathetic to that decision—but we should do something in between.
I know we are on the eve of the Budget, and as the Minister said to me as we entered the Chamber, there is little opportunity for him to adjust anything. I do not know what changes will be made tomorrow to pensions. There is obviously a lot of speculation about a reduction in ISAs, but let us get that in perspective as well. Only about 7% of those who have ISAs use the £20,000 limit. I do not believe that if there is any sort of mandation of the use of equities, people will go out and invest in them overnight, because the vast majority of people who have an ISA are at a later stage of life, and their ISA is in cash, so they will not do that anyway.
Let us get it in perspective. Last year, around £750 billion was invested in ISAs: £461 billion in stocks; £289 billion in cash. Last year, the Pensions Policy Institute estimated that there is a total of £3 trillion in UK pension assets across annuities, DC funds and DB funds. That is where the pools of capital can be opened up for investment in the UK economy. We need a greater focus on the public markets, and a vibrant, active, engaged and informed investor base to change the way that we move forward.
I have a couple more points to make. It is salutary to reflect on what happened with Arm Holdings: a British success story founded and built in Cambridge. As we know, it is a producer of semiconductors and software originally listed in London. The company was taken private because it felt that the public markets in this country could not support it; there was not enough liquidity in the markets. Arm was subsequently re-listed in New York, and since being taken off the London Stock Exchange, its valuation has grown by £112 billion. Of that growth, only £825 million has gone to UK investors. Had it stayed listed in the UK, that number would have been £43 billion. That would have meant higher pension valuations for a lot of people in this country, and more revenue for the Treasury from capital gains. It exemplifies the problem that we have: the lack of active, open markets where investors take risk and adopt a profile similar to those seen in the US. The FCA is disempowered and discouraged from trying to offer consumer redress. Through better financial education, we could get people to engage with the significant obligation that they have to save for the future, to take decisions that are in the interests of the UK economy and to pump more money into UK companies.
In conclusion, I welcome many provisions in the Pension Schemes Bill. Poorly performing pensions need to be challenged. I welcome the consolidation and scale-up of the pots, which will take too long and should be encouraged to move forward swiftly. But I have an anxiety that in a legitimate effort to hold back from mandation, there is a gap in thinking about how we open up the public’s understanding and imagination regarding where they can invest. I urge the Minister to move forward with some tougher rules around how people verify the choices that they are making so that the powerful voices who run the pensions industry do not default to saying, “We know best; we have fiduciary duty, and we will do it better than you could dream of doing.” The evidence is that that is not what people want. A golden thread of careful and delicate interventions is needed so that we can transform public behaviour and outcomes for our pensions industry.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak. I intend to call the Lib Dem spokesman at 5.10 pm and three hon. Members wish to speak. They will have roughly six minutes each.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this debate.
In reality, equity investment from pensions is deteriorating because UK equities are not performing relative to their global counterparts. One of the reasons for that is that we have become over-regulated and over-taxed. When the big bang was launched 40 years ago, the City of London became the most important financial centre in the whole world. In the last 10 years, that has changed. That is why, at Bloomberg a couple of weeks ago, I announced the creation of four key working groups to look at a complete reset—a sort of big bang 2. We need to look again at the whole issue of regulation, and at the status of the FCA relative to the PRA and the Bank of England—that is working group No. 1. Working group No. 2 is on pensions and savings. We also need to consider big-picture issues: why, for example, are we giving tax relief on £300 billion of cash ISAs? How does that help the UK economy? Those are the big questions that we need to look at.
The third working group is on small and medium-sized enterprise growth capital. The right hon. Member for Salisbury asked why it is that on second, third and fourth-phase rounds of fundraising, companies are going elsewhere in the world. The truth is that our markets have become too difficult for raising that additional capital. The fourth working group that I have set up—and it will report in six to nine months’ time—is on taxation. We are over-taxed, and we enjoy the longest tax code in the world. At 24,000 pages, it is four times the combined works of “Harry Potter” and nothing like as much fun.
We need to look again at all those issues, and then we need to look at the performance of our pension funds. If we look at the performance of one of the biggest pension funds in the world, the local government pension schemes, which I have been very focused on, we will see that they are being overcharged substantially, by a factor of about five of what they should be paying, and they are underperforming. In the year to March ’25, the LGPS produced a great performance—not—of 3.3%, yet paid out over £2 billion in fees. Frankly, if the active funds cannot match the tracker, why not use a tracker? That is the challenge for the active industry.
One of the reasons that the LGPS is underperforming is because too much of them are invested in unlisted funds, and now invested in what I would call quite woke funds, but that is a whole different issue. People cannot get out of those unlisted funds, which are at 20% to 40%, and those funds cannot be properly valued. The fees are much higher and they are not performing as well. Those are the key reasons why the performance is deteriorating. The 10, 20 and 30-year track records of the local government pension schemes are all at over 7% in the long term, but in the short term, they are rapidly deteriorating because of wrong investment decisions and overpaying fees, and because we have a market in the UK that is over-regulated and over-taxed. All of those things reduce the incentive to invest.
For many people, it is complicated, but fundamentally, if the active fund managers overcharge and underperform, we should not be surprised if investors end up going elsewhere, and that might mean overseas. We need to change the way we look at things, deregulate sensibly and reduce unnecessary taxation in order to improve the quantity of pensions invested in UK-listed equities.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and to keep the Minister company on the Government side. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this debate and on a highly compelling speech and argument.
The question of whether we can create the right incentive framework for domestic pension funds to invest more in the UK is a strong one—not only in UK equities but across all asset classes, including gilts and infrastructure. It goes to the heart of the Government’s growth mission. It is imperative for strengthening our national economy and for unlocking the regional potential of our economies, including in my own constituency of Buckingham and Bletchley, which lies in the engine room of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.
Backing British businesses of all types and sizes across the UK with British capital is fundamental to jobs, greater levels of innovation and, in the long run, higher household incomes. However, it is also important for our economic sovereignty. As hon. Members have explained, if we are unwilling to invest in our own economy, we risk increasing our reliance on international capital, which may not necessarily prioritise the UK’s long-term national interest. I welcome the work that the Minister has advanced through the Pension Schemes Bill. It is a good Bill. Creating larger pension funds that are able to invest at scale will deliver stronger returns for millions of savers, including those in my constituency.
The scale of the challenge with regard to domestic pension investment in our economy is stark. The right hon. Member for Salisbury was clear in setting out the data from the new financial think-tank. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) explained the steady decline of domestic pension investment over the last two, three or four decades.
Data that I would cite for international comparisons lies in the Capital Markets Industry Taskforce, of which I know the London Stock Exchange Group is a leading member, and which I cited on Second Reading of the Pension Schemes Bill, but it is worth repeating now. Canadian pension funds are hugely overweight in their own domestic economy relative to their share of the global markets by about two and a half times. The figure for France is a factor of nine; Italy 10; Australia 27; and South Korea is an astonishing 30 times overweight. By contrast, in the United Kingdom we are underweight by about 40%. That was the data from about a year ago. This is not a marginal trend; it identifies a structural weakness in our global competitiveness, our industrial capability and our long-term national economic resilience.
As has been said, it is not just about our pension funds. Since the pandemic, UK households have accumulated greater levels of cash savings—depending on the financial institution, that is £600 billion, £700 billion and so on. It is positive that UK households have bigger cash buffers, but having excess cash not only potentially damages the ability to grow long-term wealth and secure financial security in the long run, but it deprives the many innovative scale-ups that we have in the UK from the investment that they need to grow, create jobs and deliver tax receipts for the Exchequer.
If we want a stronger, more secure economy, we have to mobilise all sources of domestic capital—that includes pension funds, retail savings and also our public institutions like the British Business Bank—to meet what I think are three principal goals. The first is to strengthen the integrity and vitality of UK public equity markets—I do have an interest, having worked for the London Stock Exchange Group before I entered Parliament—which was rightly cited as a priority in the Government’s financial services growth and competitiveness strategy earlier this year.
Listed companies are already employing 4 million people across the UK. When domestic capital supports the domestic economy, firms can raise further growth capital, which we saw to its benefit during the pandemic. It can also create further jobs. A vibrant public market can also attract, in turn, a wider pool of investors, domestic or international, and create a virtuous cycle of demand, valuation and innovation.
Secondly, I have already referred to national economic resilience. When domestic firms depend primarily on foreign investors, as we have seen in the case of Arm—I was at LSEG at the time—they are more likely to list overseas and more likely to relocate there. Their leadership teams shift supply chains and take their tax receipts and intellectual property with it. We need to mobilise our own domestic capital, which secures our long-term economic sovereignty.
Thirdly, lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it is about ensuring that our exciting innovators, of which there are many in my own constituency, are able to thrive and reach their full potential here. They all require patient capital, which was outlined in the industrial strategy. If Britain wants to lead in those industries, we must mobilise all our pension savings to give our unicorns the opportunity to compete globally. I will stop there because I am very aware of my six minutes.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing this debate. We are colleagues on the Treasury Committee, and I always find his contributions extremely thoughtful. He has the best interests of the country at heart, so I thank him for securing this debate.
We probably all agree that the UK investment system is broken, and not because of a lack of capital. There is £2.2 trillion-worth of capital locked up in UK pensions, and I think the consensus is that it is just not targeted well from the perspective of UK growth. We have already heard some figures cited: less than 5% of the funds are being allocated to UK assets, down from the highs of 50% in the ’90s, and that compares poorly with a lot of our international peers. Of course, there is not one way to fix this problem. Other hon. Members have highlighted other structural issues to do with regulation, culture, tax and demand for capital—people often speak to me about the need to get the pipeline of investable projects up in the UK—but mobilising these pools better through pensions reform is surely part of the solution.
UK pensions put too much into low-performing bonds and far too much into global passive indices. The effect is that funds such as the MSCI are putting more into Apple than they are into the entire UK market—I think 4.9% is allocated to Apple and 3.4% in the UK. That leads to a vicious circle, which other hon. Members have alluded to. Time and again, the UK’s best are sold to US big tech: we have heard references to Apple buying some of our best semiconductor and fintech firms, and another example is Google purchasing DeepMind. There are other factors here, including how the London stock exchange operates and the troubles with initial public offerings, which we have spoken about. However, it is worth thinking about how the role of passive indices amplifies that effect. I worry that with the advent of artificial intelligence-driven algorithms in the financial sector, it may be amplified further.
What we see is that the capital goes to the US tech giants, they buy the most innovative UK companies, that makes the UK market less attractive, and that means that UK pensions feel like they need to put more money into US companies—and the doom loop continues. I fear that unless we break the doom loop, we will see complete and utter dependence on a handful of US tech companies. All this happens while UK pension funds receive around £49 billion-worth of tax benefits, so the Government have every right to do something about this issue and act in the interests of our own country. More than that, as the right hon. Member for Salisbury noted, UK pension savers are demanding this. They expect more of their money to be put into British funds, even if it means declining returns.
I empathise with the reasons why the Government want to go down the route of reserve powers and mandation. There has been lots of talk of an industry backlash, but some funds I have spoken to say that they want much stronger guardrails in relation to any mandation. They worry about mandation being used as a substitute for the wider structural reforms that we have spoken about. They also worry about future—perhaps more interventionist—Governments, and they want a much stronger set of guardrails for mandation, if it is to come.
In place of mandation, there is a middle ground. The right hon. Member referred already to the enormous power of default settings, which we have seen with auto-enrolment. Behavioural science and behavioural economics tell us a lot more about how people actually respond; what works is not always rational self-interest and incentives. If we change the default options about UK equities and allow an opt-out, we will probably find that most people do not opt out. Research from New Financial states that a 25% allocation to the UK in these default funds could be worth up to £95 billion. That alone would be transformative, without the need for mandation.
At the moment, UK savers are losing out twice: not only because they are getting poorer returns over the long term, but because we are choking off investment in the areas where they choose to live and retire. We should keep both those things in mind.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on obtaining the debate, which has been quite enlightening; his liberal views on the way forward for pensions are very welcome. The Liberal Democrats are keen to see investment in our British economy, and we are particularly exercised about the need for investment in social rented housing, our high streets and climate change. From my own patch, I reflect on the conversations I have had with our high-tech cluster in Torbay, which often faces challenges in getting investment and getting the right vehicles to support it.
Reflecting on key areas for us, one can understand the principles behind mandation, but there is also the law of unintended consequences, and we have grave concerns about it. A power of mandation might be seen as a reserve power. I am sure, or at least I hope, that all Ministers in power at the moment are reasonable people, but who knows what might happen in the future? Giving the power of mandation to a future Government who may not be run by reasonable people is a significant risk. One only has to look at the other side of the Atlantic and see who now dwells in the Oval Office to realise that some curious decisions have been made there. For many of us on this side of the Atlantic, if the power of mandation was given to similar people here, that would cause us grave concern.
Kit Malthouse
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s views about mandation, as the Minister knows, but would he care to comment on its impact on the appetite for risk? We have learned from my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) that since the change in taxation, the general trend in pension funds has been for managers to de-risk and to go into passive funds. If they do so, no one can complain, they are not taking any risk, they do not have to outperform or underperform the market and they get what they want. If they can pass off yet more risk to the Government and effectively sit there and get paid to be told by the Government what to invest in, they will bite the Government’s hand off, will they not?
Steve Darling
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. One can go back to the significant crash of 2008. I suggest, and I am sure many people would agree, that that has left a scarring on the system and a fear of risk. For many of us who know about the system, risk is a good thing, because it can result in growth. If we do not embrace risk, we will not embrace growth. One minimises growth by failing to go for those risks. I agree that mandation potentially allows people to shy away from risk.
As Liberal Democrats, we are really keen to make sure that there are vehicles for investment, whether in social rented housing, in cleaner energy, in our high streets or in our high-tech industries. However, such vehicles should be designed so that people become aware of them and can make a choice themselves, rather than being dictated to by the state.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this important debate. Given his experience as a Treasury Minister for many years, it has been a pleasure to hear his thoughts on this issue.
My right hon. Friend could not have chosen a better time for this debate, given tomorrow’s Budget. Let us hope that private pension holders are not penalised in comparison with public sector pension holders. Amid all the drama of the Budget, let us not forget that the Pension Schemes Bill comes back on Report next week. Having sat on that Bill Committee, I concur with my right hon. Friend’s point about the need for pension education. That came up many times during the debate, as did the vast majority of what he spoke about. It is really important to expand people’s imagination about where they can invest. It is not just about educating young people; it is about educating people in their 30s, 40s and 50s about where they can invest their money, particularly given what we are likely to hear in the Budget tomorrow. I would potentially be interested in having a conversation about where I can invest my money. Anyway, I do not have that much, so let us crack on with the debate.
Having listened to the speeches this afternoon and during our consideration of the Pension Schemes Bill, I know that there is an obvious consensus across the House on this issue. For one reason or another, pension schemes do not feel confident to invest directly into the UK equity market. The facts do not lie. Over the past 10 years, the proportion of private sector defined contribution assets being invested in the UK equity market has fallen from around 30% to 6%. In 2006, around 32% of defined benefit assets were invested in UK equities; by 2023, that had fallen below 2% in favour of UK gilts. As the Financial Times reported, even the Financial Conduct Authority’s own pension scheme invests only around 4% in UK equities.
These statistics are all the more stark when one considers that, from 2012, total global investment in equities from UK private sector workplace DC schemes has increased from 70% to 76%. It is not that pension schemes do not want to invest in equities, but something has changed that has made the UK equity market less attractive than others, and we need to figure out what has happened. I know that everyone in this Chamber agrees on that; indeed, we have heard some solutions during the debate.
The pensions investment review was a welcome first step in looking at this, and we are glad that many of the recommendations are now in the Pension Schemes Bill. I want to be clear that we support the spirit of the Mansion House accord, which expands on the Mansion House compact that the right hon. Member for Salisbury helped to introduce in 2023. It seeks to persuade those in charge of DC schemes to invest in UK equities, and we think that is reasonable.
However, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that we still do not support the reserve mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill. While we are behind the spirit of the measure, we cannot support something that goes against trustees’ fiduciary duties. As the Minister has said many times, better returns for members are what is most important, and we agree wholeheartedly with that. However, does forcing pension funds to invest in what the Government wants them to invest in yield the best returns for members? The answer is probably not. It is no wonder that the industry is so heavily opposed to these powers, and that we are yet to hear a convincing argument for their implementation. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide a more convincing one.
It seems counterintuitive for the Government to secure the commitment that they did in the Mansion House accord, and only months later bring in this measure. What makes it more confusing is that the Minister said in a recent interview on the “Making Money” podcast,
“I don’t think I’m going to need to use that power…because I see the industry changing.”
What is the point, if industry is changing in the way the Government want? Would it not be better to work with industry and give it a chance to reach the target, instead of holding the sword of Damocles over its head?
Instead, we need to engage with the industry and acquire a better understanding of the barriers it faces. For example, has legislation created an unattractive environment? Have we been too willing to legislate following the Maxwell scandal? Have the UK’s regulators gone too far and over-interpreted legislation? Are they getting rid of reasonable risk in the market in the pursuit of perfection? What has changed in the market that has contributed to that decline? Do the unbundling rules in the markets in financial instruments directive mean that the UK has not got the necessary equity research or data capabilities to attract investment? These are the kinds of questions that need answering before we give the Government such sweeping powers. A doctor would not operate on a patient if they had not properly diagnosed their symptoms—that would be considered malpractice—so why are we trying to solve an important problem without really knowing what is causing it in the first place?
For those reasons, the Conservatives will be tabling an amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill to ask just that question. Our amendment will simply ask the Government to include in their report an analysis of the barriers that pension funds are facing from legislation, regulation and market behaviour. We think that it is essential to obtain, understand and resolve this information before even considering the introduction of mandation powers. We hope the Minister agrees and will see our proposal in the constructive manner in which it is intended. I would welcome his thoughts on it.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, there is much agreement on this wider issue and on the need to create an environment that will incentivise investment into the UK. I know the Minister understands that, and we want to work with him to improve the attractiveness of the UK’s equity market and reinvigorate pension funds’ appetite to invest in it. If we get this right, we could really make a difference. Now is the time to do the hard graft, to work together while this Government last and to make the UK the place to invest in again.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We have caught up a lot of time. I ask the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the Member in charge to wind up.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I will indeed leave several minutes for the winding-up speech. Like everyone else, I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this debate, particularly on the Budget eve; it is very kind of him to make my diary relaxed. It is a topic on which he has thought deeply and that we have discussed many times. As ever, I welcome his constructive and practical approach, which befits someone who confirmed to me earlier that he holds the title of longest-serving Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Luckily, he was not on performance-related pay, given the growth of the economy during that time.
Torsten Bell
He may not have been paid at all. His focus at the beginning of his remarks on growth and one of its key enablers, investment, was right. If we stepped back and forced ourselves to ask, “What is the one thing the British economy needs more of?”, it would be public and private investment. As several hon. Members have said, the UK has the second largest pension scheme in the world, worth £2 trillion. It is our largest source of domestic capital, underpinning not just the retirement we all—or at least most of us—look forward to, but the investment on which our future prosperity depends.
That is why this Government launched and concluded a review of pensions investment within a year of taking office. Those reforms are now being taken forward through the Pension Schemes Bill, as the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) pointed out. First and foremost, the Bill includes measures to deliver bigger and better pension schemes in the DC market. It requires multi-employer defined contribution pension providers to hold at least £25 billion in assets by 2030 or to be on track to do so by 2035.
That requirement will drive scale and sophistication in workplace DC schemes so that they are better positioned to invest in a fuller range of asset classes, including specialist private markets such as venture capital, which we have not heard much about today but which are key. The biggest gap in UK capital markets is growth finance: the gap that holds back our science and tech start-ups, scale ups and pre-initial public offering companies. That does not take away from the challenges we are raising about public markets, but if we look at our capital markets as a whole, that is our biggest gap.
Pensions can be a key source of funding for those economically critical investments and sectors, which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) set out, as he has done many times in the discussions on the Pension Schemes Bill. This is not just theoretical; it is actually starting to happen. Legal & General is investing in post-quantum cryptography and Nest is investing in energy generation. Last week, the Chancellor and I met with Aegon UK, NatWest Cushion and M&G, which have all confirmed that they will invest £200 million in the British Growth Partnership, a fund managed by the British Business Bank investing in cutting edge British businesses and building on British strengths in areas such as clean energy, advanced manufacturing and the medical technology that other Members have talked about in the past.
As we have heard, Members are well aware of the Mansion House accord, a voluntary commitment by 17 major DC funds to invest 10% of their main default funds in private assets by 2030, including 5% in UK private assets. That will boost investment across a range of asset classes, including growth market equities, which we have not touched on much today. That is welcome news driven by a focus on giving savers better returns and showing how pension funds can contribute directly to making Britain the best place to start up, scale up and ultimately list companies. I should emphasise that we should think about our capital markets as a ladder up which firms can climb. Our job is to make that climb easier, not just to focus on the ultimate destination.
Several Members raised the question of transparency. The Pension Schemes Bill includes a new framework under which DC funds will need to disclose their investments in more granular detail, including UK-overseas and asset class split. We will be able to see in more detail what individual schemes are doing. We are doing that so that we can measure their value for money. For the first time, we will be able to see where those funds are invested.
Finally, as Members know, the Bill includes a reserve power, which has been discussed today, to ensure that the change that the pension schemes themselves say is needed in the interest of members happens. I will repeat what I said on the “Making Money” podcast—it is very exciting that the hon. Member for South West Devon had time to tune in. I am confident that this power will not need to be used, given the progress the industry is already making. It is designed as a proportionate backstop to the commitments that the industry has already made, with strong safeguards to protect the interests of pension savers.
On mandation, I note—as gently as possible, given the excellent tone of this discussion—that I have spent much of the last six months hearing strong opposition to any mandation backstop while hearing, often from the very same people, language that does not directly contradict that, but gets close to calling for mandation, whether it is social housing, public equities or anything else. I just gently note that tension before as gently moving on to set out some of the wider steps that the Government are taking to support our capital markets, because they go far beyond pensions. It is important to note that although UK equity markets have faced some challenges in recent years, London’s markets remain some of the deepest and most liquid in the world. We want to build on those strong foundations and make the UK as attractive a destination as possible for companies to start, scale and stay. There is a danger here: we need to make sure we are having this discussion about the change we need to see, while also celebrating many of the real strengths that exist in London’s capital markets.
Richard Tice
Is the Minister aware that the quantity of listings on the London stock market has collapsed by about 80% in the last decade, and that the number of companies listed on AIM—the alternative investment market, which was the original growth market 40 years ago—has fallen to a 25-year low, so something fundamental is going wrong with our listed markets?
Torsten Bell
I am. I will just gently say that many people, when discussing the reasons for that, point to a policy of Brexit delivered without any ideas about how it should be delivered in a smaller, home market and without any plans for the future. I would probably pause on that before I started offering anyone views on anything at all.
My Treasury colleagues have already delivered an ambitious programme of reforms: modernising UK listing rules; establishing the private intermittent securities and capital exchange system—PISCES—to support private companies to scale and grow as a stepping-stone to public markets; and making it easier to raise capital and IPO in the UK with new prospectus rules from January of next year. To come directly and more fairly to the question that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) raised, I think it is important to celebrate the fact that we have seen some of that translate into positive momentum recently. Hon. Members will know that the stock exchange has had a very strong year, outperforming most of the rest of the world. We saw listings from Fermi America and Shawbrook last month, and there are other exciting companies in the pipeline. I now regularly see my hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in confetti-filled photographs from the stock exchange, and I look forward to seeing many more in the years to come. I encourage hon. Members to go and engage in similar activities.
Our capital markets are not just about celebration and ceremony; they are critical in connecting retail investors’ capital with businesses in the way that several hon. Members mentioned. Investing offers a powerful way for people to make their money work harder and share in growth. That is why the Government are bringing forward measures to get Britain investing again.
The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) raised a point, which I have heard him discuss before, about risk appetite and the incentives that people have. I would say that if we look at the evidence from the last 25 years, we see that it is not the strength of the incentive that is the issue. Many people holding cash ISAs would have made very significant returns if they had held that in equities instead. I will give an example. If someone, each year since the introduction of ISAs, had put £1,000 into an equity ISA rather than a cash ISA, they would be £50,000 better off. The issue is not purely about incentives, and I think focusing there would miss some of the wider changes we have been seeing, but I am always eager to hear about what more can be done.
What we are doing is working closely with the FCA and rolling out a scheme of targeted support ahead of ISA season next year. That will represent the biggest reform of the financial advice and guidance landscape—mentioned by the hon. Member for South West Devon—in more than a generation. It will revolutionise the support that consumers can receive to invest.
Kit Malthouse
I get the example that the Minister talks about, but I think he misunderstands or perhaps misappreciates how the retail investor thinks. They do not necessarily think, “If I put £1,000 in now, in 20 years’ time it will be worth this.” They think, “If I put £1,000 in now, what is my return going to be next year? What is my running return going to be?” And it will be a percentage return on the dividend. That is why we have a P/E—price-to-earnings—ratio for every share; that is what investors look at. If that is impaired because of taxation and the return is reduced, as it has been over the last few years, they will be less inclined to invest. That, fundamentally, is the pattern that we have seen. The Minister never says this, but in the end, people invest in listed stocks and shares, whether through their pension or otherwise, to make money. They are not doing it for the good of anybody else. They are doing it to make money, and if they are going to make less money, or the perception is that they will make less money, because of Government taxation, they will do less of it. Would he not agree?
Torsten Bell
I am not sure that I fully understood, so I am not going to commit to agreeing. Remember that the capital gains on shares in equity ISAs—investment ISAs—receive tax relief in their entirety, so the tax is not the problem in terms of people’s rates of return; the returns would have been very real indeed over, for example, that 25-year period. However, my basic argument is that we need better advice, and that our targeted changes will make it possible for financial firms to offer that.
We are also supporting an industry initiative to rebalance risk warnings to ensure that firms are offering consumers information about investing, not trying to scare them off with over-the-top warnings. Together, these measures will support savers in securing stronger returns over the long term because, as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire just said, this is about making money for savers—whether in pension savings or elsewhere—putting money into people’s pockets and further strengthening our world-leading capital markets.
I will make one more substantive point and then conclude. This is not just about capital. In the end, the growth agenda, and needing the investment to make it happen, is about actual investment not just financial flows. Financial flows are an enabler of the investment that ultimately matters to the size of the capital stock, the quality of the infrastructure, the quality of the firms, and the amount of capital that workers have to work with. That is, in the end, what matters, and it means firms wanting to grow, which is why I focused slightly more in my remarks on the whole chain of firms’ access to capital.
This is also about being able to get out and actually get things built. I gently remind Members, when I hear them opposing anything getting built, anywhere, by anyone, at any time—I definitely hear the Lib Dem Front Bench opposing—[Interruption.] I am not talking about the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), but the Lib Dems have never seen a house that they wanted to be built. That is my lived experience of sitting in the Chamber day after day. We need to actually get things built, and as I said, I agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) on the pipeline of investment. That is ultimately what we need if we want growth to happen; it cannot just be about changing the flows of existing assets.
I once again thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury for securing today’s debate. A strong pensions industry and thriving capital markets are cornerstones of our capitalism, as I think everybody in this Chamber agrees. We are introducing significant reforms of both the capital markets and the pensions industry, and I am grateful to have had the chance to discuss them this afternoon.
John Glen
I thank the Minister for his response. I think there has been a lot of common ground across the Chamber this afternoon, but in some areas we have not quite bottomed out what the Government’s view is about empowered pension fundholders electing to discern what amount of their pension should be invested in UK equities. We have to continue that conversation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for clearly setting out our party’s position on the Pension Schemes Bill; I agreed with her very much.
I acknowledge the contributions of the hon. Members for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) and for Torbay (Steve Darling), my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), and my friend the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). I respectfully say to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness that when I was a Minister and I did the capital markets review, the Jonathan Hill review and the Mark Austin review, I did not just passively sit there; I went to the City, listened to people like him who were practitioners in the City in different funds, and worked with my officials to deliver what the City wanted, to optimise the pathway that we were in.
That goes down to having deep conversations about which regulations need to be moderated and which need to be withdrawn, such that the Hill review—and this Government have enacted everything that came from it—still leaves me with a sense of frustration, because there was nothing that I would not do that I was asked to do in the interests of London. To believe that somehow we set up four working groups and have a big bang like 1986 or something, and that it will all be straightforward, I think is mistaken. It is a complicated ecosystem, and we will need to look at the risk profile. I probably agree with the hon. Gentleman that there needs to be a greater appetite for risk. We have to reset that risk appetite, because we have had a dozen years since the reset after the global financial crisis, and we need to look at it again. I do think the PRA needs to be challenged, as I think it will be next week by the Financial Policy Committee, on some of the issues around what level of capital it is prepared for banks to have, which is a good place to start.
I am very encouraged by the constructive nature of the conversation this afternoon. I hope that the Minister will reflect a little more on the need to empower pension holders to take decisions in the interest of investing more in UK equities.
Business and Trade
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris McDonald
In Cornwall, we have Europe’s largest deposits of lithium, and in Devon, the world’s largest deposits of tungsten. The UK has the only Western source of rare earth alloys for F-35 fighter jets.
[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 48.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald):
Chris McDonald
In Cornwall, we have Europe’s largest deposits of lithium, and in Devon, the world’s second largest deposits of tungsten. The UK has the only Western source of rare earth alloys for F-35 fighter jets.
UK-India Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement: Agricultural Products Report
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The UK officially signed its landmark comprehensive economic and trade agreement with India on 24 July 2025, marking the start of a strengthened trading relationship between the two economies. The UK-India trade deal will make trade quicker, cheaper and easier for UK businesses, increasing UK GDP by £4.8 billion and ultimately boosting bilaterial trade with India by £25.5 billion every year in the long run. The deal enables UK businesses to expand into one of the fastest growing markets in the world, delivering the growth mission across the UK and showing the UK’s global commitment to free, fair and open trade.
In order to trigger the ratification of the UK-India trade deal through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the Government have a statutory duty to lay a report before Parliament under section 42 of the Agriculture Act 2020. Today, I am proud to lay this report before the House.
The Secretary of State has sought advice from independent bodies including the Trade and Agriculture Commission, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, and has responded to this advice in the report. Their independent advice concurs with the Government’s assessment that the FTA does not affect the UK’s ability to maintain its statutory protections in relation to human, animal or plant life or health, animal welfare or the environment. The Government will endeavour to bring this landmark agreement into force as soon as possible, while providing for full parliamentary scrutiny.
[HCWS1094]
NHS Investment: Neighbourhood Health Centres and Digital
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
At the Budget on Wednesday, the Chancellor will set out how the Government will take the fair choices to deliver on the country’s priorities to cut NHS waiting times, cut debt and cut the cost of living. The Chancellor is rightly boosting investment in the NHS after we inherited a health service on its knees—with Lord Darzi’s investigation uncovering a £40 billion black hole.
As part of this investment, I am confirming the delivery of hundreds of new neighbourhood health centres that will deliver healthcare direct to people’s doorsteps across the country. The 250 new health one-stop shops will bring the right local combination from GPs, nurses and pharmacists together under one roof to best meet the needs of the community.
Neighbourhood health centres fundamentally reimagine how the NHS works—bringing care closer to home and making sure the NHS is organised around patients’ needs, not the other way round.
The new neighbourhood health service will move more care out of hospitals, and these centres will provide space for clinics in communities across the country—bringing an end to the postcode lottery of access to healthcare.
The services will initially focus on improving access to general practice and supporting people with complex needs and long-term conditions—like diabetes and heart failure—in the areas of the highest deprivation. As the programme grows, it will expand to support other patients and priority cohorts.
The first 120 are due to be completed by 2030, 50 through the repurposing of existing estate and 70 new builds delivered through public-private partnerships, with a smaller proportion through public capital.
Our new NHS neighbourhood rebuild programme will give the health service the investment it needs, repurposing and building a new generation of neighbourhood health centres across the country. It will go hand in hand with reform and efficiency—ensuring proper value for money for taxpayers.
This will include improved incentives to make sure these NHS facilities are delivered on time and on budget—so patients across England get faster treatment in new and convenient buildings. By delivering through a combination of private and public investment the Government will be able to build further evidence and compare different models of delivery while updated accounting treatment will ensure these are recognised up front in public accounts, a fundamentally different approach to previous approaches, such as when PFI was used in the 2000s.
To further support the drive to reduce waiting lists there will be £300 million of additional capital investment in NHS technology to boost productivity, support staff and improve patient outcomes, driving the shift from analogue to digital. This builds on up to £10 billion announced at the spending review, and will ensure seamless navigation and communication between primary and secondary care through the NHS app. By guiding patients to self-care, primary care and urgent care through a single user-facing service, their information will be made readily available across all providers. This funding will also close the gap in patient access to digital health records, so patients can make informed choices about their care.
[HCWS1095]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: 1 June 2025 to 31 August 2025
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 requires the Home Secretary to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of their TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force—as of 31 August 2025 2 Number of new TPIM notices served—during this period 0 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens—as of 31 August 2025 2 TPIM notices extended—during the reporting period 1 TPIM notices revoked—during the reporting period 0 TPIM notices expired—during reporting period 0 TPIM notices revived—during the reporting period 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices—during the reporting period 2 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused—during the reporting period 3 The number of subjects relocated under TPIM legislation —during the reporting period 1
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. TRG meetings were convened on 11 and 14 August 2025.
[HCWS1096]
Overnight Visitor Levy
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
The Government’s mission is clear: we must do all we can to unlock economic growth. For too long, England has been one of the most centralised countries in the developed world. That means that decisions made in Whitehall—far away from the reality of places and communities across the country—have too often failed to reflect the needs of local people. Mayors and other local leaders are best placed to identify and invest in the projects and infrastructure that drive growth and make a place attractive for visitors and residents. Mayors and other local leaders know their local history, local culture and the unique attributes of their places that draw visitors in. But they need powers and funding to enable them to harness England’s potential and unlock growth through investment.
English mayors have come together to ask for an overnight stay levy through the “right to request”. Together they made the case to the Government for the power to raise a new local revenue stream to realise growth-boosting projects that improve the experience for everyone, from hosting mega-events in Liverpool like Euro 2028 to revolutionising bus services in York and North Yorkshire to connect the coast with the moors and the historic towns and cities; from accelerating the redevelopment of Oxford Street in London for world-leading shopping and cultural experiences in the heart of the capital to delivering the Commonwealth games cultural legacy in the west midlands. These are the projects that both make communities, and world-leading visitor destinations. As mayors consider these investments in the months ahead, they will engage with communities and local businesses on what is right for their local economies.
Today I am meeting the mayors’ request and announcing the next big step on our path to devolution. Mayors in England will be given the power to raise revenue locally through a new overnight visitor levy, and we are consulting on whether to also grant this power to leaders of foundation strategic authorities. This is a groundbreaking step for the future of devolution, with transformative investment potential for England’s tourism sector and the wider economy.
With this new power, local leaders will be empowered to deliver more long-term, locally led investment in transport, regeneration and cultural assets that can unlock growth and improve the public realm for residents, businesses and visitors. Making places more attractive to visit and to live and work in will attract further investment and improve the visitor experience. I am therefore proposing that constituent authorities within strategic authorities that implement a levy should be eligible for a share of revenue raised, for growth-related spending.
Around the world, countries that have embraced fiscal devolution enjoy far greater local investment, and that investment is in the things that matter most to their communities. They can move faster to seize local opportunities without burdensome central Government oversight, and they can tailor policy and projects to match local economies. That is why we are embarking on this new era of fiscal devolution in England, giving local leaders the power to raise and invest money into projects that raise living standards in their local areas, and improve the experience for tourists.
Mayors have already proven what is possible when they are given the tools to deliver. Using a business rates supplement, the Mayor of London delivered the Elizabeth line, connecting communities right across London, and tourists from Heathrow airport to the heart of the west end. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has used his mayoral precept on council tax to provide far improved bus services, including free travel for 16 to 18-year-olds through the “Our Pass” scheme. It is outcomes like these that drive my commitment to devolution, and why my department has already taken such significant steps to strengthen it, including through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill currently in Parliament. This goes alongside our commitment in the fair funding review 2.0 to improve the business rates retention system to more consistently support mayors in driving growth, as well as existing arrangements for retained business rates in mayoral areas.
Giving local leaders in England the power to introduce a visitor levy in their area will bring them up to speed with their international counterparts in New York, Milan, Paris and Prague as well as in Wales and Scotland. But a visitor levy on overnight stays will not necessarily be the right lever everywhere. This is about providing mayors with another fiscal tool in their toolbox for growth.
Tourism is vital to our economy, and tourism should share in the growth benefits delivered by investment funded by this levy. England is one of the world’s leading tourist destinations, attracting over 130 million visitors each year. Investment in the places that people visit will help to build on England’s reputation as a world-leading destination. I recognise that businesses, and potential visitors, may have concerns about the effects of a new levy, and I take these concerns seriously. I expect mayors to engage constructively with businesses and their communities to hear these concerns throughout the consultation period and beyond. Local leaders will also run a formal local consultation before making use of the new power.
Tomorrow, my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and I will publish a consultation with the detail of the proposed levy, and I urge all those interested to respond to it, to make this a power that works for strategic and local authorities, businesses, local communities and visitors alike.
[HCWS1097]
Airports National Policy Statement: Heathrow
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Further to my oral statement to the House on 22 October, I am writing to update the House on the Government’s decision to identify the scheme promoted by Heathrow Airport Ltd as the scheme to take forward in informing the ongoing review of the airports national policy statement over the coming months. Any resulting proposed amendment to the ANPS, along with any other proposed amendments, will be subject to public consultation.
This decision marks an important milestone, one that reaffirms the UK’s commitment to maintaining its position as a world leader in aviation, innovation and economic growth. Heathrow is our only hub airport, which supports trade, tourism and hundreds of thousands of jobs, and underpins prosperity across both the south-east and regions of the United Kingdom. If Britain is to remain competitive in the decades ahead, we must ensure that our airport capacity matches our ambition as a modern, outward-looking and confident nation.
The Government’s position is clear: expansion at Heathrow must be cost-effective, minimising the burden on passengers and coming at no cost to the taxpayer. The project will be privately financed, including the core scheme and any associated surface access improvements.
Crucially, expansion must be delivered in a way that aligns with our legal obligations on air quality, environmental protection, noise and climate change.
We recognise that expansion brings both opportunity and responsibility. My Department will therefore continue to work closely with the Civil Aviation Authority, local authorities, community representatives and the wider aviation sector to ensure any scheme is delivered transparently, responsibly and in partnership with those it affects.
Assessment of proposals
Following my update last month to confirm that two proposed schemes remained under active consideration, my Department has now undertaken a further assessment of those two proposed schemes—Heathrow Airport Ltd and Arora Group-Heathrow West Ltd. I would like to thank both promoters of the proposed schemes for providing this additional information, and for their constructive engagement with my Department.
Following a comparative assessment of the remaining proposals for Heathrow expansion, the Government’s view is that the north-west runway scheme brought forward by Heathrow Airport Ltd offers the most credible and deliverable option, principally due to the relative maturity of its proposal, the comparative level of confidence in the feasibility and resilience of its surface access plans, and the stronger comfort it provides in relation to the efficient, resilient and sustainable operations of the airport over the long-term.
The HAL scheme is considered comparatively more mature in its approach to road infrastructure. While the HAL scheme requires major works to the M25, assessment indicates that the HWL scheme would also have a considerable impact on the M25.
We know we must provide as much clarity and certainty for communities affected by expansion at Heathrow, as soon as possible. While HAL’s scheme requires more land, it would require the acquisition of fewer residential properties around the airport than HWL’s scheme.
The runway length proposed by HAL—up to 3.5 km —is considered to be advantageous in terms of providing greater resilience and potential futureproofing for next-generation aircraft when compared with the 2.8 km runway proposed by HWL.
The Government therefore consider that overall, the HAL scheme provides the greatest likelihood of meeting our ambition for a decision on development consent application within this Parliament. This scheme will now inform the ongoing ANPS review. Any scheme identified in an amended ANPS will still need detailed consideration—including matters such as runway length, layout and supporting infrastructure—in any development consent order sought under planning legislation.
Airports National Policy Statement Review
The airports national policy statement provides the policy framework for the Government’s approach to securing additional airport capacity in the south-east of England.
I announced on 22 October that it would be reviewed, particularly to consider updated aviation forecasts and how any changes in policy and legislation—in particular relating to climate and the environment—since its designation in 2018 may need to be reflected, as well as how the Government’s four tests will be applied to expansion. We have begun detailed analytical and policy work to this effect.
Further to this, today I am publishing the Government’s stakeholder engagement approach. This represents an important step in ensuring that the development and review of the ANPS is conducted in a manner that is transparent, inclusive, and informed by a comprehensive range of stakeholder views.
I have always been clear that any proposals for airport expansion must meet the Government’s four tests, including those relating to climate commitments. I am confirming that I have today written to the Climate Change Committee setting out how I intend to engage with it, so that its views can be fully considered as this process progresses.
Regulatory work
As I said in October, rigorous and effective cost control will be essential to the scheme’s success both in minimising any impact on airline charges and costs to passengers and in maintaining credibility with financial markets.
The Civil Aviation Authority is continuing its work to develop the regulatory framework that will support delivery of expansion at Heathrow. It will shortly set out further detail on its approach to early cost recovery by promoters and is today publishing a paper setting out potential future regulatory options for an expanded Heathrow. The Government welcome this work and will continue to co-ordinate closely with the regulator to ensure that any new regulatory framework supports the timely and efficient financing of expansion and, in line with the CAA’s statutory duties, that passengers’ interests are protected and the best possible value is delivered.
This ongoing collaboration between Government and the CAA will continue to align regulatory and policy frameworks as the ANPS review progresses. The Department has a clear interest in ensuring the best possible value and service for passengers and will continue to review the CAA’s independent assessment of regulatory options to achieve this.
Broader programme progress
As we set out in October, the Government have acted in a range of areas that will enable expansion at Heathrow, including through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, our work on judicial reviews, and the initiation of slot reform. Since October, we have continued to make progress on policies that enable the delivery of an operational third runway at Heathrow.
On airspace modernisation, the Department is today launching a consultation on a package of changes to help streamline airspace design while retaining the important principles of a transparent, evidence-based airspace change process.
Alongside this, we continue to make progress on work to decarbonise aviation, including increasing the uptake of sustainable aviation fuel, and innovation in aviation technology.
This is a historic opportunity for the UK aviation sector and wider economy. The Government are committed to ensuring expansion is delivered in a timely, cost-efficient, and environmentally responsible way, and we will consult on any amendments to the ANPS by July 2026.
[HCWS1093]
Carer's Allowance Overpayments Review
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The Government have today published the report from the independent review into overpayments of carer’s allowance linked to earnings and the Government’s response to its recommendations. These are available on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.
Finding out what went wrong with carer’s allowance
The Government inherited a system where some busy carers, already struggling under a huge weight of caring responsibilities, have found themselves with unexpected debts due to overpayments of carer’s allowance. This only affected some of the relatively small number of carer’s allowance claimants who also do paid work, but the impact on some of these unpaid carers has been significant.
Liz Sayce OBE was asked to lead an independent review into the matter. The review’s report has been invaluable in helping us assess how these overpayments have arisen; what we can do to support unpaid carers who have incurred debts in the past; and how we can minimise further overpayments in future.
For those who receive carer’s allowance, 92% say they have a positive experience, and most find the rules easy to understand. However, the review has shown that some mistakes were made, and we are determined to put them right. We welcome the report and are accepting or partially accepting 38 of the 40 recommendations. In some cases, we have already made the changes the report is asking for. Others will take more time to put in place.
The review finds that some carers could not have known that they were building up overpayments because it was not clear how their earnings would affect their entitlement, and this lack of clarity was due to issues with operational guidance. The Government accept this and we will act to put it right.
Averaging earnings and putting things right
The earnings limit in carer’s allowance is a weekly one, but in some cases, earnings can be averaged over a number of weeks. The review found issues with departmental guidance. And we accept that, between 2015 and summer 2025, the guidance on whether and how to average earnings did not accurately reflect the statutory position.
The Department will, therefore, be reassessing carer’s allowance cases with an earnings-related overpayment in England and Wales between 2015 and summer 2025 where the treatment of fluctuating earnings may have given rise to an incorrect overpayment. If that was the case, the Department will reduce the outstanding overpayment accordingly, and pay back any debts it should not have pursued in the first place. We will set out plans in the new year.
The independent review went beyond averaging earnings though and made recommendations in a number of other areas which we are accepting—for example, rebuilding trust with carers; improving communications and processes; and appointing a senior responsible owner, who will be responsible for taking forward the agreed recommendations and reporting on progress.
Modernising for the future
Carer’s allowance was introduced in 1976 and—unlike universal credit, which is the other main benefit to support unpaid carers—it has not kept up with changes in how people work or modern patterns of unpaid care. Many carers now want the flexibility to combine more paid work with their caring responsibilities.
The Government acknowledge this and have taken action to:
Increase the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit to match 16 hours work at national living wage levels. This change from April this year resulted in the largest ever increase in the limit to £196 net earnings a week and the highest percentage increase since 2001. It means more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between 2025-26 and 2029-30;
put in extra resources to process the earnings information we receive from HMRC through the verify earnings and pensions system. This allows us to contact people if it looks like they may have exceeded the earnings limit, meaning we can take action to prevent overpayments from building up;
correct and improve our guidance so carers and our own staff are clearer about what the benefit rules are and what information needs to be provided; and
begin scoping work to explore potential solutions to reduce the impact of the cliff edge, and automating the handling of earnings where possible using data collected by HMRC.
[HCWS1092]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume 10 minutes afterwards.
Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak also to the Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations.
The stated purpose of these regulations is to bring Great Britain’s vehicle type approval regime into closer alignment with the European Union legislation—legislation which, of course, applies in Northern Ireland as a result of the protocol/Windsor Framework. That objective, I say in passing, inevitably raises serious and wider questions regarding implications of the Windsor Framework and the Government’s trajectory of regulatory convergence with the European Union, despite the UK having no role in shaping the rules with which it is expected to comply.
Ministers argue that such alignment is necessary to reduce friction within the United Kingdom’s internal market. However, the practical effect of these regulations is not to preserve that market but to formalise its division. They explicitly acknowledge and entrench the existence of two separate regulatory systems within our country—one applicable to Great Britain and another in Northern Ireland, which remains bound by the EU single market for goods. Indeed, paragraph 5.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the no. 2 regulations talks about the removal of barriers for vehicle manufacturers
“wishing to sell vehicles on both GB and EU/NI markets”.
Therefore, these regulations do not resolve the fundamental issue; they institutionalise it. They reinforce the reality of a United Kingdom operating under two distinct vehicle type approval regimes. This situation—that division of regulatory regimes—is causing real problems for car dealers and ordinary consumers and customers in Northern Ireland through additional costs, reduced availability of vehicles, and burdensome administrative complexity. It is a position that, in my view, is wholly unsustainable for the United Kingdom.
I put it to the Government that in reinforcing the division of the UK into two separate and distinct vehicle type approval schemes, they must realise that they are acting in contradiction of Section 46 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which says that Ministers must have special regard to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and to the need to
“facilitate the free flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
Whatever else these regulations do, they do nothing to meet those criteria and to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market. Until the Government address the underlying structural issue of dual regulatory regimes, businesses and consumers will continue to bear the costs of a flawed system.
I come to the real and practical problems that consumers and businesses now face in Northern Ireland as a result of the dual regulatory regime, even after these regulations come into force. In the first 10 months of this year alone, the car market in Northern Ireland is down by 6%, and in the rest of the United Kingdom it has increased by 5%. That represents a reduction in turnover of approximately £50 million. Matters are expected to deteriorate significantly as we approach next year, when full implementation of the GB type approval scheme is due to come into force.
We have seen some very stark consequences already. The best-selling car in Northern Ireland, the Vauxhall Corsa, cannot be sold in Northern Ireland as things stand; it can be sold in the rest of the United Kingdom, but it cannot be sold in Northern Ireland. Renault, Citroën, Peugeot, Fiat, Jeep, Alfa Romeo, Vauxhall, Nissan and Jaguar Land Rover are not dual-approved. BMW is making dual-approved cars, but they are still Great Britain-designated when leaving the factory. This industry in Northern Ireland supports 17,600 employees. If we keep on the present course, job losses will be an unavoidable reality, consumer choice will continue to be greatly restricted and the costs for consumers—including hard-working families in Northern Ireland—will rise sharply.
This is not theoretical; it is already happening. The National Franchised Dealers Association of Northern Ireland has given oral and written evidence to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Committee for the Economy on a number of occasions, most recently just last week. Its message, as it stated to Members of the Assembly—who, by the way, unanimously agreed across all parties that this was a serious and important issue that needed to be addressed—was one of profound frustration. It expressed exasperation at the degree to which the free flow of vehicles within the United Kingdom is being obstructed. It said in its evidence last week that there has been little meaningful progress in identifying a workable solution; that sentiment is shared in the Northern Ireland Assembly and by elected representatives in Northern Ireland.
The Government have given assurances, but action to remove the fundamental problem has been lacking. Businesses and customers cannot operate on the basis of promises that something may be done at some unspecified point in the future. Action is needed now or at the start of next year; otherwise, we are going to face immense problems. It is simply not logical or defensible that Northern Ireland should be excluded from the UK-wide car market, which accounts for 2 million units per year; the Northern Ireland market accounts for 45,000 units a year. We are old that this system exists to protect the EU single market, yet the reality, according to the evidence given to the Assembly, is that, in the first 10 months of this year, only six vehicles moved into the Irish Republic. That is the scale of the so-called risk.
This system is doing so much damage to consumers in Northern Ireland, whom it is designed to protect. It is destroying the UK internal market and, with it, reducing competitiveness, undermining consumer choice and placing livelihoods in jeopardy. Consumers will increasingly and inevitably turn to Great Britain, where there will be greater choice and lower prices, to purchase vehicles. Manufacturer incentives and deals that are available on the mainland are not, and will not be, accessible in Northern Ireland, exacerbating the trend. Why should citizens in Northern Ireland be disadvantaged in this way? Sales at Vauxhall, one of the leading manufacturers in terms of market share, are up by 16% in Britain and down by 59% in Northern Ireland. That is not market fluctuation; that is structural failure.
With all of this, I fear that Northern Ireland is becoming increasingly marginalised. Our consumers are viewed as less valuable and attractive and are increasingly inaccessible within the manufacturers’ supply strategies. Car dealers and franchises in Northern Ireland will no longer have access to the UK unsold stock pipeline, as vehicles will be produced primarily to GB standards. This will fundamentally change the ability of local dealers to source and supply vehicles competitively.
Market distortion is inevitable. Great Britain-based dealers will pre-register vehicles and actively market them into Northern Ireland, or consumers will simply travel to England, Scotland or Wales to access better value and wider choice. That is not a functioning internal market, which is the Government’s obligation to uphold under the internal market Act.
It will also become increasingly difficult for dealers to sell new electric vehicles, particularly as compliance requirements tighten. Dealers will be forced to stockpile EU-compliant vehicles to maintain availability, creating significant additional cost burdens. Meanwhile, consumers in Northern Ireland will be excluded from the very consumer offers targeted at clearing unsold pipeline stock across Great Britain.
The EU, and thus Northern Ireland, is due to adopt new emissions standards in the coming years in respect of plug-in hybrids, as well as applying the new general safety regulation phases 2 and 3. This will drive divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland new car markets even more. They will also increase benefits-in-kind taxation costs in Northern Ireland. These costs are based on different utility factor categorisations allocated by the EU to Northern Ireland and by the UK Government to Great Britain. This is expected to work out to some £4,000 extra for a Northern Ireland consumer of a new car compared to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The NFDA asked last week: why is it acceptable, under the Windsor Framework, for consumers in Northern Ireland to have less choice and yet pay higher taxes than the rest of the United Kingdom? The Government have spoken about future equalisation measures, and I have no doubt we will hear that again today. However, that provides little comfort for customers standing in showrooms today, or after the Christmas holidays and in the new year, or for dealers, who face the immediate prospect of the problems that these measures create.
The Government say that there is no technical impediment to manufacturers dealing with dual-type approval. They say that it is legal for them to do it, but permitting something and making it legal is very different from the actual practice of businesses, which of course want to operate within the law, but they operate on the basis of what makes sense commercially. Manufacturers are not taking guidance from government officials; they are, naturally and inevitably, pursuing separate type approvals wherever it gives them commercial advantage—that is what is happening. As I said, sometimes cars are made dual approved, but on leaving the factory, they are designated as either EU or GB type approval. The reason given by manufacturers for pursuing single-type approvals is that they are restructuring their internal engineering processes and systems on the assumption of progressive divergence between EU and GB standards over time. That is the commercial reality they are preparing for. Even those manufacturers who have opted for dual-type approval do so only as an interim measure, expecting future divergence and prepared to adapt their approvals accordingly. They will move away from EU standards if they believe there is a commercial benefit in doing so.
As I said, the Government will say that we need not worry about all this because we will converge with the EU and adopt its standards. However, that is not sufficient to meet the here and now; it is not sufficient to meet will happen in the next six months to a year. In reality—according to the evidence given to the Northern Ireland Assembly Committee for the Economy—we are not going to have 100% convergence in any case, so manufacturers will always say that they are going to build according to the GB regulations; it is a far bigger and more profitable market compared with doing something to accommodate the 45,000 sales in Northern Ireland. Some manufacturers have indicated that they will exit the Northern Ireland market entirely, as the volume simply does not justify the cost and complexity of operating under these incredibly complex conditions.
We are going to have restricted consumer choice, increased prices compared with the rest of the UK, higher benefits-in-kind taxation, differing vehicle specifications, customer confusion, reduced stock availability and prolonged delivery times. The Government must now acknowledge that this is unsustainable. It is not protecting trade but suppressing it. It is not safeguarding jobs but placing them at risk, and it is eroding Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I know there are a lot of colleagues from Northern Ireland present. Before we hear the elaboration here, I would just like to get some clarification, if I may, from the Minister.
We are, of course, party to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—1958 was the agreement signed by the United Kingdom—as are member states and the EU itself. Indeed, I was quite amazed to read the amount of regulation that the United Nations has applied in connection with motor vehicles. I speak not with direct knowledge but as vice-chairman of the Historic Vehicles All-Party Parliamentary Group, but it seems to me very interesting and really quite amazing that we cannot see the coming together of regulations, when some of the exemptions have clearly negatively affected the marketplace in Northern Ireland.
The detail in which the United Nations goes into these matters is quite extraordinary. For instance, on the emergency call systems that are now installed in all new motor cars, it requires confirmation of the details. Whether it is to be through 2G or 3G, as it was known, or under the new 4G or 5G speed of communication has to be specifically stated under United Nations Regulation 144. When it comes to ISOFIX—child seats, safety seats, and of course it is vital that they should be safe—the United Nations again has a clear regulation in place. Automated lane keeping systems that many new cars now have installed come under United Nations Regulation 157. Yet we seem to be behind the curve.
Our friends in America, particularly Mr Musk and his FSD Supervised—that is, the driving system where a car drives itself in an automated fashion—is now moved to a category called v14.2, which he has now asked the European authorities to approve for the markets both in Europe as a whole and in the United Kingdom in the hope that it will be installed or available from 2026. I wonder whether the United Nations has been consulted or if it is going to come in with its own regulations, which would give control of this situation more broadly.
Of course, it is right that Northern Ireland should not be in any way in difficulties over this. It is aligned with the United Nations, but in one or two cases—type approvals and so on—one or two elements seem to have been missed, so that Northern Ireland is out of sequence with the rest of the United Kingdom on certain of these regulations. Is not one of the answers to this to try to make sure that the United Nations umbrella is more available in order to oblige the manufacturers to make sure that the markets are equal and there are not these disparities, which are often taken for commercial reasons, due to the size of the relevant markets?
I happen to be in favour of alignment when it comes to standards in motor cars—I think it makes sense—but I am disappointed that the separation between one part of the UK and another in these regulations is both unfair and biased in such a way that it deprives one vital part of the United Kingdom of the opportunity to have commercial success in relation to what is undoubtedly a very useful United Kingdom enterprise.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which considered these regulations, and, like others, of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which also dealt in some small way with this issue, in that when we were in Newry, we took evidence from a representative of one of the car dealerships, and in fact I have had further discussions with him.
I would say that the root cause of all this is Brexit. Brexit means less choice and more cost for new car sales. In fact, after Brexit I was a victim of that, because I was seeking to purchase a new Renault Clio, and it took me some seven months in 2022 to secure that new car, because all the parts arrived from France, they were constructed and put together in Britain, and then the car was brought to Northern Ireland along with other similar cars. Then, when I got a flat tyre, it transpired that the wrong spare had been placed in the car. Therefore, it caused a lot of difficulties and challenges.
A consequence of Brexit is divergence. The people of Northern Ireland voted on a majority basis to remain within the European Union. Surely, safety standards in the UK and EU in terms of car manufacturing are similar, if not the same, so surely a solution could be found there. The report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states:
“While the existence of two vehicle approval regimes in the UK is a consequence of the Windsor Framework, we urge the DfT to consider all potential barriers that manufacturers may face in obtaining dual approval and the resulting impact on NI”.
Our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, back in April and May this year, wrote to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In his response to our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the Secretary of State said that the Government were
“keen that Northern Ireland consumers have access to the same vehicles and models … as in Great Britain, and a key part of that is ensuring manufacturers can dual-approve vehicles to both the GB and EU type approval schemes”.
Having talked to the dealership, I note that it cannot understand and finds it totally inexplicable that the same standards in the EU and GB do not exist. The Secretary of State further states:
“Our goal is to ensure that the regulations that apply in the UK work well for businesses and to address practical issues where we can. We are working closely with manufacturers to ensure that UK-wide approvals for vehicles are available, and are considering what more we can do to smooth processes and fix any issues that may arise”.
I ask my noble friend the Minister: what further progress has been made in relation to this issue, as the Department for Transport has overall responsibility? In fact, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says in that letter that
“we continue to monitor regulatory activity in the EU and have recently adopted consistent rules for the design of rear registration plate space on vehicles. The Government intends to make announcements shortly on its intention in regard to a number of other EU regulations, including the Euro 6e emission standard”.
I ask my noble friend the Minister if he could advise us on that.
I will ask some other questions. Has the Department for Transport considered the delay in procuring cars, as they have to comply with certain regulations, and the impact on the local economy? Like the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I was told that there are problems for Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan, Renault, Vauxhall and Citroën. People want to access such cars. They have used them traditionally, and they want to continue to use them, because they are cost effective.
What impact will this delay in the provision of certain EU car models to Northern Ireland have on our local economy? The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has already amplified that, but we want a solution to that, and we always have to remember that. I am clearly somebody who wants to see a route back to membership of the EU. I support the Windsor Framework but, where there are obstacles and challenges, they should be resolved and the Government should work directly with the EU as part of the reset in order to try to achieve something that is meaningful, practical and pragmatic. Last week, a BBC story emerged out of the Northern Ireland Assembly economy committee in relation to this issue.
Undoubtedly, we need the challenges, delays and lack of knowledge among businesses around the Windsor Framework to be resolved as quickly as possible. In that regard, I ask the Minister to outline when these issues around new car sales and approvals will be resolved, and to outline what discussions have taken place with the European Union to ensure that this happens.
Furthermore, when will we receive responses to the recently published reports, which dealt with the challenges and fissures in the system? One, the Independent Review of the Windsor Framework, was produced by my noble friend Lord Murphy; one, Strengthening Northern Ireland’s Voice in the Context of the Windsor Framework, was produced by our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee; and the third was produced by the Independent Monitoring Panel. They dealt with the challenges, difficulties and issues that need to be resolved. I agree that there may need to be a delay in the transition to this, in order to ensure that those difficulties can be resolved, but we must all remember that with Brexit came divergence and that it is difficult to achieve convergence in those circumstances.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Dodds’s Motions and to listen to his detailed analysis of the effects that they will have on the garages that sell these cars, on consumers and on the economy of Northern Ireland.
We have raised a number of issues over a period of time around how the Irish Sea border has affected so many issues in Northern Ireland, ranging from pets to dentists, as well as around the huge amount of extra bureaucracy that is now involved, with the paperwork, the duties, the duty reimbursement schemes—all of that. Yet this Irish Sea car border is qualitatively different and even worse because, as has been said, in three months’ time, these SIs will create an absolute prohibition on the movement of new cars for sale in Northern Ireland from GB if they have not been manufactured fully—I stress “fully”—to the EU-type approval regulations, as laid down by the European Union.
The Irish Sea new cars border, as I will call it, presents an absolute barrier to vehicles that have only GB-type approval. The initial government answer, as was mentioned earlier, was that manufacturers should manufacture to both GB and EU vehicle type approval standards. However, as the National Franchised Dealers Association pointed out recently, in Northern Ireland, manufacturing a car to the EU vehicle type approval standard can make it up to £4,000 more expensive than a car manufactured to the GB vehicle type approval standard; it is also more expensive because of the extra burdensome environmental requirements. Car manufacturers are in the business to make a profit, so I can see why many of them have decided that they are not going to bother to send to Northern Ireland: it does not make sense to sell their models here because of the smaller market in Northern Ireland, as distinct from the GB market.
I know that the Government seem to have realised that they have to do something about this; and that the only solution is to require that all cars produced for sale in the UK must be made to the same standard if there is to be a UK internal market for goods for new cars. They have stated that their policy is now to subject GB vehicle type approval to what is, in effect, EU vehicle type approval; of course, that is what these regulations will do today. The problems with this are that, as has been pointed out, it is going to happen not all at once but over a period of time—there have already been something like three regulations in the last few months—and it still will not make a difference to Northern Ireland sales.
Of course, what we are also seeing—I know that there are noble Lords who will be happy about this—is the Government falling again for the European Union’s strategy of keeping part of the UK in the EU, in effect, then giving the EU the leverage to undermine our leaving the European Union across the whole UK and working towards what I imagine this Government would like to do but cannot quite do yet because it was not in their manifesto: bringing the whole of the UK back into line with the whole of EU law.
Part of the rationale for many people, in voting to leave the European Union, was that they would be able to produce goods more cheaply as a result of not having to bow to the EU’s excessive bureaucracy requirements. Having reflected on this, car manufacturers have concluded that the economic gains to be had from fully exploiting the Brexit pricing benefits in the 2 million-unit GB market are worth more to them than the loss of not being able to sell some of their cars in the much smaller Northern Ireland market.
More worrying, of course, is the fact that this will have an effect—indeed, it already is having an effect—on jobs in the motor car sales market. When any of us who come from Northern Ireland speak to the garages selling the various types of vehicle that have been mentioned—some of us have already done so, I think—they all say that they are already beginning to look at redundancies. This will lead to a very serious situation, quite apart from the fact that people are losing choice in terms of what kind of car they want.
The Government need to move quickly on this. If they think that it is necessary for GB producers to have the same type of regulations as Northern Ireland is going to have to have—or that we are being told we will have to have, because of the Windsor Framework and being left in the European Union—they should be doing that very quickly indeed. I know that they are not going to do this, but I would prefer it if they said, “Sorry, European Union, that’s not what we’re going to do. We’re going to align Northern Ireland with GB. So what about the Windsor Framework? That’s just too bad. You’re being far too pedantic over this, and it’s not necessary”.
We are now seeing more of a move towards getting alignment. It is fair enough if people want to have that, but let us have it for the whole of the United Kingdom and not drip by drip, with little bits here and there. I know that the Minister understands the pressure that will be put on people and garages in Northern Ireland, especially in terms of sales. I hope that he will look at this matter and give a commitment that the Government will speed up the changes and get a move on—or, at the very least, postpone the date of 1 February, because that is less than three months away and will be ruinous for so many people. I ask the Minister to respond to those questions—plus the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—because we need answers and we need action.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I wish briefly to express my solidarity with and sympathy for the concerns that have already been raised by all the previous speakers. This afternoon, we have been presented with an accurate account of the problems that face the car industry in Northern Ireland.
I want simply to make one point. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, made the point that the situation we are faced with apparently conflicts with the internal market Act 2020—and he is right. However, there is also an issue here around the promise of the Windsor Framework, to which this Government are committed, the previous Government were committed and the European Union is committed. Nobody who reads the Windsor Framework can miss the fact that in it is an attempt to reassure the people of Northern Ireland that the fear of increasing divergence—that is, the fear of the sneaking imposition of an island economy on the island of Ireland or on Northern Ireland—is now over. The language on page 10 is very explicit.
If it turns out that the promise of the Windsor Framework to the people of Northern Ireland is simply something that they misunderstood—I do not think it is—and is not valid, that will have implications for the stability of the political process in Northern Ireland, because it was at least partly on the basis of the Windsor Framework that the return of the devolved institutions happened in Northern Ireland. So there is a lot at stake here. The spirit of the Windsor Framework is very clear, and there is a lot at stake here for both the UK Government and the European Union in maintaining loyalty to that spirit.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak, but it has been a fascinating short debate on a hugely serious issue. My noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned that there were three reports on the Windsor Framework that the Government are currently looking at: the one that I produced some months ago, the report of the committee of your Lordships’ House on Northern Ireland, and that of the Independent Monitoring Panel. I understand it is likely that, some time in the new year—January or February, or something like that—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, having consulted other Ministers, will produce a response to that.
It is clear to me that, in addition to the points and recommendations that all those reports came up with—in my own case, for example, I recommended 16 different things that the Government and the Stormont Assembly should do—this has become a hugely serious issue. The idea that people in Northern Ireland cannot buy a car of their choice in the way that we can everywhere else in the United Kingdom is really serious. I did not come across this during my review; this is a relatively new phenomenon. I have had a look at the statutory instrument, and I cannot pretend I understand every single word of it, but it means that a very serious situation is developing.
My plea to my noble friend the Minister is for him to take the results of this debate back to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to the Minister for European Affairs, Nick Thomas-Symonds. Perhaps they could have a look, in conjunction, at the serious ways in which this could be addressed. The last thing we want is further instability in Northern Ireland around this issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said. I very much look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, as ever, this has been an important and interesting short debate, and it was a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who raised some important issues. It is useful to know that these reports are likely to be responded to in the early new year.
Particularly, perhaps, for the benefit of the Minister, as ever this debate has been less to do with the substance of the regulations before us—which are rather technical in nature—and more to do with the legitimate and very real constitutional concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and other noble Lords about some elements of the Windsor Framework.
The actual substance of these regulations seeks to align the EU and GB eCall components and to incorporate recent developments in international regulations on vehicles. Like the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I cannot claim to be an expert on these subjects, but it strikes me that it would be rather hard to be against the regulations as such.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, is aware, I have a great deal of sympathy with his arguments about the lack of input, as well as the lack of parliamentary scrutiny, and the realities of becoming a de facto rule taker, as we increasingly follow EU regulations since leaving the European Union. But, like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and as I have often said in these debates on Windsor Framework-related regulations, I think that this is a direct result of Brexit, particularly the hard Brexit that the previous Government chose to follow. It is the case that we would not be having these debates if we were still in the European Union.
These regulations state that they are about alignment and removing barriers to trade: paragraph 5 of both the Explanatory Memorandums states that they
“will ultimately remove barriers for vehicle manufacturers wishing to sell vehicles on both GB and EU/NI markets”.
In these debates on Windsor Framework regulations, we often have justifiable criticism about the lack of consultation with the relevant sectors. However, paragraph 7 of both Explanatory Memorandums states:
“All the trade associations representing vehicle manufacturers supported the proposal, highlighting the importance of aligning with international standards”.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, there has been such a remarkable degree of unanimity of view on this topic, especially from the voices from Northern Ireland, that I worry that I may start by saying some things that sound a little harsh. The first is that I do not accept the proposition that Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. That question was not on the ballot paper. The question on the ballot paper was whether the UK should remain in the European Union or leave, and the fact that a certain geographical part in this UK-wide vote happened to vote one way or another is merely a fact of historical interest: it has no legal or practical effect. It is like saying that London voted to stay in the European Union. What one means is that the majority of people in London voted for the UK to stay in the European Union. That is perfectly true, but nothing flows from it. To imply or claim that something flows from it in the case of Northern Ireland, I think, is a mistake.
The second thing I want to say is that I rather resent, especially having myself been a staunch supporter of Brexit in 2016 and still being so, the fact that debates such as this are used by certain colleagues, not least the noble Baroness I am following, to continue to claim that everything is the fault of Brexit, and would not it be wonderful if we reversed it all and went back and joined the European Union. There is very little basis for that claim.
I discovered something interesting in the course of this. Like, I suspect, certain other noble Lords who are not great experts on vehicle type approval, I assumed that the Windsor Framework—remember that the Northern Ireland protocol was going to give the best of both worlds to Northern Ireland—meant that the people of Northern Ireland would bask in the luxury of being able to choose between a rich array of vehicles emanating either from Great Britain or from the European Union, as suited them. In fact I discover, and I am going to quote here briefly from the UK Vehicle Certificate Certification Agency, that:
“While EU and UK(NI) type approvals”—
note the plural there—
“follow the same legislative requirements”—
in other words, they have to have the same content—
“they are considered as separate legislative frameworks. The GB type approval scheme is another separate legislative framework”.
So, in fact, for the people of Northern Ireland, having the best of both worlds, in the case of vehicles, means having access to neither world but having access to their own world only. Since manufacturers, as has been explained, are not that keen to manufacture for this relatively small world—this delicious, beautifully shaped and richly endowed but none the less relatively small world of Northern Ireland, choice is running low.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, explained the difficulty she had in acquiring her car, and I am sure that other stories can be advanced of a similar character. There is nothing, at the moment at least—I would be grateful if the noble Lord could say that this will continue to be the case when these regulations come into effect—to prevent somebody who lives in Northern Ireland going to Britain, buying a car, taking it back, presumably registering it in Northern Ireland, paying its tax in Northern Ireland and so on. So that can happen, but the result, of course, is that the automotive industry in Northern Ireland—that is, the dealerships but also to some extent those parts of the industry that are involved in maintaining cars and doing all those things—will be gutted, because they will not be selling any cars; everyone will be nipping over to Britain to buy a car.
Of course, they could go across to the Republic to buy a car, I presume, but the Republic does not manufacture any cars and they are quite expensive, so Britain is the place to go. But that does not mean that they will necessarily get all the advantages that they would get in buying a car in Britain when there are sales, discounts and so forth, so it is not a satisfactory situation. It is not the best of both worlds—that is the point—and that is what was promised to the people of Northern Ireland. In other words, this is not working for the people of Northern Ireland.
The Government may say that this is not a situation of their making but one they inherited from the previous Government, and that of course is a perfectly fair point. But one of the consequences of being in government is that problems created by other people land on your plate, so it is for the Government to come up with a solution to this, and these instruments do not represent a solution. They are not addressing the problem that exists, so I second those noble Lords from across the Commitee who have asked the Minister to say what the solution is. Everyone has said that this is not the solution, but what is the solution for addressing these real and practical problems that exist in Northern Ireland? We are looking for a practical solution—not an ideological one or one that is to do with whether the EU is a good thing or a bad thing, but a practical solution that means that Northern Ireland can have access to vehicles on at least as good terms as the people of Great Britain. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for bringing forward these Motions and all who have contributed to the debate on these statutory instruments, which are very technical and cover a range of subjects that make up a small part of the type approval requirements for road vehicles. The instruments themselves are part of a continuing process to ensure that the regulatory requirements that apply to cars, vans and other road vehicles keep up with the fast pace of technological developments in the automotive industry. In the absence of updates such as these, the type approval requirements would rapidly become out of date and no longer be fit for purpose. Regular updates are necessary both to ensure that new vehicles meet the highest standards for safety, security and environmental performance and to support the introduction of new technologies and features to benefit UK drivers.
The international nature of vehicle production means that most technical regulatory requirements are harmonised around the world. These are developed in the United Nations by experts from countries as far apart as Japan, Australia and South Africa, but also by experts from the United Kingdom and from European Union member states. More than 70% of GB requirements derive from the United Nations requirements. For instance, the statutory instruments we are discussing today applied in Great Britain the UN regulation on automated lane-keeping systems, UN Regulation 157. These are some of the first examples of self-driving systems, and the statutory instruments allow manufacturers to bring these safely to market.
These statutory instruments also recognise another UN regulation concerning anchorages in vehicles—as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, remarked—that allow child restraints to be safely installed. These UN regulations have been adopted across the globe, including the EU, and it makes sense that they should also apply in the United Kingdom. Through the application of these international regulations, UK experts continue to play an important and influential role in setting the regulatory requirements that apply across the United Kingdom.
These amendments will also ensure that a safety system known as eCall continues to work effectively as the mobile signals it relies on switch from the older 2G and 3G standards to the newer 4G and 5G standards. The eCall system works by automatically calling the emergency services in the event of a severe crash, improving response times—especially in single-vehicle accidents in remote areas. In the absence of these amendments, safety would be lowered. My department consulted on these amendments, both publicly and with the devolved Administrations, and the responses showed overwhelming support for the proposals and for the approach to ensuring that GB regulations remain aligned with those in the EU.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I am looking at the Explanatory Memorandum for these regulations. Let me just read out paragraph 5.12, which says:
“Type approval authorities of Governments (‘contracting parties’) that sign up to an internationally agreed specification”—
here, it is referring to the United Nations regulation—
“are permitted to issue approvals to vehicles or components that comply with that regulation. Contracting parties”—
that must include the EU as well as the UK—
“must accept vehicles and components type-approved by another contracting party that is a signatory to the relevant UNECE regulation”.
Does the Minister not think that that brings not a solution, perhaps, but something where the Government can act to make sure that there is a benefit to Northern Ireland in this matter?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord; I will come back to that point, if I may. I am sorry—I have lost my train of thought.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It is okay.
I am mindful of the concerns that have been raised around businesses in Northern Ireland—I will come back to that point in a moment—and the challenges that, as we have heard, they face. It is important that dealers and consumers in Northern Ireland are not restricted in their choice of vehicle brands and models, and have the same choice as those across the rest of the UK. The GB-type approval scheme, which these statutory instruments amend, was designed to support manufacturers to mark vehicles with both an EU and a GB approval; the Government fully expect manufacturers to do so.
The technical requirements in the GB scheme are such that vehicle manufacturers can design and approve a single vehicle for the entire UK market. They do not need to conduct additional testing for the GB market or fit components that differ from those used on vehicles intended for the market in Northern Ireland. The updates to the GB scheme made by these statutory instruments preserve this situation and avoid divergence that could prevent the free movement of new vehicles throughout the UK. The interests of both the UK Government and the European Union are the same: we both want vehicles that are safe, clean and secure. UK and EU officials will continue to work together in UN forums to ensure that the regulations reflect this common aim.
None the less, the Government are aware that there is apprehension among some manufacturers and dealerships regarding the potential for future divergence between Great Britain-type and Northern Ireland-type approval systems. To that end, my department has reassured businesses that they should operate on the basis of an explicit presumption of alignment between the GB and the EU schemes. Again, this reflects the shared objectives of improving vehicle standards and working together to develop common technical regulations; it also demonstrates that this Government are committed to providing certainty and clarity to business by ensuring that the type approval regulations remain up to date while easing administrative burdens and supporting trade. My colleague in another place, then the Minister for Roads, wrote to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on 25 June specifically to set out both that commitment and our concern that the basis of the presumption should always be that it will be aligned between the GB and the EU schemes.
These statutory instruments reflect this approach by aligning with the EU on eCall, making sure that the GB scheme uses the same test procedures and applies the same UN regulations. The Government fully expect that vehicles will be dual marked wherever possible to ensure that they can be sold across the United Kingdom. Moreover, we monitor developments and have listened to concerns raised by businesses in Northern Ireland, where it appears that legislation might inadvertently create distortions in the marketplace. We continue to safeguard Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market; indeed, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury announced in July that we intend to legislate for a UK-wide easement in the benefit-in-kind tax applicable to vehicles in order to address concerns that the recent move to a new emissions level, known as Euro 6e, would unfairly affect customers of vehicles that meet the new emissions standards.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The Minister is talking about his conversations with manufacturers to ensure that they offer models that are available in GB and in Northern Ireland. How does he conduct those conversations with manufacturers that are not based in Britain and are not manufacturing in Britain? Do they pay any attention?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The answer is that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders represents all manufacturers. Most vehicles are produced in various countries around the world. My understanding, at least, is that they represent all of the manufacturers, wherever they are based. As the noble Lord knows already, I am sure, this is an international market, and it does not suit manufacturers to have many different types of the same vehicle. What we are talking about here are our best efforts to ensure that there are limited types of vehicle; that the types of vehicle that are produced are marketed in as many countries as possible; and, in particular, that the same vehicles are marketed in Great Britain as in Northern Ireland.
I hope that my earlier references to the influence of the United Nations have answered at least some of the questions asked the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. He pointed out paragraph 5.12 of the EM, which I will go away and look at. We are all, I think, trying to do the same thing here: have one set of standards deriving from world standards, to which the EU and UK standards ought to be as near as possible simply because these markets are very large. Manufacturers should be trying to make the same thing. What these regulations, among many other regulations, do—and what we must continue to do—is ensure that all of these standards are as consistent and equal as possible, in order to make manufacturers produce their vehicles to the same standard in as many places as possible.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I do not want to be unhelpful; I am genuinely trying to be helpful. I will make the point that I tried to make in my earlier remarks. The Minister is missing the point slightly when he talks about standards. It may well be the case that they have the same standards—for example, this widget may be exactly the same as the one in another car—but what is significant here is the legal basis of the certification regime. We have three of them in play. Even if they are all producing exactly the same standards, the certification is the difficulty.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly understand the noble Lord’s point. Given that we are working in this area, the best thing that the Government can do is to make sure that whatever rules apply are as easy to comply with as possible. If you have to comply with only one set of rules but the certification is duplicated, that is a very different thing from having to comply with two separate sets of rules.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think we are at common cause on that. My understanding is that complying with two sorts of certification with the same rules is not particularly burdensome. The assurances that we are giving to the manufacturers, wherever the vehicles are made, is: if the requirements are in harmonisation, it is a relatively easy process to make sure that the vehicles comply with any certification standards. We will see. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised, which I take completely, is that if the ranges offered are so limited, we have more work to do. That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that we will seek to look at.
In response to my noble friends Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lord Murphy, the Government are taking great care to ensure that they comply as much as they can. The answer to both is that the Government will respond to the report from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, by the legal deadline of early January. The Government are doing their best to make sure, by inspection, that the rules that we have set out to apply are the right ones. The first report of the Independent Monitoring Panel concluded that the guarantee was fully met. However, I take the point that that is not the same as the practical implication of what we are debating this afternoon—which is the extent to which vehicle types, and therefore vehicles, are available in Northern Ireland—and our intention is that they always will be. I say to my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick that we will work both with the Northern Ireland Office and my own department to do our best to ensure that what we set out to deliver is what is actually there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred to the date of the mandatory phase of GB-type approval as 1 February 2026. I say to her and other noble Lords that we will have more to say on that shortly, and ahead of that deadline, to make sure that the deadline is not a hindrance to these processes and is capable of being adhered to.
The only other thing I have to say to my noble friend Lord Murphy is: happy birthday. That is obviously the right thing to say.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked me a variety of questions. It is our intention to continue to align with the European Union rules, simply because this is an international market and we will not get anywhere if our certification requirements are different. We want to make it as easy as possible for the manufacturers and vendors of motor vehicles to sell the maximum number of vehicles of the same description across those markets.
I cannot answer the noble Baroness’s question about oversight in the House of Commons; I do not know whether she expected me to, but I cannot. However, the objective is to ensure that we continue to align fully and that that results in the market in Northern Ireland being no less accessible to manufacturers and the choice for consumers being equal in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted the Vehicle Certification Agency. I will go away and see what it says, but I understand his point about the regimes. My point is that I do not think the requirement for dual certification, if the standards are the same, is particularly onerous, but I take the point that various noble Lords are raising about what is for sale in Northern Ireland. I will go away after this debate and seek both information and advice from the department to see to what extent we can concur with their conclusions about the lack of choice and the lack of sales, and see what else can be done. We will do that in good order before the GB type approval scheme moves to its mandatory phase in February 2026.
I hope I have demonstrated that the reason for these amendments—indeed, the reason why the Government will continue to make amendments such as these—is in order to keep consistency going. I hope I have demonstrated that we are listening to the concerns that have been raised, that we are committed to the continuing refinement of the type approval regulations, and that I will go away and take the points that have been raised by noble Lords very seriously in order that we can make a success of moving the GB type approval scheme to its mandatory phase from February next year so that the market in Northern Ireland is vibrant and the people in it can continue to function.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Does the Minster have an answer to my question about there being no inhibition on the people of Northern Ireland purchasing motor vehicles in Great Britain, taking them to Northern Ireland and registering them there as a result of these instruments, and the Government having no plans to inhibit or restrict that?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I believe that what the noble Lord says is correct—you can buy a car anywhere in the United Kingdom and use it anywhere in the United Kingdom—but equally I take the point that that is probably not an especially helpful message to motor dealers in Northern Ireland, who probably do not want people to travel to England to buy cars, which would not be good for their business.
That is why the Government are concerned to make sure that that market is as vibrant as possible. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—I think it was him—said that 17,000 people’s jobs depended on it, so I should take note of that.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
Will my noble friend the Minister consider working with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office with a view to meeting the manufacturers’ association and those involved in car dealerships in Northern Ireland so that he is fully appraised of the whole picture and that he can provide some comfort to them? At the end of the day, that is what they are looking for.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. I think her proposed remedy is the right one, which is to meet people who know what they are talking about and listen to them. If that is part of the solution here, I am sure that we should do that.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I think we are all agreed that this is a very serious issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, for people in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned constitutional issues. I have sought in this debate to emphasise the practical problems, which are the outworking of some of these wider issues on the constitutional front that in my view are totally unnecessary, but we have to find solutions. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for his reply to this debate and for the tone and content of what he has said, in that he is going to take this away, take it seriously and talk to colleagues and those who matter to try to find solutions. That is what we would love to see happening. Up to now, I do not think there has been enough urgency, if I may say so, as the deadline has crept up and up. I am grateful to the Minister for his commitment. Knowing him and the way in which he operates, I know he will hold fast to that, and that will, I hope, deliver results.
Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Road Vehicles (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 33rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Democratic Resilience
Lord Browne of Ladyton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of democratic resilience in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s democratic resilience matters for regional stability and European security. We are working with international partners to strengthen the rule of law and democratic processes, promote political pluralism and counter malign influences. We condemn attacks on the country’s constitutional framework, including by former Republika Srpska President Dodik, and we support the role of the high representative and empowerment of domestic institutions and leaders to end the political crisis and uphold the rule of law.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, as we recall the initialling of the Dayton peace agreement on 21 November 1995 and appreciate the progress that Bosnia and Herzegovina has made in NATO and EU accession efforts since, and while remaining concerned about the ongoing threats to the country’s peace, security and constitutional order by Russian-aligned authorities in the Republika Srpska entity, can my noble friend the Minister assure us that the Government will maintain their sanctions against Bosnian Serb secessionist Milorad Dodik and Zeljka Cvijanovic and expand the same to others in their regime if there are further threats to the integrity of the Dayton agreement?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are of course aware that other countries have decided to lift their sanctions, and that is a matter for them. For the time being, we are going to keep our sanctions in place. These were taken after careful consideration and we have no plans to lift them at this stage, although, as my noble friend will appreciate, we do not make any comment on future plans or designations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord’s Question, it is 30 years on from the Dayton accords and we have recently seen a snap election in the Republika Srpska, so what is His Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the stability within greater Bosnia and the integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Linked to that, given the recent developments in Ukraine and Russia’s support for Republika Srpska, what assessments have been made of further instability in that part of the world?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are now 30 years on, almost to the day, from the Dayton peace agreement. Noble Lords should know that we are concerned by developments in the western Balkans and the fragility of the situation there—which, I have to say, is not helped by the now former leader in Srpska or by the activities of Russia in the region, which are aimed at destabilisation, misinformation and undermining democracy. We work closely with our allies and partners, and we are part of the Quint and a signatory to Dayton. It is our responsibility to maintain that focus so that the agreement, which was signed 30 years ago, can continue to maintain stability and peace in the western Balkans.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, do Russia’s divisive activities in support of Republika Srpska not underline once again the importance of taking a strategic approach to countering Russia’s malign influence on the international scene more widely? What discussions are His Majesty’s Government having with other Governments to develop such an approach, and what practical measures are they putting in place in this regard?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We talk with very many of our allies and partners, I suppose most notably the United States, France, Germany and Italy, and through the EU and NATO. We have some programming in the region specifically aimed at countering Russian activities and misinformation, and we need to continue to do that. We work also on democratic institutions and strengthening those, including through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which many noble Lords will have worked alongside in the past.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the election in the Republika Srpska, which resulted in a margin of less than 2% on a turnout of under 35%, hardly clarifies the mood on the ground in that republic. But, as has been said, Russian interference there is surely a call to everybody to understand that Russia will disrupt European democracy at every opportunity, wherever it can. The idea that we should surrender to its intimidation is just not acceptable.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord put that extremely well, and I agree with every word he said.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, it is perhaps salutary to remember that the GDR lasted for only 40 years, that the 30 years since the Dayton accords is not a very long time, and that what can be built up over a period of time can be demolished very quickly. Can the Minister say what the UK Government are doing to hold particularly Serbia to account in the public arena, exposing what is going on and what its influences are—from Russia in particular but not from Russia alone?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have put a lot of diplomatic energy into our relationship with Serbia, and there have been visits from the Foreign Secretary. My honourable friend Stephen Doughty, the Minister with responsibility for Europe, has convened several meetings, which we think have been helpful and are moving things in a more positive direction. Nevertheless, it is important that we are realistic and clear-eyed about our relationships and the need to continue to work very closely with Serbia, because it is vital to maintaining the stability of the region.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, Siniša Karan, who is a close ally of the dismissed President of the Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, has criticised what he calls foreign intervention in its politics. Can the Minister explain whether that fear of foreign influence will perhaps undermine efforts to strengthen democratic processes in the region, and how her department intends to manage that challenge?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Well, I think anyone who is a close ally of the former leader in Srpska probably would say something like that, and they would not be someone we would look to for guidance on this issue. We feel that we need to stay very close to what was agreed at Dayton, working closely with our allies and partners, as we do, to support the Office of the High Representative. I realise this is controversial in some places, but this is the way stability has been maintained for 30 years. As the right reverend Prelate reminded us, in the scheme of issues such as this, that can be seen as not that great a length of time. It is essential that we stick with the institutions and models we have for as long as we feel they are necessary.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister say whether the Government have given or are giving any consideration to the possibility of strengthening the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina—Operation Althea—which is currently being conducted by the European Union?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We talk to our allies in Europe about EUFOR, which is vital in maintaining peace and stability. We work with it, examining how we can support it further and make sure that we maintain our closeness to it, because it is vital to keeping the peace that we have been able to stick to for 30 years now.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, having travelled to Bosnia shortly after Dayton, I saw the devastation for myself and was asked to witness the uncovering of a mass grave. I therefore know where hateful rhetoric and weakened institutions can lead. Today, Bosnia’s resilience is threatened by not only disinformation and external influence operations but a quiet hollowing out of its future as young people leave in large numbers. In this fragile setting, the lifting of US sanctions on Mr Dodik risks sending the wrong signal to those who challenge Bosnia’s constitutional order. Will the Minister say how His Majesty’s Government intend to help strengthen Bosnia’s democratic resilience, especially with other international institutions, and how we can help to stem the flow of young people who are leaving Bosnia?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for reminding us of the need for Dayton and the horrific events that took place not so long ago, between 1992 and 1995. It is vital that, as a signatory to Dayton, we continue to maintain our support for the principles, institutions and positions that were agreed at the end of that process. As for the movement of people and the decisions made by young people in the western Balkans more generally—she mentioned Bosnia specifically—there are many drivers for this. We seek to understand them as fully as we can because, as she says, it is not great for a society that is still recovering from the after-effects of that devastating conflict to lose so many of its young people.
Wales: Further Devolution
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to devolve further powers to Wales, and what is the timeline for these plans.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
The Government remain committed to the promises in our manifesto and are working to deliver them. For example, we have so far provided £10 million for the Welsh Government to deliver an economic inactivity trailblazer in Wales, as part of our wider commitment to devolve employment support funding to the Welsh Government. Through our Railways Bill, we are giving the Welsh Government a statutory role in the management of the rail network, building on our record investment in Welsh rail.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Pursuing the devolution of policing is in Welsh Labour’s programme for government. Just last week, we heard a Statement in this House on the abolition of police and crime commissioners. In England, those powers will be transferred directly to elected mayors, where they exist. However, where those powers go in Wales is not clear. Does the Minister agree that this presents the perfect opportunity to deliver Welsh Labour’s commitment and devolve policing to Wales? If not, what is it about Welsh democracy that the UK Labour Government distrust?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness will not be surprised at all to hear that I disagree with both her assessment and her request that we devolve policing to Wales. The announcement last week on PCCs was not about the devolution of policing. It related solely to the abolition of PCCs, a model that simply was not working. We will seek the views of all partners, including the Welsh Government, before deciding on the best form of local policing, governance and scrutiny in Wales.
Lord Deben (Con)
In opposition, the Labour Party was very clear about the unfairness of the way in which money was given to Wales under the Barnett formula. Why is it that it is still cheating Wales and giving it much less money than any other part of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I used to represent Stoke-on-Trent. The noble Lord will find that the Barnett formula ensures that the people of Wales receive 20% per capita more than my former constituents. The Welsh Government received a record-breaking settlement of £21 billion this financial year, which, because of the Barnett formula, is £4 billion more than it would otherwise have been. The Government are delivering for the people of Wales, financially and by supporting them through devolution in action.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, one key area of potential devolution is youth justice, where the Welsh Government have already been implementing policies to tackle the root causes of crime and break intergenerational cycles of crime, through early intervention and a compassionate approach to justice. I welcome the announcement by the Welsh Government that officials would work together with UK counterparts to explore, among other items, options for governance arrangements and the funding of youth justice services. When will this work be completed and when will we see true devolution of these services to Wales?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As the noble Baroness outlined, the UK Government and the Welsh Government have agreed to work together to consider options for the governance and funding of youth justice services and for partnership arrangements on probation services. That work is currently under way, but I do not have a deadline for when they will come forward with their recommendations.
Lord Wigley (PC)
There is a strong possibility that, following next May’s elections, Plaid Cymru will be the largest single party in Senedd Cymru. Will the UK Government ensure that Plaid Cymru has access to civil servants dealing with devolved or potentially devolved portfolios, as is the practice for incoming Governments at Westminster?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. There are still six months until the elections, and I would expect to see another Labour Administration elected next year. We will be working hard to deliver, as we do every day for the people of Wales and for the people of the United Kingdom. With regard to the substance of his point, that is the first time that it has been raised with me. I will speak to officials, and I would ask him to come forward if there are any problems or challenges.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that testimony to the working relationship between the UK Government and Wales is the decision about the SMR development at Wylfa, which is welcome and which I earnestly hope will add to the growth potential of the Welsh economy?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Many Members of your Lordships’ House were delighted to see the Prime Minister with the First Minister in Wylfa earlier this month announcing investment of £2.5 billion, which will create 3,000 jobs. It is a true recognition of our faith in, and the ability of, the Welsh economy, and it will drive growth for the Welsh economy.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, ambulance delays in Wales have increased fourfold over the past seven years, and PISA scores are lower than the OECD average in reading, science and maths. With all due respect to the Welsh Administration, does the Minister believe that further powers should be devolved to Wales if it is currently struggling to manage its own healthcare and education systems?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, for 14 years, the party opposite cut funding to the people of Wales. We have increased the funding settlement for Wales, to ensure that the Welsh Government can deliver public services. With respect to the NHS, which the noble Earl raised, that has meant that the waiting list fell in the last month that was counted, and continues to fall month on month. We are delivering for the people of Wales. NHS England and NHS Wales are sharing best practice, we are doing public sector reform and, most importantly, we are giving them money that the noble Lord’s party did not, to get on with the job.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, if the Government accept that devolution is a process, what further steps do they envisage before the end of this Parliament?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend. We are seeing devolution in action. It was this party that introduced the legislation to bring forward devolution, which has led to the Welsh Senedd. As for current conversations and discussions about further devolution, as I said earlier, we are working closely with the Wales Office, the DWP and the Welsh Government to deliver more on the devolution of employment support, with the £10 million trailblazer. We are working with youth justice and probation services, as I said earlier, to consider options for moving forward.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, may I remind the Minister that, of the four nations of the United Kingdom, child poverty in Wales is consistently the highest? Is the Minister ready to think about this and, in any future arrangements, to recognise the situation for children in Wales and make it fairer?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am a member of the Labour Party because of our ongoing commitment to try to tackle child poverty. The child poverty strategy will be coming forward in due course. We will continue to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that every child has the opportunities they deserve.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, as part of the devolution settlement, the Northern Ireland Executive already have revenue-raising powers. Will my noble friend the Minister tell us what position the Government would adopt if the Northern Ireland Executive were to seek new, additional fiscal powers in order to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland in the areas of health, education and infrastructure?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. She is very aware that, under the recent spending review, Stormont was awarded £19.2 billion—its largest ever financial settlement. As for additional tax-raising mechanisms, they exist, if Stormont wishes to use them. That is a matter for Stormont. We would support it in whichever endeavours it wants to do to access the powers already available to it.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is unusual for me to get up and support Wales, but in a recent debate about the manufacture of radio isotopes, I agreed that Wales had made a fantastic business case to have a nuclear reactor to produce radio isotopes—a facility that the United Kingdom does not possess. Therefore, patients in the UK suffer because we have to import all the radio isotopes needed for diagnosis and treatment. Will the Government support Wales and establish the nuclear reactor for the production of nuclear isotopes?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
This Government always support Wales—and I will be doing so this weekend when they are playing the Springboks. On the noble Lord’s specific point, last week I sat in on the debate that he mentioned, in which he raised some really interesting points that were answered by my noble friend. I will reflect on what he says and return to him on that.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that one of our late and long-awaited frigates is to be called HMS “Cardiff”. Are we going to put any of the new factories producing defence equipment, and ammunition in particular, in Wales?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend always manages to get a ship into his question. For that, as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy, I am very grateful. He is absolutely right about HMS “Cardiff”—I am still waiting for HMS “Stoke-on Trent”, but my lobbying has not yet been effective. We have seen, as we have wider conversations about the expanded defence industrial strategy, that some of that work will absolutely be going to Wales.
Schools: Funding
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Laing of Elderslie
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they propose to fund any increase in the numbers of children attending state-funded schools as a result of the decrease in the numbers of children attending private schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, private school pupil numbers remain firmly within historical patterns, with no evidence of excessive pressure on the state system. We are confident that the state sector can absorb any additional pupils. To deliver our commitment to the 94% of children who attend state schools, we are increasing school funding by £3.7 billion this year, taking total core school funding to £65.3 billion. By 2028-29, core school funding, including SEND investment, will reach £69.5 billion.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I thank the Minister for responding to my Question, but I am not quite sure about the Answer because, sadly, the facts do not support the Government’s rather spiteful ideology in this matter. The imposition of VAT on school fees means that thousands of hard-working parents who previously invested money in their children’s education, and therefore in the education system as a whole, now cannot afford to, so thousands of children have transferred from private schools to state schools. I am baffled by the statistics that the Minister mentioned, because we know that private schools are closing and that children are moving from private schools to state schools. Is it not the case that while the Government might well be raking in more money in VAT, local education authorities have to bear the cost of educating thousands more children? In spite of what the Minister has said, is it not the case that the Government are not investing in education but taking money out of the education system?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, that is not true. The noble Baroness is keen on facts and concerned about the closure of private schools, as would anybody be if a school was closing. I hope she will be somewhat reassured by knowing that, while on average 74 private schools have closed per year over the last 20 years, in this last year 59 closed.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, do His Majesty’s Government have in place a monitoring system to look at the numbers of young people with special educational needs accessing private schools? I am deeply worried that when state schools cannot provide that service, parents often then fall upon the private sector.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
If a young person has an education, health and care plan that identifies a private school for them, their parents will not be impacted by VAT on private school fees. Equally, most children with special educational needs and disabilities are educated in the state system. It is in order to improve the outcomes of our state system that this Government are committed to reforming our SEND system to make sure that all pupils will be able to access the support that they need within it.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the opposition party cried that this would have a damaging effect on state schools? From the facts that the Minister has just read out, it is clear that is not the case. Have the Opposition apologised or suggested that the extra money going to secondary schools in the state sector should be removed and given back to people who are in a better position to maintain their child’s education?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, the Opposition have not apologised, and nor would I necessarily expect them to. That will not stop me continuing, as I think my noble friend has invited me, to identify the facts of the situation as opposed to the rhetoric from the noble Baroness opposite. I am sure that noble Lords will be interested to know that the number of pupils in private schools is still higher than it was in 2021-22 and before the pandemic. As I said, the latest school census data reveal that pupil numbers remain firmly within the historical patterns seen for over 20 years, while private schools have continued to open, even after the Government’s announcement about ending tax breaks: 79 schools have opened since July 2024. The average between 2014 and 2023 was 75 private schools opening each year. The average was 75 and the numbers in the last year were 79.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the Chancellor said that every single penny of the money raised from this new VAT would be ring-fenced for state education, but the Prime Minister subsequently said that the decision to levy VAT on private school fees has allowed the Government to invest in housing. Will the Minister please confirm whether every pound of the money raised is going into better education for state-funded pupils?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Treasury’s analysis of this policy suggested that it would be able to raise around £1.8 billion a year by the 2029-30 financial year. As I identified in my first Answer, in this year alone we are increasing the amount of money that is going into our core schools budget by £3.7 billion. I think that demonstrates that, yes, we are investing every pound of that £1.8 billion in the £3.7 billion by which we have increased the core schools budget. That is before we get on to talking about the pay increase that we have been able to provide for our teachers to keep them in our schools, the investment that we are making in special educational needs and disabilities, and the capital funding that will enable schools to have both the condition and the places necessary for the 94% of pupils who have their education in the state system.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Has the Minister witnessed what I and some of my acquaintances have witnessed, which is a failure of social engineering because very rich parents and many foreign parents can still afford private schools but a larger number of the middle class and the less well-off will be going to state schools, hence a much bigger chasm between the privately educated and the state educated?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am not sure that is unusual. It has always been the case that in order to benefit from a private education, you need to be able to afford it. The vast majority of children in this country attend state schools. That is why this Government are focusing our investment and our reform on those schools. That is the way to solve the problem of children from whatever background not receiving the education that they deserve.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister please answer the question that my noble friend Lord Effingham asked? Is this money being ring-fenced or not? Ring-fenced means ring-fenced, not part of some general budget.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The point I was making was that the VAT on private schools is raising £1.8 billion a year, and in just one year we are investing £3.7 billion in the increase in the core schools budget. If the argument that noble Lords opposite are making is that this is a small amount of the increased investment that this Labour Government are putting into education, they are right, but it is nevertheless an important amount.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, how are the Government getting on with recruiting the 6,500 extra teachers for which their iniquitous, unprecedented education tax is designed to pay? Is it not the case that the total number of teachers is going down, not up?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No. The number of new teachers in secondary and special schools, where the demographic need particularly is, is increasing due to the investment that we have been able to put into both a 5.5% pay award for last year and a 4% pay award for this year. That means that we have already seen the workforce grow by 2,346 full-time equivalents in secondary and special schools, where they are needed most. We are also able to report in the latest census one of the lowest leaver rates since 2010. We are recruiting more teachers for the schools that teach the majority of our children, and I am proud that that is the decision we have taken.
Forthcoming Fiscal Changes
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the economy, businesses and individuals of Ministerial comments which have been interpreted as suggesting forthcoming fiscal changes.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Chancellor will deliver the Budget tomorrow. She has rightly been clear with the country about the challenges we face and the need to deliver stability in the public finances. The Budget will build more resilient public finances to withstand global turbulence. It will reduce inflationary pressure in the economy and get the cost of living down. It will protect the NHS and public services from a return to austerity, and it will support growth and innovation. I will not comment on individual measures ahead of the Budget.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I have the upmost respect for him and believe he has acted commendably ahead of this Budget. He has been left in the position of having to issue constant denials by an approach from his colleagues which has damaged the economy, businesses and individuals. The Government are supposedly pro-business, pro-wealth creation and pro-growth. Other Ministers should not have been speculating and could have issued the kinds of robust denials the Minister has issued—much to the frustration of this House, I understand, and difficulty for himself. I would like to put on record that the communications have been shambolic and unnecessary.
Does the Minister agree with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State Peter Kyle, who said that we are in a “growth emergency”? If so, does he believe the policy change pitch rolling, constant kite flying, and policies that are withdrawn, brought back and then changed, help business or individuals planning their lives? Businesses have put investment on hold. Individuals have rushed to take money out of their pensions. I urge the Minister to urge his department in future not to engage in the same kind of speculation and kite flying ahead of Budgets that we have seen now.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. As she knows, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, which will conclude tomorrow when the Chancellor delivers her Budget. She asked about growth. Growing the economy, and supporting businesses to create jobs and innovate, will be absolutely central to tomorrow’s Budget alongside protecting our NHS and public services from a return to austerity, improving the cost of living, doing what is necessary to protect families from high inflation and interest rates, and keeping debt under control.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether there are any significant measures in the Budget which have not been announced in advance or leaked? I would invite him to mention them to us, then he can have a clean slate.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness need only wait 22 hours and then she will know for herself.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, according to opinion polls, the public at large in this country think that Rishi Sunak was a better Chancellor of the Exchequer than the current one by a ratio of over 2:1. Does the Minister agree with the public at large?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Why do we not just compare their records? Where the previous Government delivered the slowest projected growth in the G7, growth in the first half of this year was the fastest in the G7. Where they presided over the worst Parliament ever for living standards, living standards have increased by 2.1% since the election. Where they oversaw the worst pay growth in a century, real wages grew more in the first 10 months of this Government than in the first 10 years of the previous Government. Where they continually cut capital spending and deterred investment, we are investing for the long term, with £120 billion extra over the next five years. We will continue to rebuild the economy after 14 years of failure from the party opposite.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, why does the Minister never look at GDP growth per head?
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister consider that, apart from him, the days of trying to avoid government-induced market glitches are history? Do the Government and Chancellor think that markets will cease to be responsive or that investors will not go elsewhere as they have done for other countries exhibiting inconsistency?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, and as I think I have made clear, I am not going to comment on speculation ahead of the Budget, neither am I going to comment—I never do—on market movements.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, the Minister just said that the Budget tomorrow will be focused on protecting our NHS, reducing our national debt and improving the cost of living, which the Chancellor has said in one of her many scene-setters are the priorities of the British people. However, back in May, the Prime Minister said that the Government
“see security and defence not as one priority amongst many others but as the central organising principle of government – the first thought in the morning – the last at night. The pillar on which everything else stands or falls”.
Therefore, why is not defence one of the priorities, or has No. 11 not yet got the memo?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I know that the noble Lord thinks that his question is terribly clever, but it is perfectly possible for the Government to have ongoing priorities and for there to be specific priorities for this Budget. Those two things are not in any way contradictory. He will see what we have to say about defence in the Budget tomorrow; likewise, he will see what we have to say about the NHS, growing the economy and the cost of living.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that the investment in Sheffield Forgemasters, and through BAE Systems in other aspects of defence procurement in Sheffield, has substantially improved the growth prospects, job prospects and prosperity of the people of my city?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I 100% agree with my noble friend. Defence spending and growth go hand in hand. We will see far higher levels of growth in our economy as a result of the investment we are putting into our defence industry and increasing the security of our country.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, looking back rather than forward, it is quite clear that UK business cannot take another Budget like the last one. I was reminded by the introduction of our new and very welcome Peer of the apocryphal medical ethical oath. Could the Minister please carry back to the Chancellor one thing: do no harm?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. As he knows, I am not going to comment on specific measures or any speculation ahead of the Budget. I have set out clearly what our priorities are for tomorrow’s Budget; he will just have to wait a few more hours until he finds out for himself.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, how much do the Government now blame Brexit for the black hole?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Earl knows, alongside the Budget tomorrow, the Office for Budget Responsibility will set out the conclusions of its review of the supply side of the UK economy. I will not pre-empt those conclusions, but it is likely that the OBR will downgrade its historic assessment of the UK’s productivity and find that the productivity performance we inherited from the last Government is weaker than previously thought. The causes of this economic underperformance are well understood: austerity, Brexit and the Liz Truss mini-Budget have left deep scars on the British economy that are still felt today.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, one of the main objectives of the Treasury, as stated on its own website, is to:
“Ensure the stability of the macro-economic environment”.
Few people believe that this stability objective has been achieved in recent weeks, which have instead been characterised by presentational chaos. As my question is not a Budget question, does the Minister agree?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness talks about stability and chaos; let us talk about 14 years of chaos. First, there was austerity, which took demand out of the economy at exactly the wrong moment, cutting investment and undermining the economy’s ability to grow. Then we saw a disastrous and tragically misjudged Brexit deal, which imposed new trade barriers equivalent to a 13% increase in tariffs for manufacturing and a 20% increase in tariffs for services, reducing total trade intensity by 15% and permanently reducing GDP by 4 percentage points. Finally, the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashed the economy and sent mortgages soaring by £300 a month. We on this side will take no lessons from the party opposite on how to manage the economy.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, simply asked whether the Minister could rule out doing harm in the Budget—he did not ask about lots of specific measures—so let me ask him again: can he just rule out the Budget doing harm to British business?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have said already, I am not going to comment on individual measures ahead of the Budget.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Can I ask the Minister a question of facts and not speculation? Will he confirm that Ministers and officials have been floating possible Budget proposals over the last few weeks?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Lord well knows, I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process, which will conclude tomorrow when the Chancellor delivers the Budget.
Russian Ship “Yantar”
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the “Yantar” spy ship has form when it comes to pushing boundaries, but directing laser beams at a UK Poseidon surveillance plane is an unwelcome development. It is provocative and irresponsible. In the air domain during the Cold War, there was a regular pattern of incursion into United Kingdom airspace by Russian planes, and the stratagem of reaction and close-flying escort by UK planes was developed, which was effective. How do we replicate that in the marine domain? For example, can a frigate close-shadow the “Yantar” so that the Russian crew feels under constant observation and any attempt to interfere with subsea infrastructure is immediately visible—and, importantly, whatever protective action is then necessary can be taken?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for such an important question. The Royal Navy constantly monitors activity in and around UK waters. This includes the “Yantar”, which is continuously and closely monitored by Royal Navy frigate HMS “Somerset” and the RAF’s P-8s. As the Secretary of State for Defence described last week, Russia has been developing military capability to use against critical underwater infrastructure for decades. For that reason, we have directed a change in the Royal Navy’s posture so we can more closely track and robustly respond to the threats from that vessel and many others. Such actions have previously included surfacing a Royal Navy submarine, strictly as a deterrent measure, close to the “Yantar”, to make it clear that we have been covertly monitoring its every move. We will not shy away from the robust action needed to protect the UK.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, the “Yantar” has form. Do His Majesty’s Government feel that sufficient action is being taken? I note that one question asked in the other place was whether the Russian ambassador had been called into the Foreign Office, and the answer appeared to be in the negative. Do the Government need to be doing more? Are they doing everything to ensure that Russia realises that we will not tolerate its actions and incursions into our waters?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is another very important question. The whole House will recognise the significance of what the noble Baronesses have said. The UK Government are constantly talking to the Russian ambassador, constantly making the Russians aware of what we are doing, and we are constantly monitoring those ships that seek to monitor our underwater cables, potentially for purposes in future. We have Royal Navy ships monitoring that and P-8 Poseidons from Lossiemouth—we have a fleet of nine now—looking at that. But I say to the noble Baroness and to all noble Lords—and I am sorry to repeat it, but it is just to make it clear, because the implications of what I am saying are obvious—that to surface a Royal Navy submarine close to the “Yantar”, as was done towards the end of last year, is an unprecedented way of demonstrating to Russia and the “Yantar” how seriously we take what they are doing. I know that that is supported by all Members of your Lordships’ House, but that signifies the importance of the deterrence and the importance and significance of the activity that we are undertaking to try to deter such activity.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, with the greatest respect to the Minister, is this not much more than a simple defence matter? If the laser used was a weapons system, not just laser torching by a member of the “Yantar” crew, is this not a serious disregard of the 1980 UN protocol and its convention on certain conventional weapons? What steps have the Government taken with the Russians? Has the Russian ambassador been called to a meeting in the FCDO, to be informed of the UK’s disapproval?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Nobody can be in any doubt about the seriousness with which we take the incident that has happened. As the noble and gallant Lord has pointed out, it was not a weapons system, but that does not alter the fact that a handheld laser was pointed into the cockpit of one of our planes. That is of huge significance and importance, and the Russians are in no doubt about how seriously we take that incident. We have made sure that they are aware of that and we will continue to make sure that they are aware of it. Indeed, the noble and gallant Lord’s question—with those from the noble Baronesses from the other Benches—has helped to signify to the Russians, again, quite how seriously we take the incident which occurred.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, it is clear that that message is conveyed, but it seems to do nothing to deter the Russians from continuing with their activity. Can the Minister say whether our military leaders have come to any conclusions about what an appropriate response will be to what, in the end, could be an act of war?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
This is a really important question, but I say to everyone that we have to be really careful about the language that we use when we ask, “If this happened, what would we do? If that happened, what would we do? Would we see such and such as an act of war?” That is not to underplay the seriousness of what is happening, but it is about trying—as any Government would—to be reasonable and sensible in the language that is used.
Let nobody be in any doubt that the seriousness of this is significant. We know what the “Yantar” is doing as part of Operation GUGI, we know that it is surveying the underwater cables in a peacetime way for potential use in other scenarios in the future and we are making sure the Russians are aware of that.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
The Minister said he was going to visit the NMIC and the joint cell that was with it down in the south. I do not know whether he has done that yet, but I am glad it is up and operating fully, because we have been bad at tracking the “Yantar” and the other ships of that type. Now, we are doing it properly and we need to have ships that can counter it. I hope that there will be enough money in the Budget for us to get in more ships; we will see.
I have been at sea with the Russians in the Cold War when they tried to ram us, opened weapon systems against us and interrupted flying operations—all highly dangerous things, and similar to what happened in the Iceland cod war. I believe there is more that we can do to make it very uncomfortable for a ship such as the “Yantar”. There are things one can do that make life horrible at sea. They are not all seen and we should start thinking about doing some of those.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. We are trying to do a whole range of different things. He will know that, as well as the measures that I have talked about against the “Yantar”, we have Operation Baltic Sentry—in the Baltic Sea, obviously—which is NATO monitoring, run from Northwood, to track what is going on there. We have Nordic Warden, which is a JEF operation as well, with maritime capabilities, alongside P-8s. There is a whole range of different things that are taking place. The defence investment plan will be published this year; let us see what is in that in terms of the increase in capability to deal with this threat.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I understand the difficulty of the Minister; I am not trying to stir things up, I assure him. But supposing a laser had brought down the aircraft by disabling the pilot, what would we consider that? Would we consider it an act of war?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
To be clear, I am not in any difficulty answering the question from the noble Lord, but I will not speculate at the Dispatch Box about what we would do if this or that happened. The noble Lord has much more experience in military matters than I do, so he will recognise how serious it would be if I misspoke in answer to his question. So I am not evading the question but, in the interest of the country, it is sometimes best to have these discussions in private.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, given what we know the “Yantar” has been engaged in, would the Minister be able to tell the House whether the Government are now actively considering some of the suggestions made in the recent report by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy in relation to the possibility of a purpose-built vessel that would help fix undersea cables, were any activity to take place that resulted in them being severed?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Certainly, those sorts of considerations are being looked at in the context of the defence investment plan. As we have committed to, that will be published this year. Let us see what is in that in terms of the capability my noble friend mentions.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, do the Government consider that these acts of aggression and subversion will come to an end if a deal is reached in relation to Ukraine?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
One can only say: let us hope the discussions around Ukraine bring about arrangements that are satisfactory to the Ukrainians, which is the important part of any agreement that is or is not breached. I think we are in different times now, and the different times we are in mean that Russia will continue to look at underwater cables and some of the other things that go under water, such as energy and data. Certainly, what we see from the “Yantar”, along with other ships that are part of the GUGI operation, is the mapping of the underwater capabilities that we and other nations have for peacetime purposes, but of course that could be used in other scenarios.
Separation Centres: Terrorist Offenders
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, we are told that the independent review into separation centres’ operation, following the attack at His Majesty’s Prison Frankland, has been completed but remains unpublished. Given that the continued non-disclosure of its findings undermines transparency and accountability, will the Minister tell us why the review has not been published and when it will be published? Could he also explain what interim changes have already been made to the regime to ensure that vulnerable staff and other prisoners are not exposed to unacceptable risks in the meantime?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
The Government are carefully considering the findings of Jonathan Hall KC’s independent review into the operation of separation centres, which was commissioned following the dreadful attack at HMP Frankland in April. We will publish Mr Hall’s report and our response in due course—I would add imminently. On the regimes in our separation centres, Members of your Lordships’ House will be pleased to know that I have been to see the centre at HMP Frankland to meet a number of the staff, who are incredibly brave and professional public servants. We are making a number of operational improvements to improve their safety as well.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, a finding by the High Court that any prisoner in England, whoever they may may be, has been subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment shames us all. We all understand the need for separation centres for high-risk terrorist offenders, but can the noble Lord say what steps the Government will now take, in the light of the Abu judgment, to ensure that prisoners in separation centres are not so cut off from human contact as to endanger their mental health, and that all such prisoners have access to adequate psychiatric care, as Abu did not?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Separation centres protect the public from the most serious offenders. A small number of prisoners are held in these centres. The regime is purposeful activity, limited association and rehabilitation; the noble Lord will know that rehabilitation is really important to me. Having met the staff who work in separation centres, it is very clear that they are not all classically trained prison officers. A number are psychiatrists, psychologists, experts in security and so on. There is a team effort to make sure we run good regimes that have a real focus on rehabilitation. I look forward to getting into more of the detail on Jonathan Hall’s report when it and its recommendations are published because it will be very helpful to us as we look to the future of how we run these very specialist areas of the justice system.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Does my noble friend agree that there is no inconsistency between having adequate separation of terrorism offenders and complying with our most basic and fundamental human rights obligations? In the light of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and, crucially, the decision of Mr Justice Sheldon last week, all we need to do is to ensure that appropriate mental health provision is made for any offender, particularly those who are isolated for long periods in the day. I know my noble friend is an expert in these matters.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. We are carefully considering the High Court ruling on the Abu case, including considering appealing the decision. Our decisions are based on risk, and the proportionality of our response to that risk is how we make our decisions. Someone’s mental health throughout the justice system is a very important factor in how we manage everyone’s risk, whether they are on the first night of their first time in prison or they have been in the system for a very long time.
I am proud of so many of my colleagues who spend so much of their time in our prisons, and of our probation staff, who go out of their way to support people with their mental health requirements. The support we give our NHS and health providers in our prisons is clearly important too. We need to enable them to have the right space and time to work with people who are often very vulnerable.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, there is a gaslighting quality about the High Court judgment that the public sector equality duty was breached because no consideration had been given to decisions that meant a cohort of prisoners, all Muslim, were treated in a particular way. The judge said that this could have been perceived as a form of collective punishment against Muslims. All the inmates in the separation centre are Muslims. Some 75% of MI5’s counterterrorist caseload is Islamist extremists, and 63% of prisoners for terrorism-related offences are Muslims. When I visited HMP Frankland in 2022, a prison officer in the separation unit told me that they were perpetually—and, I thought, dangerously—constrained by the PSED and human rights legislation. Will the Government appeal this judgment and strenuously reassure prison governors that they can and must continue to use separation units to keep officers, prisoners and the public safe?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
As I said to my noble friend, we are considering appealing the decision. It is also important that the staff who work in our separation centres have the skills they need to care for the people there. The system is robust, but we always need to look for improvements. That is why we commissioned Mr Hall to look at all our separation centres and the policies we have to make sure they are right for the future.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister think that we are doing enough to keep our prison staff safe? With increasingly violent prisoners challenging authority, what else is being done?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend is right to raise this question. One of the things that surprises me going round prisons now compared with 25 years ago is how much more violence there is on our wings. That is probably due to a combination of the amount of drugs in our prisons and the number of people with severe mental health issues, but also people serving very long sentences.
We are investing in protecting our staff. As my noble friend said, our staff do an amazing job, often in very difficult and dangerous situations. That is why we have invested £15 million in 10,000 personal body armour jackets and suits. We are also training 500 staff in how to use Tasers. Every other week, I speak to prison leaders. Last week, I spoke to the governors of the long-term high-security estate, who told me how much reassurance the staff have had from the fact they are now getting investment in this extra protection.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Does the Prison Service have sufficient resources for the mental health issues it has to deal with?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am not an expert in healthcare, but I am an expert in prisons. I see prisoners getting incredible levels of support, often in regimes that are running hot. My personal assessment is that prisoners are getting very good care within a system that is struggling, so we need to make sure that we have a much more stable prison environment. That is why it is very difficult to run everything, to get people out of their cells and to give people the support that they need when we literally have no space left.
It is also important to have the right facilities. The medical facilities in some of the new prisons we have built that I have seen are excellent and appropriate. We are dealing with people who are often very ill. The life expectancy of someone in a prison is much lower on average than someone who has not been to prison. We need to do all we can to support people with their mental health and other health issues.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister spoke about increasing violence in prisons. Is that as true of women’s prisons as it is of men’s prisons?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I do not know the exact facts. I will write to the noble Baroness on the exact details on violence in women’s prisons, but there are two facts that are very worrying: the rate of self-harm in a women’s prison is eight times higher than in a men’s prison, and 60% of women in prison have brain damage as a result of being hit. We are dealing with some people with severe illnesses and we need to support them.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has—(a) sought to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius on whether Mauritius would agree an amendment to Article 10 of the Treaty to allow Chagossians as well as Mauritian nationals the right to be employed on the Base to the maximum extent practicable;(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing such negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any that have taken place.(2B) Within two months of the report being laid under paragraph (2A)(b), a Minister must table substantive motions in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the contents of the report.(2C) In this section “Chagossians” are defined as those eligible for British citizenship under section 4 of the Act and their descendants.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to prevent the provisions from coming into force until the Government has sought to negotiate Chagossian employees the same right to work in support of the operation of the Base as Mauritians under Article 10 of the Treaty, with a report laid before Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations and subsequent motions in the Commons and Lords on the contents of the report.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the trust fund set up for the Chagossians is absolutely central to this treaty. Under Article 11, the Mauritians have been given the responsibility for administering the fund, which will be paid for, of course, by the UK. However, we still do not have any clarity on how Mauritius will manage the fund. We seem to have no say in it whatever.
The reality of Mauritius’s past record is also a cause for concern. Since the forced removal of the Chagossians from the archipelago, many Chagossians have lived on Mauritius. As has been pointed out a number of times in the debates so far, in the 1970s the UK Government paid £4 million into a trust fund for the benefit of registered Chagossians. I would be very interested to know the Government’s assessment of whether that trust fund has indeed been a success. Do the Government have any concerns about the way Mauritius has managed that fund before we offer to donate cash for another one? If the Government are concerned about Mauritius’s past actions in this area, what additional assurances have Ministers sought from the Mauritian Government to prevent mismanagement, corruption or failure to properly distribute funds in future?
The domestic reality of this arrangement is also worrying. Many Britons will struggle to understand why we are transferring funds to a foreign Government so that they can manage a trust fund on our behalf. Does this mean that we are transferring funds without proper control over how those moneys are spent? What powers will the UK have under the treaty to ensure that Mauritius is fulfilling its responsibilities? These are all important questions—many Members have raised them in the debates so far—which Ministers should seek to answer, either at the Dispatch Box or in the Bill.
Amendment 17 in my name and Amendments 26 and 78 in the names of my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Hannan of Kingsclere relate to the employment of Chagossian citizens on the military base. The treaty makes provision for the employment of Mauritians on the base. We debated issues related to that provision in an earlier group. The treaty, sadly, does not make any provision for the employment of Chagossians on the base. We already know how many Chagossians living on Mauritius feel that they are treated as second-class citizens. Does the Minister agree that Chagossians should have similar protections for their employment on the military base as Mauritians?
Amendment 81, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, is a very simple amendment that would provide for a report on the impact of the treaty on British Indian Ocean Territory citizens. I see no reason why a Minister would refuse to produce that report. The rights of BIOT citizens are, or should be, central to the future of the islands. We need some clarity on this matter. If the Government cannot commit to a report on the impact of the treaty, will the Minister at least give the Committee an assurance that her department will do everything in its power under the terms of the treaty to ensure that BIOT citizens are properly supported by Mauritius?
I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in this group I will speak to my Amendments 20A, 50A and 81A. I also strongly support Amendment 55 in the name of my noble friend Lord Weir of Ballyholme. As the Minister knows, I have asked several questions about the trust fund, which, as I understand it, will be totally in the control of the Mauritian Government. This brings inherent problems, particularly as those Chagossians living here in the UK are often near or below the poverty line and could well do with access to help and assistance. Amendment 55 seeks to probe the fairness of the payments to Mauritians and Chagossians.
I will go further in saying that the Secretary of State should establish a Chagossian advisory council comprised primarily of individuals of Chagossian descent, including members based here in the UK, Mauritius and Seychelles. This council could then be consulted on all strategic programme and spending decisions relating to the trust fund, ensuring that Chagossian communities are directly involved in shaping priorities and oversight. That would promote transparency. The minutes of the council meetings and any recommendations or advice could also be published annually. That goes further than the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Weir, but I would be obliged to hear from the Minister on this as it would deal with some of the issues around transparency and accountability as well.
On Amendment 20A, I am not going to labour the points raised as we discussed some of this last week in Committee, but I remind the Committee that the current provisions of the treaty do not grant a right for Chagossians to access their homeland. They leave it up to the Mauritian Government as to whether this happens. Article 6 states that the Mauritian Government are
“free to implement a programme of resettlement”.
That falls far short of right to access the islands. That is what this amendment seeks to do.
Amendment 50A concerns the protection of Chagossian identity and birthplace. I tabled this amendment at the request of the Chagossian community here in the UK, including many native islanders who were born on Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos and Salomon before their forced removal between 1968 and 1973.
This amendment is not theoretical and it is not precautionary. It responds to a real, current and deeply troubling practice that is already happening, and the Committee needs to be aware of the seriousness of this. We have now seen documentary evidence that Mauritian authorities have begun issuing birth certificates to Chagossians in which the true place of birth has been removed and replaced with Mauritius. In each case, the names of islands such as Diego Garcia, Peros Banhos or Salomon have been deleted from the official record. It is not an allegation; it is a matter of record. Chagossian families have shown us the documents and they have been verified by lawyers. Native islanders born on Peros Banhos and Diego Garcia are now being told by a Government claiming future sovereignty over their homeland that they were not born there at all.
This pattern of altering official records is consistent with long-standing concerns expressed by Chagossians who lived in Mauritius, many of whom describe decades of discrimination, marginalisation and a complete lack of constitutional recognition as a distinct people. United Nations human rights experts have previously documented that Chagossians in Mauritius faced entrenched barriers to housing, healthcare, employment and political participation, and continue to experience de facto discrimination as an Afro-descendant minority. Would the Minister care to look at the page on the website of the Mauritian Government which is dedicated to the Chagos Archipelago? There they refer to those who were “forcibly removed” from the islands in the 1960s as
“Mauritians born and residing at the time in the Chagos Archipelago”.
I have seen the passport of a Chagossian who was deported from Diego Garcia to the Seychelles. In that case, the birthplace that was originally recorded as Diego Garcia has been replaced with Mauritius. I am informed by those directly affected that this practice followed political agreements involving the former Mauritian Prime Minister and the former Seychelles President, under which Chagossians living in Seychelles were required to have Mauritius entered on their documents rather than the true place of their birth on the island. Whether these arrangements were informal or formal, the effect is the same: the birthplace of Chagossian natives has been erased, replaced or falsified. That is an act of identity deletion; it is happening now, and the evidence is in front of us.
The way to deal with this is through this amendment, which I believe is essential. The Chagossians were removed once, their homes were demolished, their pets were killed, their possessions were thrown into the sea, and they were shipped to Mauritius and the Seychelles with no warning and no rights. They lost their land, their livelihood and their future. What they ask for today is, I believe, modest in comparison. They ask for the one thing they still possess: the truth of who they are and where they were born. The Committee needs to be cognisant of that. Identity is not a technicality; for a displaced person, it is absolutely everything. It is the final surviving link to their home, lineage, history and dignity. Yet we now know—not just fear or speculate—that the birthplace of Chagossian natives has been altered by an external authority. There can be no more powerful demonstration of why this House must intervene.
The Government have repeatedly argued that decisions about the Chagos should respect international norms—we have heard it many times in this House. International law is absolutely clear on this point. Altering a displaced person’s civil status records without their consent violates the principles laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN guiding principles on internal displacement and the fundamental norms to identity as recognised in human rights jurisprudence.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Foster, based on insight and experience. The Chagossian package that we, the previous Government, negotiated was for £40 million over 10 years. Part of the challenge faced by the previous Government was around administration and governance and who would have a say on how that money was spent. For example, the delivery partners included the British Council for packages on English language training. We worked with universities, including Middlesex University, on delivering skill sets for Chagossian communities, and there was some insight provided on governance by local communities right here in the United Kingdom. I share that insight and experience because it remained a big challenge as to how the money would be administered.
Perhaps I can ask the Minister about some specifics. The £40 million Chagossian support package was, as she will know, administered by the FCDO—in other words, the UK Government. In the £40 million now being proposed, that will shift, so the issue of accountability, particularly for the Chagossian people, will be a vital component. I have some probing questions on the existing schemes that are already operational. Going purely from memory, about £30-odd million had been allocated. Will those schemes run to the end of their project period? What has happened to that extra £10 million? Has it been reallocated to the £40 million now being proposed in the trust fund by the Government?
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 38A and 38B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Weir. The amendment before the Committee in my name would require that this Government
“shall seek to permit limited commercial and chartered flights for British Chagossians to and from Diego Garcia, using the existing runway facilities”,
and is of great importance. Like many colleagues have already mentioned, the islanders themselves ought to be at the very heart of this conversation. I was privileged to receive correspondence from many members of the Chagossian community living in the United Kingdom, asking that I reflect their concerns on this issue. I believe this would be a modest but vital step towards addressing the historic injustice inflicted on the Chagossian community.
I shall explain why the Government should accept this amendment and why the Bill in its present form is inadequate without it. Noble Lords will be aware of the history of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and I do not intend to repeat it today. However, we must be continually mindful of what happened to the inhabitants of these islands from 1968 to 1973, then numbering around 2,000: they were removed from their homes so that Diego Garcia could become the site of a UK-US military base.
Since then, the Government have repeatedly recognised that these are British Overseas Territories citizens, some native, but many descendants of deceased islanders who never returned, and the Government have provided certain support measures throughout the years, or so they might contend. Yet, in spite of this, they have failed to take into account the undeniably important right of the Chagossians to have any meaningful access to their former homeland. They have been denied what we consider an expectation to return home at the end of the day.
This amendment is about more than symbolic flights; it addresses infrastructure, reconnection and justice. It taps into the Chagossian people and their campaign for representation throughout this long process, during which His Majesty’s Government have continually left them very much outside in the cold. This amendment would allow limited commercial or charter traffic, especially for the Chagossian community in the United Kingdom. This would not be a wholesale opening of the island, nor would it challenge the base operations; it would simply permit members of the community, many of whom live in the United Kingdom, to visit, reconnect and maintain their culture and family ties to the Chagossian community.
Those opposed to this amendment may argue that additional flights raise security and other major issues. I respectfully suggest that this argument cannot be used to stonewall all access. Instead, this amendment demands a managed, limited and regular scheme—for example, scheduled charters once or twice a year. Under vetting, with government oversight, this is entirely compatible with defence interests. Indeed, recognising the ties of displaced people is part of Britain’s international human rights obligations. The amendment would permit family members to see where their parents were born and to grieve, remember and connect with their roots. That matters more than any of us could ever know. It gives the Chagossian community a tangible and practical link to their homeland. Practically speaking, the Government should include reporting requirements on how many flights, who operates them, capacity and cost. We should ensure a transparent and accountable process. I therefore urge noble Lords to consider this amendment carefully. Without it, the Bill will proceed without a tangible measure of access and leave the Chagossian community with yet another broken promise.
I turn to Amendment 38B in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Weir. In its current form, the Bill fails to provide even the most basic protections for a community whose treatment by successive Governments has been one of the most regrettable chapters in our modern history. The proposal in this amendment is simple. All employment on the Diego Garcia military base must include fair and equal opportunities for the Chagossians as British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, and conditions must be in line with UK labour standards. Those conditions are the bare minimum we should expect for individuals working under the authority of the United Kingdom, particularly in the case of British Chagossians, who have just as much claim to Britishness as we do. Although the Government like to point out that Chagossians can apply for jobs on Diego Garcia, in reality very few have ever had meaningful access to stable, fair and properly regulated employment on the island. Much of the labour force is made up of contracted or sub-contracted workers from elsewhere. Where Chagossians have been employed, concerns have been raised in relation to pay disparity and unclear contractual safeguards. Without explicit protection in legislation, these inequalities will simply continue unchecked. We cannot allow that to happen.
The British Overseas Territories should reflect British values, and those include adherence to UK recognised labour standards. These standards cover fair pay, safe conditions, rest periods, paid leave and protection from discrimination. I completely disagree with the claim that a military base “complicates” and creates a problem for workforce regulations. Civilians work on UK and allied military installations right across the world.
This amendment is about treating the Chagossian community with fairness and basic justice. It is a chance for Parliament to ensure that the community that paid the highest price for Britain’s historical decisions in the British Indian Ocean Territory is no longer marginalised from its own homeland.
This amendment may not ensure self-determination or the maintenance of sovereignty, and nor is it likely to affect the security of the region. But what it does seek to do is to put the Chagossian people first. If the Government are serious about righting the past wrongs, surely, they must begin by guaranteeing equal treatment in employment.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I will say at the outset that I do not see the need for the amendments we are discussing. However, I do think that responding to and respecting the wishes and interests of the Chagossians is one of the most important and difficult issues facing the Governments of both the United Kingdom and Mauritius.
There is a lot of history to make good here. It is all the more difficult, in that there is no single Chagossian view. There are Chagossian people in Britain, in Mauritius, in the Seychelles and elsewhere, and there are different views among and indeed within the different communities. It would be unwise to think that there is an immediate or straightforward answer to meeting the wishes and interests of these different communities. My guess is that current and future British and Mauritian Governments will be dealing with these questions for quite some time to come.
It is sensible of the Government to ask the International Relations and Defence Committee to look into the issue, and sensible of them to conduct a survey of Chagossian interests and wishes. This is not an easy task. There will be, and indeed already are, doubts expressed about the time and scope of the IRDC’s work. That, I fear, is inevitable, but I hope that the results of the IRDC’s survey and its report will give the Minister some firm ground on which to make her promised statement in due course.
I know that discussions have been going on between the Mauritian and British Governments about the way forward. I hope that one conclusion of these talks will be that the £40 million trust fund to be administered by Mauritius will be administered in the interests of all Chagossians, and in a way that reassures Chagossians, wherever they are now, that their views are properly heard and represented. There is understandable scepticism about this, and it needs to be addressed.
I hope too that the Government will recognise and indeed facilitate the right of return to and resettlement on the Chagos outer islands, and that here too, there will be close and constructive co-operation between the British and Mauritian Governments.
There is a lot of history to put right as far as the Chagossian community is concerned, in Britain and elsewhere. The Government are, I know, fully conscious of that, and I am sure that future Governments will be too. Meanwhile, I hope that this Bill will soon be approved, passed and implemented.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I would certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, when he says that the Chagossian people, in the disparate parts of the world in which they live, are not united on many issues. However, one thing on which they are united is their desire for employment opportunities on Diego Garcia, so I very much support the words of my noble friend Lord Callanan.
When I looked at this as a Foreign Office Minister, one of the things that staggered me was the number of people employed on that base from Sri Lanka, India and many other countries. There were occasionally some Chagossians, but there was no comprehensive, well-thought-out framework for Chagossians, be they in Crawley, Mauritius or the Seychelles, to find opportunities for employment in Diego Garcia. It was almost as though there was an underlying desire on the part of both the MoD and the Americans not to employ them on the basis, probably, that they might well go on to claim other rights. There was a lot of concern about whether there would be an issue of self-determination if they went there and settled there. I think my noble friend Lord Callanan’s amendment makes a great deal of sense. This is one issue that the Chagossian people are fully agreed on, and we should absolutely support it.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I rise in relation to this group. Picking up the remarks, first of all, of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, I will say that, yes, there is not, perhaps, a single unified position of every single Chagossian. Perhaps we should not be surprised at that. Can we identify an issue in the United Kingdom on which there is a single view which every citizen of the United Kingdom holds? We may indeed have great difficulty in finding many issues within this House on which every single one of us is on exactly the same page. Of course, there would be a way to test that, which is the case of democratic self-determination. That would have been the way to see where the majority of opinion lay within the Chagossian community. It would not be beyond the wit of any Government to do that.
Turning to the amendments in this group, I want to particularly address my Amendments 38C and 55. I have also co-signed a number of my noble friend Lord Hay’s amendments. The thread that very much runs through the amendments in this group, both in content and spirit, is an attempt to actually do something practical, even at this late hour, to support the Chagossian people.
For example, the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, look at employment rights; my noble friend Lord Hay’s amendments look to both employment rights and making some level of provision in terms of flights to the Chagos Islands, and Amendment 50A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, looks at birthright and identification, so that the Chagossians do not become some sort of 21st-century Trotsky, who will suddenly be erased, with their identity being erased from all photographs. They will simply become some sort of non-people. All the amendments are very much in the spirit of trying to provide support to the Chagossian people.
It seems that there are objectively three ways in which the United Kingdom can support the Chagossian people. It is undoubtedly the case. I think it has been acknowledged in earlier parts of this debate, from all sides of the House, that, whatever our views on the present treaty, and whatever our views on a wide range of issues, there does seem to be a common agreement and an acknowledgement that we have had over half a century of poor and shameful treatment of the Chagossian people. Successive Governments of whatever political persuasion have let down the Chagossian people. We cannot turn back the clock to prevent what happened in the late 1960s or the 1970s, or what happened subsequent to then. But what we can try to do is ameliorate the situation.
Again, I would highlight three areas which we could look at. The first is the issue of democracy and self-determination, which was the subject of an earlier debate. The second area, which I think is the principal focus of this group of amendments, is how we can provide financial and practical support for the Chagossians. The third issue is the rights of resettlement of Chagossians. My two amendments deal specifically with the latter two.
Turning first to Amendment 38C, this highlights to the Government that there was an alternative way forward. The KPMG report that was produced in 2015, commissioned by a former Labour Prime Minister, put forward a potential pathway of progress as regards the Chagos Islands. My amendment, in the spirit of trying to be practical in terms of help, does not seek to go fully down that pathway or to reinstate the KPMG report. That is clearly something that the Government would reject, but there were a range of proposals within that report dealing with resettlement.
The cost highlighted in 2015 for implementing that report would, I think, have been about £400 million. Sadly, at that stage, the Government rejected that as being far too expensive. Whatever arguments we may have had at an earlier stage over the broader financial cost of this settlement, it seems to me that a solution which cost £400 million would have been very cheap compared with what we face in practice, no matter what figures we belie.
So it strikes me that, while we still have that sovereignty and control of the Chagos Islands, we should be facilitating that resettlement, because it is clear that the treaty agreement that we have reached does not give a right of resettlement to the Chagossians; it hands that lock, stock and barrel to the Mauritius Government. As I said at an earlier stage, I suspect that those who make the right noises towards the Mauritian Government may be able to resettle, while those who are deemed the “awkward squad” will not be able to go back to their homeland. It seems that the very least we can do is to make that provision while we still can for the resettlement of the Chagossian people.
Finally, Amendment 55 is, again, a probing amendment. We have rehearsed the broader financial position. It is clear that, in stark figures, £101 million will be paid per year to the Mauritius Government. We know that the disparity in terms of what that equates to as a total will vary between the Government’s assessment, using one particular calculation of £3.4 billion, and the main Opposition’s figure of £35 billion, but we know that vast sums will go directly to the Mauritian Government. Where we owe a duty of care in particular is to the Chagos Islanders: they should be our top priority when it comes to finance, but this amendment does not even go quite as far as that. We are simply saying that, financially, we want to ensure that there is at least a determination that what is provided is fair and equal towards the Chagos Islanders compared with Mauritius.
I have to say that there is deep concern over the £40 million trust fund. No doubt the Government will say that it is very well intended to provide direct support to the Chagossian people. However, by providing it in such a way that it is entirely within the Mauritian Government’s control, while Chagossians appear to have no particular leverage as to how it is spent, we do not know on what projects or on whom it will be spent. This is one opportunity, at least, to probe the Government on what actions are going to be taken to at least try to ensure equality of provision on that basis.
I look forward to the Minister’s summing up to see what practical measures the Government can take. For instance, will they accept that we monitor the situation closely through an equality assessment, or ensure that there are Chagossians put on any board that deals with the distribution of the money? The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, has suggested that there should be a reference group of Chagossians who could at least monitor this. If it simply becomes, effectively, a slush fund for the Mauritian Government to indulge whatever pet projects they want, under the guise of providing for the Chagossian people, without any direct input or control from them, we will simply have repeated the mistakes of history and let down the Chagossian people again.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 78 and in support of the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Hay and Lord Weir, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and my noble friend Lord Callanan. The crux of this debate is about ending the dream of return for most British Chagossians. As long as they were British citizens, there was always the possibility of resettlement, but we know that Mauritius denies their nationality, treats them as so many Mauritian citizens and is certain not to allow a general right of return to the Chagossian population.
One or two Chagossians who have said all the right things, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, says, may be allowed back as part of that general migration, but we can be pretty certain that they will not be our fellow subjects watching now from the Gallery, stoical and silent, ignored and overlooked in a grisly symbol of these past five decades.
My amendment deals specifically with the rights of employment at the base, but I want to widen it a little to what would make an economically viable community in the Chagos Islands. The Minister has said several times at the Dispatch Box that our priority is maintaining the base and that by implication, therefore, we cannot do the right thing by the Chagossian population. I do not believe there is a contradiction. Maintaining sovereignty would meet both our strategic and our moral obligations of stewardship as the sovereign power and the focus of loyalty of the Chagossian population, and it is economically viable. We heard in our last debate that it could not happen because it was too far away, too distant and too expensive, but as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Weir, it is a fraction of what we are paying in direct transfers to Mauritius, let alone any associated costs. We can take the Minister’s figures and say that it is six times more expensive to hand the archipelago away, or we can take my noble friend Lady Noakes’s figures and say that it is more like 60 times as expensive. Either way, it is extraordinary that we are not considering the option of resettlement.
I want to explore how that would work. I mentioned last week that the Falklands War was, paradoxically, the beginning of the economic revival of that archipelago because the regular link to the UK and the impact on the economy, as well as our readiness to start exploiting some of the resources, made an island that until then had been suffering from emigration viable and hugely attractive. It has nearly doubled its population since. At the moment we are flying in civilian contractors for all the non-military jobs on an occasional flight from Singapore. These contractors come from the Philippines, Sri Lanka or India, and they do the many non-military jobs on a base of that size—the construction, cooking, cleaning and so on. There is no reason why those jobs could not be done by local people. It would make sense both economically and in security terms, as well as giving a viable economic option to the British Chagossians who return.
But I would not want to leave your Lordships with the thought that this would be a population wholly dependent on the existence of the military base. That is not a position that anyone wants in the long term. It is not a position that the Falkland Islands would want to be in. We will come on to our other overseas territories in a later group, but the economy of Gibraltar has been transformed since the 1980s. Having been almost completely dependent for GDP on our naval base there, it has now become a hugely successful territory through private enterprise. There are lots of other things. What would those other things be? I have said before in this House that it is not for politicians to second-guess the private sector and I am conscious of sitting next to my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who has written a wonderful book making this point at greater length, but here are some ideas off the top of my head after conversations with British Chagossians who had been kicking around a couple of these ideas. Here are seven or eight ideas. Maybe one or two of them might be viable. That is all you would need.
First is the extraordinary marine resource. What about establishing a marine and oceanographic university on Peros Banhos? There has been a lot of interest from academic institutions here and elsewhere. Lancaster University, the University of Exeter, the University of Western Australia in Perth and Dalhousie in Canada have all been involved in ecological and maritime projects around the archipelago. Is it so unthinkable to have a permanent base there that in time could take visiting students and have accommodation for them?
Secondly, the obvious one is tourism. People put a great premium on both novelty and isolation. Here is the last undiscovered tourist archipelago. It can be reached by seaplane from the Maldives which, it is worth reminding ourselves, is closer to the Chagos Archipelago than either the Seychelles or Mauritius. It is perfectly feasible to see snorkelling, birdwatching, scuba-diving and exploration of the marine fauna becoming viable. There are wealthy people who would spend a great deal of money for the additional seclusion and the new frontier.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
This is all very fascinating. I hope we get back to Heligoland soon, and maybe the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, but I have to ask the noble Lord: where was he when his Government decided that the straightforward thing to do was to go for the cession of sovereignty?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
I was a Member of the European Parliament, and I spoke out quite strongly against that Government. I hope the noble Lord knows me well enough to know that I was never a party line man. I thought it was an appalling thing to do then, and I still think it is an appalling thing to do.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
Yes, the previous Government set out to give sovereignty to Mauritius across the archipelago, but not necessarily on the sovereign base. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has made it very clear that one of his red lines was protecting the sovereign base in perpetuity, as in Cyprus. That would have been a very plausible and popular decision.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
That was my understanding, but even that was too much for me. Even if we had been able to get continued sovereignty on the base and some kind of shared sovereignty on the outer atolls, that would still have been exchanging a freehold for a leasehold. It is a preposterous thing to do when we are being told to do it by a court that has expressly been denied jurisdiction in cases between Commonwealth states. We would be doing it, setting a terrible precedent, to satisfy a tribunal that has no authority.
I was very critical of the previous Government for countenancing these changes. I have told the people involved what I think of it. I am equally critical of this Government, as I suspect are quite a lot of the people on the Labour Benches. I look at the expressions of some noble Lords opposite. I know they are decent patriots and democrats, and I know they feel a sense of obligation to our dispossessed Chagossian colleagues. Of course, they have to do their duty, such is the essence of politics.
I finish by holding out the prospect—just the vision—of people coming back: of civilian and military life coming back; of stories told again by grandmothers under newly thatched roofs, their voices stitched with salt and memory; of footsteps remembering the pale coral paths; and of the islands themselves remembering their old inhabitants, as the tides remember the moon.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 31 standing in my name. I want to place on record my appreciation for the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, stepping in last week during the difficult situation I had back home. It again demonstrates clearly that, when you throw an awkward ball to a good player, he will pick it up, make you look good and carry on as if nothing has happened, but I appreciate his assistance in that instance.
I was about to say three lines on this amendment, but then I thought I was perhaps being too presumptuous, because I hoped that the Government, just by reading the amendment, would simply have said that there was no reason why they could not support it. I hope that that is exactly what they will say at the end of the debate, but I think I had better say more than just one or two lines in relation to it before sitting down.
Even if one accepted that it was just £101 million every year for 99 years and considered the proposition in its own terms, without regard for the preceding history, the contrast between this and a one-off payment of £40 million to the Chagossians conveys the message that, while the Mauritians are important and worthy of respect, the Chagossians are, by contrast, worthy only of a few crumbs from the table, relatively speaking, which is deeply hurtful and insulting.
Secondly, to really understand the injustice presented by the arrangement, it obviously needs to be seen in the context of history. The Chagossians do not, for the most part, regard themselves as Mauritian.
I have heard what the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Jay, have said. As the noble Lord, Lord Weir, rightly said, across the United Kingdom there is a multiplicity of views on many issues, so it is difficult to get a concise, exact and single supporting view on this, but I will say these things anyway. In this context, the decision to also pay Mauritius a fantastically large sum of money for the use of just one of the Chagos Islands, while the Chagossians are afforded just £40 million, compounds the present injustice.
To appreciate the menacing nature of the way this monetary injustice greatly compounds the underlying injustice, one must point out that the monies for resettlement set out in the KPMG report are significantly less than the monies it is now proposed the Republic of Mauritius be paid for the UK to lease just one of the Chagos Islands.
Finally, the funding for the Chagossians is also important. Article 11 of the treaty undermines the UK Government’s argument for it by addressing the Chagossians apart from the Mauritians. They are, in effect, saying that it is right to return the islands to the Republic of Mauritius because the pre-8 November 1965 boundaries of the colony express the self-determination of the people of the territory, which implies that everyone, at least from a civic perspective, can be happily Mauritian. However, in that context, there would be no need to address the Chagossians separately and allocate payment to them. In addressing the Chagossians separately, the treaty, in effect, hoists itself with its own petard.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name in this group, and I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hannan, who masterfully adumbrated his litany of development ideas, as well as those in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Callanan, and others.
The theme before the Committee in this group has surely been, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, put it, an attempt to understand the views, wishes, legitimate desires and concerns of Chagossians. How is it possible to do so without a proper process for consultation with the Chagossian community? Much has already been said in the Committee about the inadequacy of the consultation process followed by the Government that has brought us to this point in the design of the Bill and their policy. My Amendment 81C would make the Chagossian contact group, the Government’s official consultation forum, more robust. Indeed, it would ensure that the Chagossian contact group remained in existence throughout the lifetime of the treaty.
In all the impenetrable fora, groups and organisations within Whitehall, the Chagossian contact group has been shrouded, I think it is fair to say, in a little secrecy. I have repeatedly asked Written Questions of Ministers about the operation of this consultation mechanism. We know that it met earlier this year and was attended by a Minister and that it is chaired by a deputy director in the FCDO and has a small secretariat. My amendment would ensure that it remained active and that Chagossians continued to be enfranchised to a greater extent than they have been thus far by the Government.
My Amendment 81G pertains to the theme of resettlement, which has already been mentioned extensively in the debate. The Government prayed in aid the notion of resettlement as one of their key motives for pursuing this policy, and they have taken the word of the Mauritian Government, I think it is fair to say, on trust when it comes to resettlement. To a certain extent, that is to be expected at international negotiations and in bilateral fora, but there is no reason why the Government should not take steps to ensure that the important issue of resettlement is continually checked on by Ministers in future. That is why, in Amendment 81G, I suggest that within 12 months of Royal Assent the Secretary of State should publish a report made in connection with Article 6 of the treaty as to progress on resettlement.
For the sake of timing, I shall speak also to my Amendment 20C, which is grouped here, on the marine protected area. With this amendment, I seek to ensure that the Government take external expertise and consultation of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, mentioned, from universities and scientific experts, who have deep concerns about the potential administration of the marine protected area by the Mauritian authorities and the standards to which those authorities will hold the administration of the MPA and its future designations—whether they will truly be in accordance with the standards that have thus far been set by the UK Government, in terms of both environmental protection and the quality of expertise, scientific and otherwise, used in governing those important regions for marine and broader conservation. My Amendment 20C seeks to ensure that an independent panel is commissioned before those elements of the treaty come into force to provide a serious and well-thought-out independent view, away from the scientific advice that the UK Government will take from their own resources, and to publish that advice so that the international community can see that the Mauritian Government will be held to those international standards.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to particularly support Amendment 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Callanan, and, more generally, Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who is not in his place, and Amendments 38B and 78. This is an important group because it seeks to remedy the way in which the Bill will not only make the Chagossians stateless, but prejudice their ability to financially provide for themselves and their families for today and tomorrow.
Last month, I travelled to Hamburg on business. At dinner, I was sat next door but one to a gentleman who was involved in business in quite a substantial way in Mauritius. It did not take long for my German colleagues to explain to him that I sat in your Lordships’ House, upon which he leant over and implored me—no, begged me—to do that deal with Diego Garcia, so that, in his words, “our streets can be paved with gold”. Those were his exact words.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, I was not sure whether anybody else wanted to follow that last speech. I do not think I have ever seen the Prime Minister drink prosecco—he would prefer a pint, I think.
Anyway, I thank noble Lords for their speeches on this quite important set of amendments, and I would be very surprised if we did not come back to some of these issues on Report, because, for all the nonsense we have just heard, there are actually some very thoughtful and quite important considerations here. Someone put it very well when they said that, while they might not agree with everything we are doing, there is a shared view across the House that we need to do as best we can through this process for the Chagossian communities.
Regarding Amendments 17, 26 and 78, the Chagossians are already entitled to work on the base and have done so. There are a range of job opportunities on Diego Garcia, open to Chagossians with British, Mauritian and Seychelles citizenship. A link to vacancies advertised by KBR, the main contractor responsible for recruiting and managing support staff at the base, is already available on the GOV.UK pages, setting out UK government support for Chagossians. On Amendment 78 from the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—
Lord Bellingham (Con)
How many Chagossians are actually working on the base today?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think that data is published anywhere, I am afraid. If it is, I shall provide it to the noble Lord.
I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, as I always do, but it is unjustifiable to define Chagossians as only those holding British Overseas Territories citizenship. I think that is what he was getting at. There are many Chagossians living in Mauritius, the Seychelles and beyond, and this would also exclude anyone who holds British citizenship, but not British Overseas Territories citizenship.
Amendment 20 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which is one of many that would require the Government to seek something from Mauritius, is not needed. We have already committed to making a Statement to Parliament—and I think it is right that we do this—on the modalities of the Chagossian trust fund and eligibility for resettlement. That is in large part a response to the considerable interest that there has been from noble Lords across the House in making sure that the trust fund is run properly and fairly.
Taking this together with Amendment 38A from the noble Lord, Lord Hay, on air travel to Diego Garcia, I say that, as we have said numerous times, the UK is taking forward planning for a programme of heritage visits for Chagossians to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia. These were paused in 2019 because of Covid, but we are working hard to reinstate them as soon as possible. Now, as then, these visits would include visits to key heritage sites. Specifically on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hay, there are no commercial flights to Diego Garcia, and nor would they be practical, as it is a working military base that is highly sensitive. Allowing commercial flights would interfere with the operational use of the base. Heritage visits in the past have often involved the use of charter aircraft and this may be the case for future visits also, but there is nothing in the treaty that would prevent this.
On Amendment 20C, noble Lords will recall that we debated the environmental impacts of the treaty and the marine protected area around the Chagos Archipelago last week. Both the UK and Mauritius are committed to protecting the unique environment around the islands. Noble Lords will be aware that on 2 November Mauritius issued a statement announcing the creation of a marine protected area once the treaty enters into force. No commercial fishing whatever will be allowed in any part of the MPA. Low levels of artisanal fishing, compatible with nature conservation or for subsistence of the Chagossian community, would be allowed in certain limited areas.
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to delay the implementation of the Bill and the entry into force of the treaty. The treaty has already been reviewed by two Select Committees of this House. They have reported their findings and agreed that the treaty allows for positive environmental work, with the IAC welcoming
“the Government’s assurance that it will work closely with the Mauritian Government to establish a well-resourced and patrolled Marine Protected Area”.
Amendment 38C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, would require the Government to implement the resettlement recommendations of the 2015 KPMG study. The KPMG report, commissioned by the Conservative Government, concluded that resettling a civilian population permanently on BIOT would entail substantial and open-ended costs. The then Government ruled out resettlement, acknowledging the acute challenges and costs of developing anything equivalent to modern public services on remote and low-lying islands.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that there were three different options for how many people you would resettle, and the costs of all of them were substantially lower than the transfer payments that we are making to Mauritius alone under the current deal?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is correct, but those payments would not have paid for a legally secure operation of the base alongside our United States allies. Whatever legal geniuses we have opposite us today, those in the White House differed on the analysis now being put forward by the Conservative Party, which is clearly different from what they put forward in the not-so-distant past.
The agreement gives Mauritius the opportunity to develop a programme of resettlement on its own terms, without requiring the UK taxpayer to pick up the bill.
On Amendment 81G from the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, as I and other Ministers have said on numerous occasions, it will be for Mauritius to establish a programme of resettlement once the treaty comes into force. I am very sympathetic to the way he put his case on this, but it would not be a good use of taxpayers’ money to keep reporting on something that is not in our gift to achieve. The Government are increasing their support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects. These include Chagossian-led community projects in Crawley and beyond, as well as education and English language support, and have involved the creation of a number of FCDO-funded full-time jobs for Chagossians. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, asked me about commitments on this going forward. We are committed to these at least until the end of this Parliament. He will understand that what happens beyond that may depend on decisions of Ministers in the future.
Amendment 31 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and Amendment 55 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, ask for an equality impact assessment on the payments to be made by Mauritius to Chagossians. The Government have already released the public sector equality duty report relating to the treaty, which addresses all the issues around equalities and the impact assessment.
Amendment 50A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, raises a really important issue. We do not think it is necessary to make provision for this in the Bill, but we understand her concern. As I said in my letter in relation to the first day of Committee, we will work with relevant authorities to ensure that official documentation reflects historic connections to the Chagos Archipelago wherever possible. British passports issued to Chagossians will continue to display their place of birth and, if they wish, those who already have British Overseas Territories citizenship status can hold a British passport reflecting their status as British Overseas Territories citizens. I am very sympathetic to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness and commit to making diplomatic representations to the Government of Mauritius to ensure that place of birth is recorded accurately on documentation.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I very much appreciate the Minister’s commitment to do that, because this is such a hurtful thing. Sometimes, those of an Irish republican disposition will say that I am not British but just Irish, so it is something I feel very strongly about. The Chagossians are entitled to have their identity confirmed, and I would be very pleased if she could write to me after she raises those issues through the diplomatic channels.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Of course, I would be very happy to do that.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
On the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and I put forward, as was alluded to in a number of speeches, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the reason why we raised equality issues as regards financial payments is the potential role of Chagossians within the trust fund. There is a widespread concern at present that we are simply hoping that Mauritius does the right thing with that. I appreciate that the Minister is perhaps not in the position today to give any level of direct assurances. However, can she at least go away and come back before Report with the Government’s thoughts or information—perhaps after discussions with the Mauritian Government—as to how we can inject a level of Chagossian direct involvement and control over that trust fund? That would be very helpful for whenever we reach Report.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is not too much to ask. We are talking to the Mauritian Government about this, because we want the same thing as the noble Lord. I had hoped that we would be able to say something a little bit more detailed about that by now. We have not quite got there, but we will use best endeavours to get there before Report. I understand the motivation behind this, and it is right that we do what we can to make sure that noble Lords have the assurances they need by Report.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
In light of the reaffirmation that there will be both ongoing citizenship as well as dual nationality, and, perhaps uniquely, that community will be impacted directly by the terms of this treaty, does the Minister accept the principle that formal mechanisms of representation for the duration of this agreement, rather than just between now and the treaty coming into force, in principle warrant very serious consideration?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It depends on what we mean by formal and what that looks like. We have an arrangement at the moment via the contact group and a commitment to strengthen and expand that, to make sure that does the job it is intended to do and the Government can support it in doing that. However, we are clear that we do not do anything to it without its consent. It is an area on which we are interested in having further conversations—I think the noble Lord knows what I am getting at. Whether that completely satisfies his desire for formality, we will probably continue to explore together.
With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that this has been a fascinating debate. It was a real pleasure to hear so many noble Lords focusing, as we rightly should, on the rights and futures of the Chagossian people.
The trust fund is an essential part of the treaty. Essentially, it is the only part of the treaty that is positive for the community. Therefore, we must not allow it to be maladministered, or worse, by the Mauritian Government. My noble friend Lord Ahmad made some very good points about the management of the existing fund, to which he got some answer from the Minister. We are certainly clear that the UK Government should take all necessary steps to hold the Mauritian Government to account for their management of the fund to ensure that the Chagossians are properly looked after and no longer treated as second-class citizens. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Fuller for trying to apply a little imaginary lipstick to his proverbial pig in this matter.
The points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, were particularly important and extremely serious. I was pleased to hear the assurances given to her by the Minister. We should not allow the Chagossian people to be treated in this manner by Mauritius.
This speaks to our concerns on value for money. Whichever figures you take, this agreement is a major financial undertaking, costing the British taxpayer billions of pounds over the lifetime of the deal. Any situation where the fund is capitalised but not managed properly would surely be unacceptable, and we should make sure that there are powers to hold Mauritius to account should that happen.
My noble friend Lord Hannan, in his excellent contribution, made some great points on how the Chagossians could be resettled in future and many of the alternative occupations that they could take in such circumstances.
If the Minister is not satisfied that the Government have the powers that they need to do that, I hope Ministers will go back to the Mauritian Government to ensure that we have those stronger powers before the treaty takes effect. The Minister is right that many of these matters will be returned to on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Callanan
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has—(a) sought to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius regarding a guarantee that paragraph 3(d) of Annex 1 will cover all non-UK and non-US civilian personnel stationed in the Chagos Archipelago, in addition to military and civilian security forces;(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing such negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any that have taken place.(2B) Within two months of the report being laid under paragraph (2A)(b), a Minister must table substantive motions in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the contents of the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to prevent the provisions from coming into force until the Government has sought guarantees regarding the presence of non-UK and non-US civilian personnel in the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group speak to perhaps one of the most concerning parts of the treaty—although the previous bit was also concerning: namely, the risk that this agreement will undermine our security. Given the large number of amendments in this group, I will speak only to those in my name. I know that my noble friend Lady Goldie will speak to her amendments as well, and I will certainly not seek to pre-empt her arguments in my remarks, as my noble friend is much more of an expert on defence matters than I will ever be.
My Amendment 18 is a commencement block that would prevent the main clauses of the Bill coming into effect until the Government have laid a report on securing a guarantee that all non-UK and non-US civilian personnel stationed on the archipelago will benefit from the provisions of Annex 1. Annex 1 protects the UK’s unrestricted access to Diego Garcia’s sea and airspace. The treaty makes reference to some civilian activity, but we are seeking an assurance from the Government that that part of the treaty in its entirety applies to civilians stationed on Diego Garcia. I hope the Minister will be able to give us that assurance.
Amendment 67 speaks to one of the most fundamental questions, which has already been the subject of much debate. The treaty is clear that the UK must inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia, using the magnificent word, “expeditiously”. The dictionary definition of expeditiously is “quickly and efficiently” and “with speed”. Many have rightly asked what expeditiously means in practice. My Amendment 67 clarifies that the UK Government must not inform Mauritius of any relevant armed attacks until the attack has ended. Providing prior notification to Mauritius, or indeed any third state not directly involved in the attack, could risk the safety of British and American servicemen who are engaged in the relevant operation. Could the Minister confirm that nothing in the treaty requires the UK Government to give forewarning of any attack emanating from the military base? If that is the case then I am sure they can accept the amendment.
Additionally, my amendment seeks a requirement not to notify Mauritius if notification would endanger the security of the base. Can the Minister confirm that nothing in the treaty would prevent the Government withholding notification if notifying Mauritius would endanger the base? My noble friend Lady Goldie will be going into additional details on these important issues.
Amendment 69 in my name seeks to make a point about the location of specific equipment and installations on the base. It is essential that the security of the base is maintained. It would not be acceptable if the UK Government were to endanger the security of equipment at the military base by notifying Mauritius. In replying to the debate, can the Minister please address those concerns? It is essential that the UK Government have the right to refuse notification when doing so would endanger the base itself or our personnel.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Callanan on the amendments to which he spoke. I shall be dealing with the word “expeditiously” and I will try to ensure that that characterises my contribution, and perhaps influences this debate.
I wish to speak to my Amendments 83, 85, 86 and 87. At Second Reading, I raised the issue of the mismatch between the Bill and the treaty that it implements. My main concern in this whole affair is our defence and security and the implications of this Bill on that. I identified a range of areas where greater clarity is required. Before I continue, I should say that I have received a letter from the Ministers, for which I thank them. That sought to clarify some of the questions that I asked at Second Reading. The letter brings a degree of clarification, but in other respects it leaves me with questions. I shall address these as I explain my amendments.
Amendment 83 is simply a technical drafting amendment to accommodate my remaining amendments in this group. It specifies that the commencement of the treaty cannot occur until the conditions outlined in my amendments have been satisfied.
Amendment 85 relates to the specific notification requirements under Annex 1 1(b)(viii) of the treaty. My amendment would require that Clauses 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a statement establishing that the notification in Annex 1 1(b)(viii) of the treaty does not require the consent of Mauritius in response. The provision in Annex 1 to which this refers says that:
“In accordance with this Agreement and with reference to Article 2(5) and Annex 2, in respect of Diego Garcia, Mauritius agrees the United Kingdom shall have … unrestricted access, basing and overflight … for non-United Kingdom and non-United States of America aircraft and vessels, upon notification to Mauritius”.
The amendment seeks to enable the Secretary of State to make explicit, before Clauses 2 to 4 of the Bill can come into force, that the consent of Mauritius is not required for us to host third-party forces on Diego Garcia.
As I mentioned, I have the letter from the Ministers in which they helpfully clarify that permission from Mauritius is not required. However, I require the Minister to confirm that such notification is after the event. If notification is required before the event, that implies consent is required, or that the intimation of an objection by Mauritius is possible. That is why I seek the clarification.
We cannot have a situation where Mauritius can in any way object to which forces are present at the base. The operation of the base, including the matter of the basing of our allies, must be solely at the discretion of the United Kingdom. I would appreciate the Minister giving a guarantee that Mauritius will have no control whatever over the basing and overflight of other countries’ forces. Unusually, the Minister and I are perhaps nearly at consensus in idem here. If that is the case, why would the Secretary of State be reluctant to publish a statement?
Amendment 86 is another defence and security amendment. It seeks that Clauses 2 to 4 would not come into force until the Secretary of State has published a statement establishing that the obligation under Annex 1(2) of the treaty
“does not extend to aircraft and vessels which have landed or docked at the Base for the purposes of maintenance or refuelling prior to the armed attack on a third state”.
Annex 1(2) of the treaty is the provision that requires the United Kingdom
“to expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on a third State”.
As we have discussed, much has been made of what is meant by “expeditiously”. The Ministers’ letter to me stated that they are satisfied that this does not require the UK to seek the permission of Mauritius, nor for notification to be given prior to the event. That is helpful. The International Agreements Committee of this House has also concluded that it interprets “expeditiously” to mean
“as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances”.
I believe that the Minister gives her interpretation in good faith, but what of Mauritius’s interpretation? Does the Minister know whether the Mauritian Government share this view? If she does not currently know, and I quite accept that she may not, I would be happy for her to write to me to confirm the point.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Callanan and Lady Goldie. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, both know that I, as someone who was involved with direct negotiations, albeit in 2019, remained unconvinced of one specific element above all else—I remain unconvinced of it today—and that was the security protections that have just been so eloquently narrated by my noble friend Lady Goldie.
In associating myself with those amendments, I will also press ahead on the archipelago and the lay of the land beyond Diego Garcia. I draw attention to paragraph 3(a) of Annex 1, which says that
“vessels and aircraft of the United Kingdom and the United States of America shall have unrestricted rights of overflight, navigation and undersea access”.
That is clear. It continues:
“States operating with the United Kingdom or the United States of America shall also have such unrestricted rights, save in respect of overflight or undersea access, which require notification”.
We need a degree more clarification to unwrap that provision, particularly on passage to and from Diego Garcia and the lay of the other parts of the archipelago. Like my noble friend, I press the Minister to give the specific assurance, which I certainly feel should be within the agreements signed with Mauritius, that notification does not mean before the event but after.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 67. This part of the agreement is being portrayed as though it has some type of special status. It is similar to the agreement we have with the sovereign base areas in Cyprus. The UK and our allies use Cyprus as a staging post for a number of operations outside the Republic of Cyprus. The way it operates there is that the Government of Cyprus are not informed prior to the use of that base but, like in this agreement, are informed afterwards. I accept the point about the use of “expeditiously”—what it means is worth debate—but the way I read this is that it is no different from other bases.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said she was nitpicking. To be fair to her, I do not think she is: she is trying to get clarity on this important point. We want to ensure that our forces and allies have free movement and use of the base under this treaty. I do not think that our United States allies would agree with the Bill and treaty if they in any way limited their use of the base, not only for actions against other parts of the world but in the siting of various pieces of equipment on those important islands. We look for some reassurance on that point, but it is important to have clarity. That would certainly allay some of the fears raised, quite legitimately by some people and by others as scaremongering against the Bill.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, surely the fundamental difference with the two bases on Cyprus that he mentioned is that we kept them in perpetuity—they are sovereign bases. Yes, we have an arrangement with the Cypriot Government to inform them of activity after deployment takes place, but what concerns me about this particular lease arrangement is very simple.
At the moment, we have in place a Government in Mauritius headed by His Excellency Navin Ramgoolam, who is a democrat and a friend of his country. I had the privilege of meeting him a number of times when he was premier before. Indeed, he took over from a Government who were also democratic and had all the right intents. We had many arguments about this issue but, fundamentally, we were two democratic Governments discussing a matter.
The concern I have is this: what would happen if there were some sort of coup or a military Government in Mauritius? In these worst-case scenarios, we have to be prepared for the future. Let us hope for the best but prepare for the very worst. Could the Minister comment on what would happen to these arrangements in the treaty in that event? If, indeed, a military coup took place and an alliance was made with a hostile power, the operations of this base could be jeopardised.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 20G and 20H in my name. I have tabled them because I want to probe more deeply whether the consequences of non-ratification are such that non-ratification is not an option.
Furthermore, it is important that we are clear about what we can and cannot do. The Minister has told the Committee that the treaty is a done deal; that it cannot be changed; and that the role of your Lordships’ House in relation to it and to the Bill before us today is really very limited. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has supported the Government in this view, suggesting that, going forward, there is only scope for possibly impacting the details of the implementation. It is clear that, although the CRaG process did not prevent the Government ratifying the treaty, the treaty was defined between the UK Government and the Republic of Mauritius in terms that place not only a clear distinction between the act of signing and ratification but unusual distance between the two, in that the treaty cannot come into focus unless and until the Bill before us today is passed and Clause 2 transfers sovereignty.
The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on day one in Committee were important. He said:
“Because of the way the treaty is drafted and the way Article 18 operates, the treaty can come into force only when this legislation is implemented. That is unusual”.
After an exchange, the Minister helpfully clarified the situation further and said:
“Before the UK can ratify the treaty, we will need to do the following: pass both primary and secondary legislation, update the UK-US exchange of notes, and put in place agreements on the environment, maritime security and migration”.—[Official Report, 18/11/25; col. 713.]
In this context, it is clear that, although the treaty has been negotiated and cannot be changed without reopening negotiations, it has been defined in terms to which both parties consented. This means that what could be drawn from the act of signature on 22 May was, by definition, inherently provisional and contingent. It was signed subject to recognition that the act of signing did not bring the treaty into force; and that the treaty would not come into force unless and until the respective political processes of both countries had been properly honoured. In this context, because the coming into force of the treaty depends on an Act of Parliament, this is plainly not a done deal, in my estimation.
Furthermore, as a legislature on its toes, we have to let the Executive know that we understand that, having negotiated the treaty, they will encourage us to pass this legislation so that it can move to ratification. We know that this does not mean that we have to pass this piece of legislation any more than we have to pass any other piece of legislation. If we reject this Bill, the islands could not be given to Mauritius. If the Government chose, they could then invoke the Parliament Act, which would delay things by some 13 months or thereabouts, in the context of which there is a good chance that common sense would prevail. The Republic of Mauritius could not object to this because it signed up to the treaty knowing that it depended on domestic processes that, in this case, require the passing of legislation through a legislature that cannot be dictated to by the Executive. It is really important that we are open, transparent and honest about the opportunity that we have both to stand up for the Chagossians and to say no to this treaty because, if we have the power to do so, we have the responsibility to do so. That is, I think, is of equal importance; it may even be more important.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to deal with Amendments 58, 61 and 62, which are, largely speaking, probing amendments.
My noble friend Lord Morrow raised the question of whether the Government have breached their manifesto; far be it from me to suggest that. There are even some scurrilous rumours that they will raise taxes, but that will clearly not be the case, and such rumours will obviously be disproved in the next few hours.
I and others have been very critical of the deal, the legislation and the approach that has been taken by the Government. We have been critical of the treatment of the Chagossian people on issues such as the right to self-determination and the ceding of sovereignty. It seems to me that the response that the Government will offer as a rationale is essentially that, whatever the position on those issues—and I appreciate the Government will dispute the position that I and others have put forward—the outweighing factor is the securing of our strategic defence within the area and, if that is got right, that will trump everything else.
That is why the amendments in this group are so important, as they try to put that to the test. My amendments and, indeed, a number of the others, try to seek assurances. I am using the word “assurances” as I am reminded of a phrase that a friend of mine would use when talking of “clarification”. He would say that the purpose of clarification is often not to make things clear but to put yourself in the clear. Instead, I will ask the Government for assurances on the issue of defence. Is what is being put forward—what is said on the tin—being met by what is delivered in respect of assurances?
As regards the amendments, I want to deal with three issues that are interrelated. First, I want to probe the position as regards the potential. We know what has been secured directly on Diego Garcia itself, but I want to probe on the potential for the Mauritius Government to enter into arrangements with third countries, to have a movement by those countries towards other islands by way of a leasing or some other arrangement, which may then descend into some form of military activity, with monitoring bases and things of that nature.
Earlier today, in answer to an Oral Question, the Minister rightly indicated that it would be wrong to speculate on potential future events. However, this is not an issue that simply appears in a vacuum. We know that the Mauritius Government have had relatively close relationships with Russia, for example, and have been in discussions with India, and that there are ongoing discussions with China. Indeed, it is reported in relation to one of the islands—Peros Banhos, if I am pronouncing that correctly—that there are discussions around a leasing arrangement. It is clear that Mauritius will look towards the Chagos Islands as an opportunity to work with a range of other Governments to lever in what they have been given.
Specifically, the concern is with regard to China. Where arrangements have been made between other jurisdictions and China, they have led, in a military sense, to a level of mission creep. We have seen that these things are beginning to happen. There are a number of examples, from Sri Lanka to Djibouti to the Solomon Islands. We need a belt and braces approach to how we are going to prevent any level of development around that side of things.
I know that the Minister will respond in part by saying that there is provision within the treaty that, should there be any sort of military arrangement, Mauritius would then have to notify the UK Government and that, effectively, the UK Government could say no to such an arrangement. However, there are a couple of concerns in relation to that. Amendment 58 therefore looks to see what practical measures can be taken. We need to flesh out in very clear-cut terms what we can do. The concern, of course, is that any notification by Mauritius might be post the event. We might see a situation in which something is, for example, leased to the Chinese, who then develop their own mission creep. Mauritius could then turn round and say that, “Actually, this has been leased out to them, and we do not know what they are doing, and they have gone beyond that”. We need to tease out from the Government what they intend to do in practice in a situation where, for example, a listening station was placed on one of the islands or there was a range of other realistic possibilities.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
What the noble Lord is saying is very interesting, but the treaty protects the outer islands from development. Mauritius is one of only two African countries that is not part of the belt and road initiative, so its main interlocuter is not China but India.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
We can pick which Government are looking to lever in additional influence in the area. I am simply saying that China has a particular record of reaching agreements with other countries to—
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Will the noble Lord confirm that, although it is true that Mauritius is not part of the belt and road initiative—the road thing would not really work, if you think about the geography—it was the first African country with which China signed a free trade agreement, and it has received a state visit from the President of China, which, given the population of Mauritius, would suggest something a little more unspoken than just trade between those two territories.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
It is clear that the Chinese interests—and indeed those of other countries, which I think goes to the heart of why we are seeing this as a key strategic point of view—go beyond simply trying to create trading relationships. We know that Mauritius has around 1.3 million people, much smaller than even my own beloved Northern Ireland—but President Xi is not beating down the doors for a state visit to Belfast any time soon, as far as I am aware. Whether it is China, India or anyone else, whatever the assurances that are there, what are the practical implications and what can we do to assure ourselves that there will not be a level of mission creep?
I will continue very briefly, as I suppose time is moving on. Amendments 61 and 62 probe the position as regards airspace and maritime assurances. Again, this has been sold particularly on the basis of it being not simply the British position but the US position, so I think we need to see some level of joint assurance in relation to that. There has been a concern—and some level of suspicion, which I seek assurances that the Government can allay—that the position of the Americans has been effectively to go along with this treaty. There was, I think, a level of reluctance. It was reported initially that the Americans had given a level of lip service. I think we want to get a much greater level of reassurance that they have bought into this, rather than simply acquiescing with something that one of their allies has asked for. Specifically, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, there are some restrictions in terms of notification that seem to undermine the security implications.
For instance, if we look at the airspace side of things, there is a 12-mile zone around Diego Garcia, but airspace around the rest of the Chagos Islands is simply with Mauritius. On a maritime basis, we know that the treaty details that the archipelago waters, the territorial seas and the EEZ around the Chagos Islands are all within the control of Mauritius. Where there can be a level of restriction or interference on airspace or maritime boundaries, that can also create a concern. We seek assurances from government that what is being proposed—and this is a question of belt and braces—is actually going to provide the genuine level of defence. If so much else is potentially being sacrificed to bring about this deal, we need to make sure that we have something that is ironclad as regards our defences.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is probably best to let the Americans be the judge of their own best interests. They seem to be rather keen on this treaty and its ratification. The Secretary of State in Washington, who is also currently head of the National Security Council, called its conclusion a “monumental achievement”. He does not seem to be concerned that it might open the road to Chinese influence; nor do the Indians, who are, of course, close friends of the Mauritians and are as concerned as we and the Americans are about Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean. The treaty is seen as a barrier to that, not an opening to it.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
Of course, the noble Lord knows better than anyone that Governments do each other favours in these situations, and Heads of Government will sometimes say, “I need you to say the following”, but I am pretty sure the Secretary of State said at the beginning that he was extremely worried by what he described as a serious threat to our national security when the deal was first put forward.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am not sure what remarks the noble Lord is referring to. I am talking about the position taken by the current Administration of the United States.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I appreciate what the noble Lord has said in relation to the response in the public sphere by the American Government. Whatever one’s views—and there will be a range of views towards the current American Government across this Chamber—it is a fair accusation that they occasionally lapse into a certain level of hyperbole. It is either the greatest thing that has ever happened or the worst disaster. We should not necessarily take an enthusiastic apparent public endorsement as something being a great thing from the Secretary of State or the current President as a full reassurance of the American position.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I think it is probably best to take what they say at face value. They probably mean what they say.
I will now attempt to address the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and surprise her by saying that I think they are extremely sensible. I understand the thinking behind them. I understand her concerns that are encapsulated in Amendments 83 and 85 to 87, but I think the amendments are probably unnecessary. I suspect that the statements the noble Baroness is calling for could be made today. I suspect that we will hear them before the debates on this Bill are over, but it seems to me important that we should hear them, so I understand what the noble Baroness is saying.
I would like briefly to refer to the consistent and cogent arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, for a sovereign base area solution rather than the solution that is written into the treaty. I do not know why the last Government looked at it but decided not to pursue it. I do not know what the reasons were. They were probably, I would guess, topographical—we are talking about a very large area, rather than the two restricted areas on Cyprus—but I do not know, and I think it is a valid question to ask.
The big point, surely, is that we are where we are. We have a treaty, and we cannot ratify it until we pass this Bill. That is why I disagree strongly with the four amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell. He comes straight out and says that he wants renegotiation. He wants the treaty renegotiated in four separate respects, but we are where we are. The treaty exists. If we were to decide to reopen the negotiation, I think we could expect a rather hostile reaction in the United States. The principal concern of the United States is security of tenure and the continuing co-operation of third countries over supply chains. That is what they are concerned about—not our blue eyes but security of tenure of the base. Given that, some in Washington would argue that it is time for the United States to switch sides, to ditch us and do a direct deal with the Mauritians. That argument has been made in Washington and could be made again if we get ourselves into such a mess that, having secured a treaty that the Conservative Government sought and the Labour Government have concluded, we were to decide, after all, that it was not a treaty we wanted and that we wanted to go back to the start and negotiate something different. I can imagine the United States losing patience with us.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I know that the noble Lord speaks with great insight but the whole point of the amendments, with which I agree—that is why I back my noble friend Lady Goldie in particular—is on the specific issue of security. Yes, as I have said on the Floor of the House before, there were 11 rounds of negotiation but, at the end of them, agreement could not be reached because—I speak from my own insight and experience—back in 2019, that element of security was not assured. When I returned to London, I asked Boris Johnson directly, in good faith—I was not the OTs Minister but I had a good rapport with the then Prime Minister—and he could not give me that assurance. That is what I have pressed for throughout the passage of the Bill.
It has come up repeatedly that there were 11 rounds of negotiations. I have spent a lot of time in business and, as the noble Lord knows, in government. When you are looking for a negotiation and seeking to agree something, the fact that there were 11 rounds would suggest—I know this for a fact—that that agreement could not be reached.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I respect what the noble Lord says and he knows what he is talking about. I also respect what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked for in requesting four statements. We should be asking for statements rather than changes to the text of a treaty. We voted in July for the ratification of this treaty; we cannot ratify the treaty until we pass this Bill, and we should pass the Bill.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 54. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that I think we are all pleased that we are where we are. It seems very strange to say that we cannot be discussing the Bill—that was almost the way it was put.
My amendment really follows on a little from what the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, talked about. During Committee in another place, concerns were expressed that other countries may seek to lease individual Chagos Islands and reference was made to reports that India and China were in consultation with the Republic of Mauritius. At that time, the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the honourable Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, responded robustly. He stated:
“I want to say on that point that this is absolute nonsense. Is the shadow Minister willing to provide any evidence that that is going to take place? This treaty protects the security of the outer islands and expressly prohibits foreign forces building bases on them—something on which her Government did not succeed in their negotiations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/25; col. 686.]
What is this great protection to which he referred?
Noble Lords will find that in paragraph 3 of the first annex to the Mauritius treaty. It states:
“In accordance with this Agreement, in respect of the Chagos Archipelago beyond Diego Garcia, Mauritius agrees”—
this is point d—that,
“except in circumstances of necessity for a response to a humanitarian emergency or natural disaster in instances where the United Kingdom or the United States of America is unable or unwilling to provide such a response, Mauritius and the United Kingdom shall jointly decide on authorisations permitting the presence of non-United Kingdom, non-United States or non-Mauritian security forces, either civilian or military”.
I cannot see anything there to validate the Minister’s assertion that the treaty
“expressly prohibits”
foreign forces building bases on the islands. What it says is that they cannot do so without the agreement of the UK Government.
For me, this presents two real concerns. First, and most importantly, there is nothing in the treaty to provide any kind of safeguard in relation to the leasing of islands for purposes other than security and defence. This would leave the door wide open for other countries to seek to lease the islands, ostensibly for purposes other than security and defence. The argument made by the Minister in the other place was that the suggestion that there was a problem was nonsense. It seems to me to be very well founded. The extraordinary thing about these provisions is the fact that they relate to islands of immense geostrategic importance, yet the protections in relation to them are effectively non-existent. That seems very complacent to me.
There is nothing to prevent a hostile country leasing an island and either combining security and defence purposes with others, in the hope of hiding the former, or on beginning with non-security and defence purposes and then changing over to them. Can the Minister tell me how that could be prevented? What would happen if an island is leased for non-security and defence purposes, yet it subsequently becomes apparent that it is being used for those purposes and that the country has dug in well and has no intention of relinquishing the islands? How could they be dislodged? Would the Minister here like to respond on that? I found the suggestion from that Minister in the Commons that there are no presenting difficulties quite alarming. It suggested a certain otherworldliness with a high degree of disconnection from political reality.
Secondly, the other difficulty is the completely opaque nature of the protection that is provided and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny. At the moment, we would have no knowledge about when or if approaches were made by the Republic of Mauritius to seek UK agreement for other countries to use other islands, and we need to know that. My Amendment 54 would address this concern by requiring the Minister to develop regulations stating that before the UK can agree to a proposal from the Republic of Mauritius—made under Annex 1(3)(d) of the treaty—that any island other than Diego Garcia be used for security and defence purposes by another country, that proposal must be brought to Parliament and endorsed by a vote of both Houses. Will the Minister give me a reason why that should not happen?
In ending, I will ask at this stage about the point made in the debate on the fourth group about whether the Government were asked to give their consent before the deal between Mauritius and India was done. I am not sure that we got a response to that. It was going to give India a defence presence. I would really like to know how long the Government knew before that happened. Did they know and when did they agree to it?
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I will speak to my Amendment 81J on behalf of all those who have written to me, urging the House of Lords to look again at the security implications of the Bill. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Government of the United States before taking any action that may affect the security environment of Chagos or the operation of the facilities on Diego Garcia. It is simple, reasonable and, I think, essential. The Minister may well say that we will of course speak always and at length to our closest ally, but this amendment seeks to put that into the Bill and on a mandatory footing.
We are all aware that Diego Garcia is not an ordinary base; it is the backbone of US and UK operations in the Indian Ocean, the Middle East and east Africa. It is critical for surveillance, early warnings, carrier support and global rapid deployment. Hundreds of thousands of British and American personnel have depended on it for missions authorised by this country, but the Bill does not have any statutory requirement even to consult with the ally whom we seek to stay closest to. Of course, the US is not a passive observer; it is a treaty partner that has kept those waters free from extremism, piracy and hostile influence for decades. Therefore, this is a straightforward amendment. I will not prolong the debate, because I can see the Whips getting nervous. Unfortunately, this is a rather large group of amendments, but I thought that it was very important to speak to my amendment. I hope that it will be considered by the Committee.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I am more than happy to associate myself with the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Baroness Goldie. We started the group by saying that your Lordships’ House would consider it expeditiously, so I will be brief.
My full sympathy is with the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in these matters. All I can say is that he must be speaking to different people in Washington DC than I am when it comes to the provisions of this treaty. Occasionally in your Lordships’ House, we hear extreme criticisms of the Government of the United States, and that is entirely justifiable from noble Lords who take that position, but it is impossible on the one hand to criticise the position of the Government of the United States or the way they conduct themselves and simultaneously to suggest that the United Kingdom should resile from seeking to renegotiate provisions in the treaty that are, on further reflection and discussion in your Lordships’ House, found to be wanting. There is no reason why the Government of the United Kingdom should resile from seeking to renegotiate elements of this treaty which are deficient, as is being exposed in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, gave an interesting constitutional deposition on the ins and outs of that process.
I will confine my comments to my controversial Amendments 81F and 20F, which seek that renegotiation. My full sympathy is with Ministers opposite who are trying to steer a difficult Bill on a difficult issue into a safer port. My amendments come from the fact that it is incumbent on your Lordships’ House to look beyond the current security situation. The treaty and its Annex 1 are necessarily drafted in the context of the current security picture, but that security picture is dynamic, and it does not take much imagination to envisage a time very soon when Ministers find themselves in a completely changed security scenario; for example, in the Indo-Pacific and the wider Pacific region. What if a military superpower were to invade a neighbouring country and the requirements of the UK’s Armed Forces in their use of the base area and the wider contested issue of sovereignty over the Chagos Islands changed dramatically from the position today? That is why I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on issues such as the notification of the Government of Mauritius, the third-party armed forces being present, and the placement of devices and installations.
My Amendment 20F seeks to take that a step further by looking into the future and saying there may well come a point at which Ministers feel, at the outbreak of hostilities more widely in the world, a pressure to derogate from the restrictive provisions of Annex 1. That is why I package it with Amendment 81F, which would take the unusual step of placing a requirement on the Government to notify Parliament should there be communications from the Government of Mauritius about the application of that annex in future. It is an issue of such public concern. More broadly, outside of your Lordships’ House, the public feel the treaty has been so poorly handled and drafted that these extraordinary provisions are required.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long, but I want to speak briefly to Amendments 20D, 20E and 20F from my noble friend Lord Kempsell and to Amendment 87 from my noble friend Lady Goldie. We have witnessed in recent decades an extraordinary alchemy in the South China Sea. Whole islands are called from the vasty deep, summoned like Brigadoon into existence, not by prayer but by the imperatives of Chinese geopolitics. Reefs are dredged into runways; lagoons are refashioned into naval installations; artificial islands are planted thickly with radar, missile systems and airstrips, and it is all done in the name of installing civilian infrastructure. None of those installations or airstrips is openly avowed as a military unit, so, when we hear that in this treaty there is an effective British veto for any kind of defence installation, I ask noble Lords to consider that no one is going to call it a defence installation. It is going to be done subtly, little by little, and it is going to be a much tougher proposition suddenly to object when we feel that a line has been crossed than at present when we have the unquestioned sovereignty over the entirety of the archipelago.
I did not want to misquote the US Secretary of State, so just after my exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I looked up what he said on taking office. In November of last year, he said that the deal
“poses a serious threat to our national security”.
Obviously, he has changed his tune; people are entitled to change their minds. I just invite noble Lords to ask why he might have changed his mind. Is it that he saw a blinding figure on the road to Damascus and heard a voice saying, “Go into Damascus”—I think Marco Rubio has changed his religion at least twice, so I mean no disrespect to our most important ally. Or is it not more likely that he has been worked on by this Government’s officials?
Lord Beamish (Lab)
Could it not also be that when he came into office, he had not received the security briefings from his own intelligence services and possibly then he saw the importance of getting this deal and the permanency which it gives to both us and the United States?
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
It is a very good point. I think there is a divergence, exactly as in this country, between the permanent apparat and the rest of the country, which would explain why my noble friend Lord Kempsell and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, are speaking to very different sets of people. As the German ambassador to London in 1914 said to his French counterpart, “You have your information, we have ours”. It seems that there is at least a debate in the United States about this, and you can see why. As my noble friend Lord Bellingham said, there is a real prospect down the line that a future Mauritian Government may take a very different attitude towards the presence in the outer atolls of powers that are unfriendly to us. We have no assurance that we will always be on friendly terms with that republic.
The world is imperfect, I understand that. The world is sublunary. We are dealing with lesser evils, as is usually the case in politics. But when the Minister has justified this treaty and the treatment of the Chagossians, she has always done so by saying, “Our priority was the security of the base”. I just ask noble Lords on all sides to consider how this makes us more secure in an imperfect world than we are at present. We have obvious sovereignty over the entire region at the moment. We have the great advantage of its isolation. There is no prospect of anybody taking a leased island and putting any kind of listening infrastructure or anything else nearby. How does moving from where we are now to what is proposed in this treaty make us more secure, even if we set aside all the wrongs being done to the Brits of Chagossian origin?
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was on to something when he asked, “What if the Americans were to change sides?” But I am not sure that quite makes the point he intended. I just invite noble Lords to consider the wholly pecuniary terms in which Mauritius has considered this territory: not as part of its own demos, not as part of its own nation, but as an investment and a way of raising money—of paving its streets with gold, as my noble friend said earlier. Would it not be the ultimate humiliation if Mauritius were to trouser the sum of money that we are now paying it and then to turn around and sell the base to the United States? Where would that leave this Government? I would love to hear the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to an important set of amendments, and I thank them too for the way in which they have put those amendments. There is clearly some disagreement between us, but there is no disagreement over the fact that every single person in the Chamber is seeking to ensure that we protect the security of the nation and the security of Diego Garcia, and on the importance of that base to us. I start from that point. There were a couple of times when noble Lords almost seemed to question that. I do not question it at all. I do not agree with everything that has been said, but I do agree with the right to challenge how we take this forward, because out of that come better legislation and more clarity. While I do not agree with the need for some of the amendments, some of the comments that those amendments require to be made from the Dispatch Box are important. I wanted to set that context out for noble Lords.
I also just want to say this, because I think it is important. I do not want to have a Second Reading debate again but the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Beamish, and others have made this point: the Government, whatever the rights and wrongs, are trying to bring stability. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, disagrees with the treaty, and it is fair for him to make that point, but the Government’s point of view is that we are trying to bring stability and certainty to an uncertain situation. The noble Lord disagrees with that, as do a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. But that is the Government’s view. The Government’s view, in answer to the challenge the noble Lord raised, is that we are changing it because we are trying to bring certainty to an uncertain situation. We believe we have done that, and we have made certain that we have secured one of the most important military bases—if not the most important military base—for ourselves and the United States. The noble Lord does not accept that or agree with that, but that is the alternative proposition the Government are making.
It is really important, therefore, to say, in answer to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Weir, and others, that we would not have gone forward with this were it not for the fact that the Americans support it. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right. We can say, “Well, the Americans said this” or “The Americans said that”. I am going to quote this, because I think it is really important. The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said that
“the United States welcomed the historic agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius on the future of … the Chagos Archipelago … this agreement secures the long-term, stable and effective operation of the joint US-UK military facility at Diego Garcia. This is a critical asset for regional and global security … We value both parties’ dedication. The US looks forward to our continued joint work to ensure the success of our shared operations”.
That does not mean, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Ahmad, and many others, said, there are not challenges to that and what it actually means in practice. But it is a pretty fundamental starting point for the UK Government to be able to directly quote US Secretary of State Rubio saying that the US supports what this Government are doing and taking forward. I lay that on the table as the context for trying to answer some of the points and considerations that have been made.
Some of the points and comments—I say to the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Weir and others, and even to an extent to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—are perhaps better dealt with in some of the other groups, particularly on the rights of the Chagossians. My noble friend Lady Chapman has answered on this at great length and will continue to do so as we move forward. That context is really important for the debate and the discussion we are having.
I will try to deal with some of the amendments. It will take a little while and I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. Amendment 18 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, seeks to prevent the presence of non-UK and non-US civilian personnel in the Chagos Archipelago. The treaty gives the UK control over these matters. The security provisions were, as I have said, designed and tested at the highest level of the US security establishment, which supported us in proceeding with the deal.
On Amendment 34 from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, let me be clear: the entire treaty is designed to preserve the UK’s ability to take the necessary steps to preserve the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base. Article 3(2)(c) states clearly that the UK has
“the full responsibility for the defence and security of Diego Garcia”.
Mauritius and other states should have no doubt—this is the importance of comments made here—about our willingness to exercise our responsibilities in a manner that ensures the long-term, secure and effective operation of the base.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Forgive me for being slightly behind the curve; I was trying to follow the sections in the annex. The Minister referred to Annex 1(11), in particular the definition of “unrestricted”. That paragraph states that
“‘unrestricted’ means not requiring permission or notification, subject to the standing authorisations and notifications separately agreed between the Parties to meet the requirements of international or domestic Mauritian law or current practice”.
For the sake of clarification, what are these “standing authorisations and notifications”?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
If I am wrong on this, I will write to the noble Baroness and put a copy in the Library so that all Members can access it. My understanding is that the crucial bit of Annex 1(11)(c) is
“‘unrestricted’ means not requiring permission or notification”.
The phrase,
“the standing authorisations and notifications separately agreed between the Parties”,
refers to things contained within the treaty. I will write to the noble Baroness to clarify that. I am grateful to her for pointing it out.
The fundamental point I am trying to make—which I think the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, made—is that we have an obligation under the treaty to notify Mauritius of activities emanating from the base but we do not have to seek its permission. “Expeditiously” notifying does not mean notifying before we take any agreed action. Those were the points that I thought the noble Baroness was making, but I will certainly seek to clarify exactly where that takes us with Annex 1(11)(c). I will write to the noble Baroness and provide a copy to others. I thank her for raising that.
The treaty specifically confers on the UK the unrestricted ability to
“control the conduct and deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities”
in respect of Diego Garcia. Given that there is no question over operational freedom on Diego Garcia, it is unclear what necessary derogations the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, is seeking. The annex gives the UK the extensive rights that we would need in such a situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, raised reporting restrictions. His Majesty’s Armed Forces and the intelligence services routinely produce reports for the Prime Minister on all types of security matters. I reassure the noble Lord, and other noble Lords, that this will include operational issues arising on the Diego Garcia base. There is no requirement for this to be made a statutory obligation, as Amendment 81E seeks to do. Additionally, Amendment 81F would represent an unusual interference with the prerogative to conduct international affairs and to make or unmake treaties. Noble Lords will understand that there is often a need for confidentiality in international discussions.
The clock is flashing away and the Whip is getting jumpy next to me. I shall have a look at Hansard and I shall write to noble Lords in the debate with anything that I have not covered and any questions that have not been answered and make sure that the amendments that I have not responded to are responded to. I shall send the letter to noble Lords in the debate. Let me be clear: I shall write to noble Lords about two or three of the amendments that I have not covered, copy the letter to noble Lords and put a copy in the Library. I hope that that is acceptable to everyone.
I thank noble Lords for a really interesting and important debate on the security provisions of the treaty and ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the issue of national security is clearly one of the most important concerns that have been raised about this treaty. The continued and effective operation of the military base is paramount, and Ministers must ensure that they have the powers that they need to protect the security of the base. I listened very carefully to the reassurances provided by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who I know has tremendous respect across the House for his commitment to defence and foreign affairs. I thank him for that.
I could raise a lot of points, but I shall not raise a number of them now because I will want to have a close look at Hansard for the reassurances that he was able to provide. I will make one point on the famous definition of the word “expeditiously”. I listened carefully, and the Minister quoted at length the opinion of the International Relations and Defence Committee, which of course was fascinating. I am not sure that he told us what the Government’s view was of the meaning of that word: as they will be applying it in practice, I think that would be more relevant. But, again, I shall look carefully at his remarks and we would welcome any further reassurances—although the Minister gave a very detailed exposition—that he can provide in writing. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Goldie, who made an excellent contribution, would also welcome any further reassurances that the Minister can provide in writing. The details of this issue are particularly important, beyond the political rhetoric that we are all involved in. This concerns one of the most fundamental aspects of our national security.
Having said all that, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Callanan
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has—(a) sought to undertake negotiations with the Government of Mauritius to guarantee that the application of Annex 2 will oblige (where the UK Government so requests) the Mauritian Government to take responsibility for all asylum claimants and illegal entrants in the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia and accept the transfer of all claimants to Mauritian custody, and(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report on progress on establishing such negotiations with the Government of Mauritius and the outcome of any negotiations that have taken place.(2B) Within two months of the report being laid under paragraph (2A)(b), a Minister must table substantive motions in the House of Commons and the House of Lords on the contents of the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to prevent the UK being responsible for asylum claims resulting from illegal entrants into the Chagos Archipelago.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to prevent the United Kingdom being responsible for asylum seekers and refugees arriving in the Chagos Archipelago.
In moving this amendment, it is important that I remind the Committee of the background to this issue. In October 2021, a group of Tamil speakers who were apparently seeking to travel to Canada, bizarrely, by boat, foundered in the Indian Ocean and were escorted to Diego Garcia. These were the first people to claim asylum on Diego Garcia, they were kept on the island for several years and, in October 2024, the Government confirmed plans to relocate them to the UK for their legal claims to be processed. At the time, the Government said that this was to provide the asylum seekers with “greater safety and well-being”.
On 3 December 2024, it was reported in the Guardian—and of course I always believe everything that is reported in the Guardian—that lawyers and those campaigning for the asylum seekers to be relocated called their arrival in the UK a “big day for justice”. One of those interviewed by that newspaper—and we always believe what the Guardian says—was quoted as saying:
“We cannot believe we are finally in the UK … We feel we have reached paradise”.
My amendment seeks to probe the approach that would be taken to any future arrivals on the Chagos Archipelago. Will they be handed to Mauritius, to which the Government want to hand over sovereignty, or will they be handled by the British Government under this treaty? Has the Minister’s department made an assessment of the risk of the Tamils’ arrivals being transferred to the UK, opening another front in our fight to tackle illegal immigration? I do not expect the numbers to be great—I hope that they will not be great—but we need an answer on this important subject.
I also welcome Amendments 27 and 36 in this group, tabled in the names of my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, respectively. This is clearly something that noble Lords across the Committee are concerned about. I cannot imagine that this subject was not discussed with Mauritius during the negotiations, but I look forward to the Minister giving us some clarity on this issue and telling us whether these factors were in fact discussed with Mauritius. I beg to move.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 36, which, as the noble Lord mentioned, relates to asylum seekers who arrive on Diego Garcia, or anywhere on the Chagos Islands. Its purpose is very simple: it ensures that, if any person fleeing danger or persecution lands on those shores, they will not be subjected to unlawful detention, denial of due process, or the kinds of conditions that a British judge has already found to be in breach of international law.
I got a very nice personal letter from a native Chagossian, saying:
“We were exiled from our islands once, but we must not watch new injustice happen on our shores again. Anyone who arrives in our homeland must be treated with dignity. No one should suffer in the Chagos as we once did … As a native islander, I insist that any asylum seeker reaching the Chagos must have their rights respected. We were once denied justice. We cannot allow injustice to happen again in our name”.
Of course, the background has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—that in late 2021 more than 60 Sri Lankan Tamils were intercepted at sea and brought to Diego Garcia after their vessel was found in distress. Those individuals, many of whom intended to seek asylum in Canada, were accommodated for almost three years in a fenced compound on the island. This was not a temporary holding area; it became a long-term camp. The conditions are a matter of judicial record. The British Indian Ocean Territory Supreme Court found that the asylum seekers were effectively held in unlawful detention. The acting judge described the camp as
“a prison in all but name”
and said it was unsurprising that the individuals felt they were being punished. Evidence presented to the court documented leaking tents, rodent infestation, extreme heat, restricted movement, repeated incidents of self-harm and at least one mass suicide attempt. Some were warned that leaving the compound would expose them to the risk of being shot on security grounds. Those words are not mine—they were the court’s findings.
We also now know, again from the court’s judgment, that progress on their protection claims was impeded because of political factors, including concerns within the Home Office about the Government’s Rwanda policy. Rwanda seems to get mentioned everywhere. The effect of that delay was that these individuals were kept in a camp, in extreme conditions, for far longer than should ever have been contemplated. Most have now been brought to the United Kingdom, as has been said. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer was involved in that before he became Attorney-General. The Government described this as a one-off transfer and said that Diego Garcia would not be used again for long-term processing, but it remains the case that nothing in statute today prevents a future commissioner, Minister or Government using the islands in exactly the same way, should another vessel arrive. That is why this amendment is necessary; it gives effect to what the United Kingdom is already legally bound to do and ensures that any transfer to Mauritius or any other state happens only under an agreement that guarantees humane treatment, full rights of appeal and compliance with international law. These are not new standards; they are the minimum standards that the United Kingdom already owes to any asylum seeker, regardless of geography.
This amendment also speaks to something deeply felt by the Chagossians. The Chagossian people know what it is to be held without rights; they know what it is to have decisions made about their lives thousands of miles away; and they know what it is to be told they have no voice in decisions taken on their own islands. They have told us repeatedly that they do not want Diego Garcia, or any part of the Chagos Archipelago, to become a place where other vulnerable people suffer in silence.
There is also a simple and moral point. The only civilians permitted to remain long-term on the islands in the past decade were not the native Chagossians but asylum seekers confined in a manner that a British judge found to be unlawful. That fact alone should give the Committee pause for reflection. It was perfectly okay for asylum seekers to be on Diego Garcia but not the original Chagos people.
This amendment seeks to ensure that asylum seekers under Mauritian jurisdiction must have binding guarantees for monitoring, appeal rights, independent oversight and humanitarian standards. The Chagossian community has raised serious concerns about the treatment of vulnerable people already in Mauritius. These concerns cannot be dismissed and certainly cannot be ignored. The Government now intend that asylum seekers arriving in Chagos should be sent there.
This amendment does not oppose the transfer of asylum seekers. It does not dictate the policy of future Governments; it simply ensures that the mistakes made between 2021 and 2024 can never be repeated on British responsibility. It ensures that any person arriving on those islands is processed humanely, lawfully and with respect for their basic rights. For the Chagossians, who were themselves displaced without rights, this is not an abstract principle. It is an affirmation that the islands they still regard as home will not again be a theatre for human suffering. It is a modest and necessary amendment, which is fully consistent with our international obligations and our national values. I therefore commend it to the Committee and urge noble Lords to support it.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 19 and 27 from the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley, now in his place, seek to ensure that Mauritius will be responsible for any illegal migrants who may arrive at Diego Garcia. These are important amendments, and it is helpful that they have been tabled to allow us to clarify this point. I can reassure both noble Lords that the treaty already ensures Mauritian responsibility and closes a potential—as they correctly identify—illegal migration route to the UK. Mauritius, as the sovereign state and as specifically referenced under Annex 2 of the treaty, has jurisdiction over irregular migration to the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia.
To the extent that the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Lilley, through their amendments are seeking clarity on the arrangements with Mauritius to put that responsibility into practice, I can assure them that the UK Government are already in the process of agreeing with Mauritius the separate arrangements referenced in Annex 2 paragraph 10 of the treaty, to assist and facilitate in that exercise of Mauritian jurisdiction. These are ongoing negotiations on which I will not provide a running commentary; suffice to say that there will be no need to force the Government to provide a report on the negotiations.
Amendment 36 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is another helpful amendment. It seeks to ensure that any arrangement entered into with Mauritius regarding migrants ensures the humane treatment, full rights of appeal and compliance with international law of any asylum seeker or refugee. It is an important amendment, and I can confirm that the Government will, of course, ensure that any arrangement we enter into will comply with applicable international law and our domestic obligations. For that reason, I think that the amendment is unnecessary, but I thank her for tabling it and allowing us to make that clear. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clarification, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her contribution to this important debate. We know how strongly the British public feel on illegal immigration. It would have been outrageous if we handed over the territory yet retained responsibility for dealing with any illegal immigration.
I will look carefully at the words that the Minister used in her response in Hansard, but it seems as though she has provided the reassurances we are seeking that no illegal arrivals in the Chagos Archipelago will be able to make a claim in the UK for asylum now that sovereignty has been handed over. She used the famous government expression “I am not going to provide a running commentary”, which often means “I am not going to say”. Nobody is asking her to provide a running commentary; we just wanted a clarification on the issues or any outcome of the discussions. If there is a resolution to the discussions before we get to Report, I hope she will update us in writing. Apart from that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Migration: Settlement Pathway
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is the second set of changes to immigration policy announced this year, on top of the Bill we have just passed, and the changes to the asylum system; it is fair to say the Government are feeling the pressure. But, as with the asylum Statement last week, I welcome many of these measures announced by the Home Secretary.
The Government are proposing a scheme whereby the default length of time for settlement is 10 years and, depending upon a person’s situation and circumstances, time will be either added or subtracted from those 10 years, meaning some people will qualify for indefinite leave to remain much sooner, and some much later. I am particularly supportive of those who receive benefits for more than 12 months having to wait for 20 years before qualifying for settlement. But this does raise the question of the degree to which foreign nationals are able to access public funds. It would be useful for the Minister to specify how this particular route would work. Surely, where a person is on a settlement route but not yet received settlement, they should not be able to receive any public funds.
I am interested in understanding how the Government have made the decision on the number of years they propose for each settlement pathway, as some seem to be rather odd. For example, the proposal is for a person who can speak English to degree level to be offered a nine-year path to settlement, while those who volunteer will be able to qualify between five and seven years. I understand that the volunteering pathway is subject to consultation, but what reasoning do the Government have for requiring a person who has degree-level English to wait for longer than a person who has done some volunteering? Furthermore, how will the Government ensure that the volunteering pathway does not lead to abuses of the system?
One concern I have about these proposals is about the settlement periods for illegal migrants. The consultation document states that illegal entry will add “up to 20 years” to the baseline qualifying period. It then says:
“We are consulting on whether this should be 5, 10, 15 or as high as 20 years”.
I ask the Minister why the Government need to consult on this. Why can they not make a decision themselves? Are the Government considering allowing scope for discretion?
On this, it somewhat beggars belief that the Home Office is actually considering permitting those who arrive illegally to still be able to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. I know I have made this point before, but I will keep making it until the Government absorb it and listen: there should be absolutely no route to settlement for those who enter illegally. Any person who commits a criminal offence by entering the UK without valid leave to enter and remain should be deported and never permitted to receive settlement. I look forward very much to what the Minister has to say in response.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we recognise the issues facing communities and immigrants across the country, and we agree that faith must be restored to the immigration and asylum system, which requires changes to policy. We appreciate the commitment to maintaining the five-year pathway to settlement for partners of British citizens and British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, honouring our unique responsibilities to them. However, we are concerned that this overhaul overlooks key failures of past Governments.
Prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration. It is regrettable that the Government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy.
Changes to settlement must be made giving due regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect this policy and rhetoric could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation. However, and moreover, the NHS is heavily reliant on non-British national staff.
The policy statement sets out that debt would limit an individual’s eligibility for settlement. What does that mean? Perhaps the Minister could tell us. Does it include credit cards or a mortgage? When consideration is being given to preventing access to public funds for those with settlement? What is the position of the state pension, which an individual would have contributed to over the years that they have been in the UK? If you take your pension, does that mean that you would no longer be eligible for that final route?
The Statement explicitly targets the cohort of lower-qualified workers who entered via the health and care visa, proposing they should wait 15 years before earning settlement, extending the pathway beyond the new 10-year baseline. Would that lead to a situation where care workers would be incentivised to volunteer in their community rather than work extra hours as a care worker? This proposal unfairly targets low earners and our carers. Why are carers not to be considered public service workers? What are we saying about the value of care? Care is a fundamental need in our society, especially as we are an ageing population.
Further, these proposals raise serious questions about those who are most vulnerable. The Government have committed to keeping some immediate short-route pathways for victims of domestic violence and abuse. Will the Minister explicitly reassure the House and survivors that these changes will not have the adverse, and perhaps unintended, impact of locking those survivors into abusive relationships?
The care sector in the UK is facing chronic staffing shortages, putting immense pressure on families and the wider social care system. Given that the Home Secretary has proposed that public service workers could qualify after five years, what assessment has been made of the risk that some essential public service workers will leave the UK? That was shared by the nurses’ union. What credible plan are the Government making to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector, especially in the short timescale that is available to them?
The Ukrainian people continue to resist Russia’s war of aggression, and many families who have sought refuge in the UK face further uncertainty over their visa status, causing significant instability. Will the Home Office and the Minister consider establishing a pathway to indefinite leave to remain for Ukrainians who have integrated into life in the UK and wish to remain long-term?
How does this policy relate to the family unit? It would seem that we could have a situation where people within the same family unit are on different routes to settlement because of their individual salaries on the one hand and caring responsibilities on the other—for example, a husband on a three-year route and a wife on a 10-year route. How might this disproportionately impact women, who often work less as a result of childcare?
The Home Secretary stated in the other place that fairness is central to these immigration changes. Is it fair to change the rules for an individual who has come to the UK on a legal route, with certain expectations, and move the goalposts midway through their route to settlement? While no one disputes that people coming to the UK should integrate, how will the Home Secretary and the Home Office ensure that the new mandatory measures, such as making sustained national insurance contributions above the personal allowance threshold and demonstrating English language proficiency to A-level standard or more, do not impose unworkable red tape on people who have come here legally?
Finally, how will these arrangements and changes be implemented? Will some of it be in primary legislation? Will some of it be in secondary legislation? Will some of it just be changes to the Immigration Rules? I understand that it is a tricky and detailed answer that I am expecting from the Minister, but if he cannot give me the exact details now about the legislative route for these proposals, perhaps he might like to write to me on these matters. I appreciate that I have asked a significant number of questions, but I hope that I can get answers to some of them.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to answer questions in this House on the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Let me start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that the Government are not feeling the pressure on this issue. The Government are responding, as any sensible Government would, to some of the challenges we have inherited after 14 years of his Government. There was a large build-up in a range of asylum issues, and they did not tackle the issue of earned settlement that we are looking at now. The last change on earned settlement was in 2006, and this is the most fundamental change in over 40 years. Settlement is a privilege, not a right. We are trying to have a discussion, so I would welcome formal consultation from both noble Lords on the points they have made. We are trying to solve some of the problems and challenges for the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about issues to do with the different years of earned entitlement, up and down. We have made judgments on that, but it is open to consultation. He can make representations, if he thinks any of the decisions that we have come to in the initial document are wrong. We will look at his representations on those issues. We have settled on degree-level English as being an important benchmark. For the core narrative and the four main criteria, the English requirement is A-level standard, which is the B2 test of the common European framework. I think that is reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned illegal entry. We have set very high bars on the punitive elements of additional years before any consideration can be given. Again, that is open to consultation. There may be circumstances where somebody has arrived illegally who we wish to examine, and that is part of the reason for the discussion. All the areas the noble Lord has mentioned are subject to consultation, and I would certainly welcome his views.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord German, that the anticipation is that most of this will be done via the Immigration Rules. The process, as set out in the Statement that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made on 20 November, is that a consultation will be open until 12 February 2026, and we would hope to try to make some changes with effect from the next financial year, in April. Again, that will be subject to consultation and parliamentary consideration.
The noble Lord mentioned what the debt would look like for individuals. The three types of debt that we are looking at in the consultation are any outstanding litigation debt, tax debt or National Health Service debt. It would not be debt on a personal basis; effectively, we will be examining state debts. Whether pensions would be included is for the consultation. We are looking at issues such as jobseeker’s allowance and child benefit, but it would be open to discussion. I would welcome the noble Lord’s contribution to that.
The noble Lord mentioned the situation with health and care visas. There is considerable growth in this area, arguably because people are living longer and require more care. In 2028, we anticipate an additional 210,000 care workers coming to the UK, with the potential for long-term settlement. We are trying to ensure that we raise the level of training and are looking into recruiting UK-based citizens into that work. There will always be a need to examine that route, which is why we will maintain it, but there is a much longer period for final settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned Ukraine. We would not have anticipated the Ukraine scheme four or five years ago, but it is in place because we responded to a humanitarian need in what I and the Ukrainian Government hope is a temporary circumstance. The Ukraine route has never been a route to permanent settlement. It has now been further extended for around 18 months. We will keep it under review. Self-evidently, Russia is still present in Ukraine and bloodshed is still going on. The Ukrainian Government have our support in dealing with that, which is why we have maintained and extended the scheme into the future. The Ukrainian Government do not wish this to be a permanent route, so it will be kept under review. It is a separate scheme for Ukrainian citizens who have come to the United Kingdom for the moment.
The noble Lord mentioned family routes and the potential for different family timescales. That area is potentially subject to consultation. We want to look at it so that we do not necessarily disadvantage families. I cannot read my writing, but I have written “transitional”. I will examine the noble Lord’s comments in Hansard and write to him shortly, because I have forgotten exactly why I have written it down.
We are taking this measure because there are currently 70 routes, 40 of them leading to settlement. Between 2026 and 2030, we estimate that between 1.3 million and 2.2 million citizens, under the current scheme, will be able to have a period of settlement. We need to take action. The immigration White Paper published in May 2025 set out that we will increase the default qualifying period for settlement from five to 10 years. We have put down some core criteria: the lack of a criminal record, the ability to speak English to A-level standard, three to five years of national insurance contributions and having no debt, as I defined to the noble Lord a moment ago. We wish to put those core issues as a base but, on top of that, we have put positives and negatives in terms of earned entitlement. We are doing that to ensure that citizenship is part of a commitment and is focused on no recourse to public funds, speaking English to degree level and other matters that I have outlined to the House.
I hope the House will not just look at the two Statements but participate in the consultation. At the end of that consultation in February, we will undoubtedly bring to both Houses a package that will be subject to parliamentary approval and that this House and the House of Commons can examine and question in detail.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
What worries me most about this is what it will do to our society. I do not like the concept of a much larger group of second-class people in our country with restrictions on what they can do, under a sort of surveillance state, for much longer periods of time. I suspect it will be divisive in our society. I particularly dislike the idea that it might be divisive in families. This White Paper says that
“a person admitted as the dependant of an economic migrant will not necessarily enjoy the same qualifying period for settlement as their partner. It may be shorter or longer, according to their particular circumstances”.
We are seriously envisaging telling couples that they must choose between living in the country that they chose to come to and hope to settle in for the rest of their lives and living with a person they have married and hope to stay with for the rest of their lives. That is a pretty cruel choice.
I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, having to deal with such nasty news. My question to him is about what he has just said about transitional arrangements. A particularly unpleasant aspect of all this is retrospection. I agree with what has been said about that. Somebody who has been here for four and a half years, who chose to come here on the understanding that after five years his permanent settlement as a citizen of this country would be adjudicated—perhaps he is married, has children and has thought about careers, schooling and all that on the basis of certainty five years ahead—now knows that he may have to wait another 15 years. What are the transitional arrangements that
“may be designed to ease the impact of policy change, especially for individuals or groups already afforded permissions by the previous system”?
I do not know what that means. The consultation that is starting will consider that:
“Without any transitional arrangements, the earned settlement policy will affect people already in the system, who are not already settled when relevant Immigration Rules come into force”.
Quite—but what is the idea inside the Home Office? Is it that there should be a limited degree of retrospection? Should those who have been here for four years be treated more generously than those who have just turned up?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, for reminding me why I wrote down “transitional” in relation to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord German. I hope that, following my explanation, he can avoid another missive from me off the back of this.
I will start by saying something that I hope is positive. Nobody who has settled status now will have it unpicked by these arrangements. Some political parties have suggested that that might be the case. This Labour Government are not one of them. We have said that we will look at the pathway to settlement for those already on that pathway who have not yet been granted settled status. That means that in the consultation we will look at the transitional arrangements for those individuals. I hope that those who have views will put them to the Home Office, because we have to determine what we do for those who, as the noble Lord said, may be four and a half years down a settled status route when they expected five years and now the proposal, subject to consultation, is potentially the 10-year period in the immigration White Paper. That route is subject to discussion and consultation.
France and Italy both have a 10-year period. The noble Lord shakes his head, but we think what we have undertaken is the right thing to do. We are not out of step with some European partner countries on this, but I give him and the noble Lord, Lord German, the assurance that the points he has raised about transition will be examined as part of that consultation, and representations are welcome.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am not disagreeing with the noble Lord at all; he is completely correct about France. I am just sad that one of the defining features of this country—something we used to be proud of—is slipping. I agree that the change does not take us out of line with a lot of our neighbours, but it is nevertheless undesirable for our society.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I believe in an open, integrated, multicultural society where people are respected and valued for the work they do. That is nothing against the many thousands of people who, for example, work in this building, in hospitals or in teaching and bring great skills to this country. However, the question for the Government is: how do we manage future migration issues and future earned entitlement to settlement? We are looking to put some core guidelines around that and some alternatives which improve the earned entitlement, or penalise it by giving a further, longer period. That is reasonable, but it is subject to consultation, and I welcome the noble Lord’s views outside the Chamber.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord German raised many of the puzzling issues in this consultation, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out the divisive and unsettling elements. With all the love I have of France, we have historically done better than France in building a multicultural, multi-ethnic society, as the Minister’s last remarks conveyed. I would not necessarily say that we should emulate everything Frane has done.
I have a particular question about the introduction to the document, which says that the consultation
“proposes that benefits should not be available to those who have settled status”.
I assume that does not cover those who have EU settled status, because that would be a breach of the withdrawal agreement. Even some with pre-settled status can access some benefits. I am sure the Minister will reassure me on this.
The document shows evidence of having been put together rather quickly. The Minister clarified that
“they must have no debt in this country”
means that they must have no debt to this country. There is infelicitous phrasing in the document—it does not stop someone from having a mortgage, student fees, or whatever.
On the theme of divisiveness, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, earlier settlement would be available to “high taxpayers” and people
“who have worked at a certain level of seniority in our public services”.
Good luck to them, but middle and lower earning workers are also very valuable. I do not really see why their worth to this country and their earning settlement should be measured in terms of what they pay HMRC. That is peculiar, to be honest.
I really do not understand the twists and turns in this. The Government have adopted the language of some opposition parties about illegal entrants. They say they accept the refugee convention, but they actually do not, because it is not illegal to enter this country in order to claim asylum. We have said this time and again, and the Labour Party said it in opposition in this House. If you accept that someone has a right to stay in this country, why then make hurdles about when they are allowed to settle, integrate and become a fully-fledged member of our society? I do not understand the discrepancy between those two things. I had better shut up because I can see that other noble Lords want to get in, but I have that specific question about EU settled status.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She knows that we have had a lot of discussion around EU settled status. I can confirm to her that the EU settlement scheme is out of scope, as is the Windrush scheme. For British overseas nationals—those from Hong Kong—their visas will receive a five-year reduction, effectively maintaining their five-year route to settlement. Those with settled status will be able to keep it without any change. These are reasonable responses to the many European Union citizens, those of the Windrush generation and those from Hong Kong who have come to this country to live, work and integrate. We are looking to put down some basic discussion points for consultation on how we manage settled status when we have potentially 1.3 million to 2.2 million people coming to settled status between 2026 and 2030, on current estimates. That figure will only grow unless we take the action we are trying to take today.
The noble Baroness mentioned a number of points; they are all up for consultation. The high salary issue means that an individual who is a higher taxpayer or employed in specific public roles would also result in a reduction in the additional time required. That is an important recognition of the contribution that people make to the United Kingdom. All of those points are up for discussion in the consultation. Given that the time is relatively limited, I want to make sure we can take other questions, so I will answer the right reverend Prelate’s next.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, I will keep my question brief because I want to give time to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. One of the most encouraging developments in foreign policy in this country in recent years has been the growing recognition of the evil of the denial of freedom of religion or belief across the world, leading to widespread persecution of faith communities, Christians not least among them, as we have tragically seen in these last days in Nigeria. The UK has become a recognised global leader in advocacy for this oft-overlooked right.
Does the Minister accept that denial of freedom of religion or belief is a significant driver of migration? It is certainly so in the case of a significant number who arrive illegally, who, according to the Statement,
“could see settlement take up to 30 years”.
Does the Minister agree that we need consistency in the development of foreign and domestic policy, especially in this area but also in upstream causes and drivers of migration, to ensure that very vulnerable individuals are afforded the protection and assistance they so badly need?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving me the opportunity to say to the House that there is a real difference between asylum, refugee status and immigration. This Statement concerns the transition of citizens who have come here through an immigration route to work to having earned settled status.
Last week, we discussed another Statement on asylum claims. Persecution for religious faith would be a ground to seek asylum. We have also had a policy statement on how individuals can claim asylum. Some people will come here illegally, which is why I said to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that that is not an automatic barrier. However, it is certainly a significant barrier and how that person has arrived can be examined. For those asylum claims, we will meet our obligations under the international refugee convention and our human rights obligations, and those claims will be based on an individual’s personal circumstances.
The key point of the Statement we made earlier in the week is that, instead of five years, it would now be a two and a half year period. If the circumstances of the individual are reassessed after two and a half years, the persecution in the native country may not be what it was two and a half years ago. It may be, in which case the asylum claim would still be processed.
The key to asylum claims is to process them quickly to determine whether an asylum claim is genuine. If so, we allow status. If that happens, they will fall under the routes of this particular Statement. If it is not a proper asylum claim, they will face removal from the country. That is a two-stage operation. This is not just around people who are coming on small boats; these are people who are coming on work visas who wish to have long-term settled status. Here, we are just putting some more guard-rails around that settled status so that we can ensure that individuals have contributed and, on the four key issues, are citizens that deserve the right and privilege of being British citizens as part of their consideration.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement says:
“Fairness is the most fundamental of British values”.
Is it fair that people who have uprooted their lives, moved their children here and made their lives here should suddenly find the rug pulled out from underneath their life plans? In responding to the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, the Minister said that there might be transitional arrangements and that they are consulting on all this. But that means that people who might have been here for four and a half years are facing massive levels of uncertainty about where their life is now. Is that fair?
I look at the overall fairness of the plans and think about a potential example of someone who is either already here now or comes in the future—a carer or maybe a nurse in a care home. The five years are kept for nurses working in public service, but what about those working in a privately owned facility? She might have to wait 15 years for indefinite leave to remain. What happens if, after 10 years’ service, she injures her back and needs a period of rehabilitation before she returns to work? What happens to her child, after 15 years, when they are unlikely still to be dependent? Perhaps they push to remain dependent to be able to stay in the country that is the only one they actually remember. Is all that fair?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me answer the first point. The announcements were made on 20 November. The consultation closes on 12 February, and the intention is to try to bring in proposals shortly after that. That is a three-month or four-month interregnum of uncertainty, which I accept is there. It is important that we make the policy statements that we have made and allow for consultation. The points that have been made across the House will undoubtedly be put in the consultation as a whole, and we will reflect on that in relation to any points made.
The noble Baroness asks, “Is it fair?”. It has to be fair if we want to ensure community cohesion and that people recognise that there is a society where people come but have an earned right, not an automatic citizenship privilege. I think that is fair for the British citizens who are here now. There are many political parties—I do not accuse the noble Lord of this—that would go much further, removing people from this country who have settled status and doing things like that. We have to address some real issues. It is never easy in government—it is difficult in government—but I am not going to go down the road of some political parties. We have to find a way to ensure that the fairness that is appropriate for the system is generated in the rules that we are consulting on now.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have a very simple and practical question for the Minister to end with. During his remarks about the Statement, he has said that gaining settled status would require a degree in English or an A-level in English. Can the Minister explain how that will be assessed? Will it be both written and spoken? Does he therefore expect the existing residents of the country to achieve the same levels?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The test is the B2 test, which is under the common European framework. We currently have a B1 test, which is slightly lower. The B2 test is a recognised under the common European framework, and that would be the test that is taking place.
Again, there are no residual changes being made to those with existing settled status and to those, such as myself, who were born in this country but whose English may sometimes not be up to the standard that some people would wish. It is important that that test is in place, and I hope the noble Baroness will support it in consultation.
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morrow
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has produced a report setting out any reasons for rejecting any remedies otherwise than this Treaty for resolving challenges to the United Kingdom’s sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago.”
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, Amendment 20J in my name proposes that Clauses 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has produced a report setting out the reasons for rejecting the alternative legal remedies to those set out in the Mauritius treaty for resolving challenges to the United Kingdom’s sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago.
At the heart of the Government’s justification for proceeding with the Bill to bring the Mauritius treaty into force is the non-binding judgment of the International Court of Justice from 2019. The Government have, I think, acknowledged that it is not binding but have sought to ensure that, if it is ignored, binding judgments will quickly arise and other countries upon which we depend to run the base would then refuse to help. The Government have not clearly explained what these feared judgments are and why they would be binding. I invite the Minister to do so in detail and to tell the Committee which countries we depend on to run the islands, which we think would then refuse key services and what those services are.
However, in this amendment, I want to probe a different approach. The Government tell us that this is a critical Bill because its passage will facilitate the coming into force of the Mauritius treaty. The treaty is vital because the United States has told the UK Government that it is unhappy about having a major US base on Diego Garcia when the sovereignty of Garcia is contested. Furthermore, it has paused investment on Diego Garcia, which will not recommence until the legal standing of the Chagos Islands has been resolved.
It is crucial that this matter is resolved, because the security—not just of the United States but of the United Kingdom and the West—depends on full US investment in Diego Garcia. In this context, the reason why the Bill and the treaty, which will come into force if it becomes an Act of Parliament, are vital is because they set out the only route to legal certainty for the standing of the US military base. However, this solution does not provide the only way forward to secure legal certainty, and there are alternative ways forward that would better secure legal certainty than the Bill and the treaty. It is the purpose of my amendment to ask the Government to consider these alternatives.
The problem with the Government’s approach in claiming that the treaty constitutes the only legal way forward is that it is the product of a non-binding legal judgment that was a response to the disagreement between two parties—the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom. The Chagossians were not a party to the case because at that time they did not have international personality. Had they been a party then, the judgment would have dealt with a wider range of issues and considered a wider range of ways forward.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. I thank the Ministers for the patience and courtesy that they have displayed all evening. The two Ministers and the Whip know that they are among my favourite Peers, not just my favourite Government Front-Benchers, and they have been very patient and good-humoured.
I take issue with the idea that this is a done deal. That is an argument that has run through a lot of the debates and this seems to be the apt amendment on which to take it on. We have been told repeatedly—including by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, last week, and again just before dinner by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—that the treaty has been signed and been passed by the CRaG process and that therefore all this is, as it were, dancing after the music, and we would be exposing ourselves to a much more dangerous situation if we now try to hold it up.
I ask the Committee to ponder the possibility that the CRaG process has not in fact been a full democratic exercise. There has been no vote. Everything was rushed through from Second Reading in one day—there was no Report stage. I have never been a Member of the other place, unlike some of your Lordships present, but, as I understand it, you have a vote in the CRaG process by moving an amendment or a resolution and then voting for it. Looking online, I see that there is such an amendment, standing in the name of my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition and others, signed by 107 Members of the other place, from six political parties. I concede that that is not nearly as big a deal as it would have been a decade ago—there has been something of a splintering of parties. As yet, there has been no vote on it.
I mention this because the idea that therefore we have no option except to tweak statements at the margin and polish the edges of this, and cannot look for substantive changes, is fundamentally at odds with what was promised when the CRaG process was brought in. If the treaty was rushed through without debate in another place, surely the only proper scrutiny and the only proper chance of amendment is in this Chamber. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords on all sides will feel uninhibited when it comes to moving and, in due course, voting on substantive amendments. This is the one realistic opportunity that we have to make the points that would be made by the people from the Chagos Islands watching us now if they had a voice in our counsels.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, reminds us, this amendment gets to the core of the criticisms that have been levelled against the Government’s approach to this Bill so far. As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out numerous times during the debates on the first day in Committee, it is very difficult to see which court could have delivered a binding judgment against the UK on the question of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. Yet it is the repeated contention of the Government that this treaty is somehow essential to deliver legal certainty.
The question remains of which court could have delivered a binding judgment that would have threatened that legal certainty and the security of the military base. I hope that the Government can finally provide us with an answer. If they cannot answer that question then the argument that this treaty and this Bill were both necessary falls apart. Indeed, the argument that the treaty and the Bill are needed urgently also falls apart, and we should consider whether the Government should take a more circumspect approach. That is what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, suggests.
If this treaty is necessary, Ministers must surely have considered other options before coming to this agreement with Mauritius. Perhaps the Minister can tell the Committee what consideration was given to resettlement of the Chagos Archipelago by Chagossians, for example. What would the cost have been for that? What is the difference between that cost figure and the true cost associated with this treaty? I say “true cost” because the Government’s initial claims on costs have now been thoroughly discredited.
There were lots of options that should have been considered, so perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what options were in fact considered. I understand that these are specific questions about the process followed by Ministers before agreeing to the treaty with Mauritius, so if the noble Baroness cannot say with certainty what potential approaches were considered, perhaps she could write to us to confirm the details.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
In relation to Amendment 20J, the House has dedicated at least 15 hours to debating the Government’s rationale for entering this treaty. It has been subject to two reports, by the International Agreements Committee and the International Relations and Defence Committee. Three separate committees—the IAC, the IRDC and the Foreign Affairs Committee—have held evidence sessions and questioned the Minister for the Overseas Territories.
The Government have been consistently clear throughout. The legal case was compelling and there was no credible alternative. A policy of hanging tough, which I assume the noble Lord has in mind, would have been a real gift to our adversaries. As we have stated on numerous occasions, the continued operation of the base was under threat. Courts were already making decisions which undermined our position. If a long-term deal had not been reached, further wide-ranging litigation was likely, with no realistic prospect of the UK successfully defending its legal position on sovereignty in such cases.
Legally binding provisional measures from the courts could have come within weeks, affecting, for example, our ability to patrol the waters around Diego Garcia. Both the IRDC and the IAC recognise that the treaty provides legal certainty for the base. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate. I have noticed that no one has spoken against the amendment, other than the Minister who brought her explanation and reason. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Morrow
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has produced a report assessing the ability of the Government of Mauritius to govern the Chagos Archipelago under the terms of the Treaty and the implications for international peace and stability of transferring sovereignty.”
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, there has been lot of talk about the rules-based international order in recent years, largely in response to the concern that the reality to which it testifies looks considerably less certain in the context of the development of what some scholars are now calling Cold War II. The truth, however, is that international relations has never been a strictly rule-based order, in the sense that it has approximated life in the domestic context. On the other hand, informed by social conventions that testify to the common humanity of all the people of the earth, international relations has never approximated to international anarchy. There have always been rules, and yet they have been different from the domestic sense because of the absence of a world state with all the sanctions of domestic government.
In this context, those rules have to accommodate considerations of power in a way that we do not see domestically. Sound thinking about international relations has never been just about rules abstracted from considerations of power any more than it has been about power abstracted from rules.
We can get into real difficulty if we lose sight of questions of power. One critical way in which international relations has conventionally had regard for questions of power arises from the point at which a new sovereign state, whether arising from the break-up of an existing state, decolonisation, or some other kind of reconfiguration of territorial integrity, is recognised by other sovereign states. This act of recognition conveys on the state sovereignty as the international personality. It involves those states saying that they recognise the right of the other state to exist, with its territorial integrity, and the right of that state to make the laws to which it is subject in relation to that territorial integrity.
This process is mutual in the sense that if state A will not recognise state B, then state B usually will not recognise state A until state A recognises it. One of the critical questions facing a sovereign state in determining whether it recognises another state is whether it recognises its full territorial integrity and right to make the laws of that territorial integrity, together with an assessment of its physical capacity to govern that territorial integrity.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of the noble Lord’s amendment, which seems really sensible: we should not have been paying to give away British territory without a full and proper assessment of who was going to take it over. This all boils down to whether we trust Mauritius. My feeling is that, while I have probably a great deal of respect for Mauritian people, I am not sure that the Government of Mauritius is one that we would genuinely want to trust in the way that this whole treaty is doing.
I also detect a feeling among the Government and perhaps Whips that, really, we are all wasting our time here: “What on earth are we doing spending all this time?” As the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said, we have seen how little time was spent on this and how quickly it came through once the election was over and the new Government were in place. Suddenly, this all was happening. That is why it is important that, even if there are very few people here, we consider all these issues. In the long term, this will all be recorded. There will be a time in the future when many people look back and say, “Oh, perhaps we should have considered that more when it came”.
I do not believe that Mauritius has treated Chagossians who live in Mauritius very well. Yes, there are a few who have done obviously very well and are now out cajoling and saying how wonderful it is that Mauritius is going to take over the islands, but the reality is that they have not been treated well. You need to just talk to any of the Chagossians who are here to discover what has been going on. That was when there was some kind of input from our Government; what on earth is going to happen when the British Government no longer have any say in what is happening in Mauritius?
We need a proper, detailed assessment of the ability of the Government in Mauritius to not just look after the welfare of Chagossians who are there, and in the future, but to look after the whole archipelago and obey the terms of the treaty. The treaty may not be tough enough, but, at the very least, we want to make sure that, if there is one, they carry through their side of it. I just have a real feeling that, once this is all signed and sealed, so many people will forget about what has happened and the Mauritian Government will have an easy time doing anything they want, and mostly not doing things that they should be doing to preserve those wonderful islands and the people who should be allowed to go back there. So I support this amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for their contributions on the noble Lord’s Amendment 20K, which, much like his Amendment 20J in the previous group, asks a specific question of the Government, which I think gets to the heart of the process that was apparently followed by Ministers in reaching agreement on the terms of the treaty.
Clearly, Ministers will have had to consider other issues beyond the claim, which we have debated at length, that the sovereignty of the archipelago was somehow threatened by a binding legal judgment. The long-term security and effective management of the archipelago will, if the Government get their way, be delivered by the Government of Mauritius. We surely cannot have decided to pass that responsibility over to the Mauritian Government without first assessing their ability to manage the islands that we are, well, not giving t them but paying them to take. Would the Minister consider publishing the details of the Government’s assessment of Mauritius’s ability to manage and protect the islands effectively?
In an earlier group, we debated Mauritius’s responsibility for illegal migrants arriving on the islands, but this is just one of the relevant administrative questions that should have been considered by Ministers before an agreement was reached with the Mauritian Government. For example, was the fact that Mauritius does not even have a navy considered a relevant fact when the UK Government formed a view of the Mauritian Government’s ability to manage the islands?
The Mauritian National Coast Guard consists of one offshore patrol vessel, two midshore patrol vessels and 10 fast interceptor boats. As has been said repeatedly, the Chagos Archipelago is approximately 1,250 miles away from Mauritius. Do the UK Government feel that Mauritius’s coastguard is adequately equipped to deal with the challenges it will face as a result of this treaty? Can the Minister confirm whether her department have had any discussions whatever with the Mauritians about increasing their coastguard’s resources in light of their responsibility for the archipelago? If they even had a boat that could reach the distance, that would be a step forward. Will this be monitored by the UK Government on an ongoing basis and raised appropriately through the joint commission, or will we just say that we have handed the islands over and it is now the Mauritians’ responsibility, when we know from all available evidence that they have no capacity whatever to do any of that management?
The Mauritian coastguard’s role is not only important for the Mauritian Government’s access to and administration of the islands. The coastguard will, presumably, play a role in establishing and maintaining the marine protected area that the Minister has told us at great length that they are establishing. What discussions have Ministers had with their Mauritian counterparts to fully understand their plans to protect this important marine protected area? It does not have any boats that can even reach the islands, never mind protect the islands from any access by foreign vessels. Can the Minister confirm whether the UK Government are satisfied that the Mauritian Government have or are about to acquire the capabilities needed to maintain the protected area? When this was debated on the previous day of Committee, the Minister said:
“The MPA will be for the Mauritian Government to implement”.—[Official Report, 18/11/25; col. 801.]
I am sure it will, but have we not given any thought whatever to their ability to implement that?
We understand that this would be the responsibility of the Mauritian Government if the Bill goes through, but does the Minister think that there is any responsibility whatever for the UK Government to ensure that those nations with whom we make agreements are able to practically fulfil their obligations before we then sign a treaty? It is essential that we should have some clarity on this process that Ministers have followed in establishing that Mauritius has not just committed to the terms of the treaty but is in a position to be able to honour the terms of the treaty if and when it finally comes into force. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 20K, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, seeks to oblige the Government to publish a report on the ability of Mauritius to govern the Chagos Archipelago and on the implications of the treaty for international peace and stability. The IRDC concluded that the treaty gave the UK legal clarity on which it could capitalise to enhance defence co-operation and that it was a platform for reinforcing operational links with key regional partners, allowing the UK to position itself as a credible contributor to regional stability grounded in the rule of law. Under the treaty, the UK retains full operational control over Diego Garcia. There are robust provisions in place to protect the security of the base. The treaty is the best way to ensure the continued operation of the joint UK-US base and therefore to protect international peace and security. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Minister has not even attempted to address any of the questions that we have asked.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am very happy if the noble Lord would like to ask me a specific question that I have not already answered in previous groups. Would the noble Lord like to do that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Will the Minister comment on the ability of the Mauritian coastguard actually to enforce the marine protected area, for instance?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I suggest that the noble Lord looks at the ways in which marine protected areas are generally enforced. It is not, as he seems to imagine, by patrolling in vessels around the ocean, checking on things. That is not how these things work. But I will gladly send him some information about that.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for their contributions. Having listened to the Minister, I am wondering whether she will get time to reflect on this debate and on what has been asked and what has been said. Perhaps, if she does, she will write to us and put her reply in the Library, for the availability of every Peer in this House. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has produced a report assessing the potential implications for other British Overseas Territories that would arise from this Act and the Treaty.”
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lord, I beg leave to propose my Amendments 20L, 20N and 20P. In the interests of brevity and immediacy, I will speak only on Amendment 20L, because I have covered the others in previous groups. This is the amendment that requires the Secretary of State to look at the impact of this treaty on other British Overseas Territories and the implications for their sovereignty.
Of course, we are always told in these situations by whoever is in government, “Oh, it’s a unique situation, you can’t compare”. On one level, that is a truism. Of course, all these situations are unique, yet I think it would be extremely naive not to consider the possibility that they will be fallen upon hungrily by people who want a change to the status quo. The idea that even now there are not politicians and lawyers in Buenos Aires or Madrid looking at the implications of this deal and saying, “How can we press this into the parallel arguments that we have for claims over British Overseas Territories?” is utterly fanciful.
They may already be putting out feelers to British lawyers, who seem very happy to work against the interests of the Crown on these questions. The representative of Mauritius in this case gave an interview in which he gloried in the fact that he lived in a country where you could humiliate the Government. If he is not available, perhaps by then the Attorney-General will no longer be in politics, or indeed perhaps the Prime Minister. They also both have long records of working on cases of this kind.
I suspect that the briefs that will be put in front of them will make the claim that Britain has now, in practice, for all that there was no jurisdiction, for all that it was an advisory ruling, for all that Commonwealth disputes were excluded, conceded this extraordinary and perilous precedent that, if a territory was at one time or another ruled from somewhere else, that establishes the basis of a sovereignty claim. I do not think it is completely fanciful for these elements in foreign countries to feel that they will be dealing with sympathetic elements within the United Kingdom.
Indeed, they have had experience of that. If we think of the experience of our relations with Argentina prior to the war in 1982, we can understand why the Argentines felt that Britain was going to move on the subject. We had the 1968 Anglo-Argentine memorandum, which expressly talked about sovereignty being on the agenda. We then had the persistent proposals throughout the 1970s for the leaseback arrangement, and then the withdrawal of HMS “Endurance”. Argentina is a country I know well, and indeed I have had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands as well. To this day, I am often told by Argentine politicians that Margaret Thatcher led them on to the punch—that Britain deliberately looked as though it was preparing to withdraw from the islands in order to provoke this conflict. I think that is nonsense. None the less, you can understand why they think that there are sympathetic elements here.
Similarly, if we look at relations between Britain and Madrid in the run-up to the Córdoba agreement over Gibraltar, the 1990s were a time of constant proposals from this side for some kind of joint sovereignty. It was only a referendum of the Gibraltarian people that put a stop to that process. By the way, it was a referendum that official Britain detested and for a long time did not reconcile itself to and ignored, until it became politically impossible and a new dispensation was reached. So, yes, this will be looked at in Buenos Aires and Madrid.
It will be looked at, I am sure, by those in Nicosia. They will think that there is an extremely close parallel there, in the sense that this is a military installation rather than an ethnically separate population. Again, they will say “This was ruled from somewhere else and we have a claim”. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I would often get petitions and resolutions from Greek Cypriot MEPs raising the issue of the base.
What all these claims have in common is that final resolutions are never treated as final by the other party, any more than the final and binding resolution was with Mauritius in 1965. I do not want to bore noble Lords on this, but I feel it bears repetition. Mauritius trousered a large sum of money in exchange for perpetually renouncing any claim over the Chagos Islands.
In fact, there are very few British Overseas Territories that have not at some point been ruled from somewhere else. In addition to the ones I have mentioned, I was listing just now which ones have at some point had some other seat of government. Cayman, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos, St Helena and Montserrat were all, at some point or another, ruled by someone else. All of them will be looking at this as a precedent and a claim.
What all our overseas territories have in common is that they are all content with their present status. The British Empire was unusual in the peaceful and voluntary nature of the way it was relinquished: not completely, not universally—there were tragic exceptions in Cyprus, India and Kenya—but they were the exceptions. They were not the rule. Decolonisation in Malaysia was a perfectly peaceful process, for example. The only argument was about whether the British should stay longer to defeat the Communist insurgents. It was a generally peaceful process in the Caribbean and in most of Africa, so the places that have stayed are the places that wanted to stay, and they made that very clear, in the cases of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar in quite recent memory, with overwhelming referendums. It seems to me that they will now be looking to those referendums as their one shield: the only thing that potentially distinguishes them. But of course they will be vulnerable to the argument that, if we are treating Mauritius rather than the Chagos Islands as the unit, why should we not treat all of Cyprus as the unit, since that was once partitioned in a similar way at the time of independence? They will all be extremely alarmed by that precedent.
It seems to me there is only one way of reassuring these countries, which is to allow a referendum of the Chagossians, dispersed and scattered as they may be. Then, if the Chagossians vote in favour, it does not matter. We would not be setting any precedent. We would be following the principle of self-determination. If the Chagossians vote to be Mauritian, that is of no concern to Gibraltarians or Falkland Islanders or anyone else, because the principle of self-determination would be upheld. But at least let us give them the vote.
We are privileged in this country to be custodians, stewards, of a largely maritime sovereign area. If we put together the oceans around our overseas territories, they are about the same size as India. We are in charge of some of the richest and most important marine environments, and that is our real string of pearls. The pearls are there because in every case they want to be on the string. Let us not set the precedent of tearing one of those pearls off and hurling it away in defiance of the wishes of the people most involved. I beg to move.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, in his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, has tried to pre-empt the comments that I was about to make. I remember well the Falklands War in 1982. I remember many negotiations with Spain about Gibraltar. I remember the struggles with China over Hong Kong. I remember discussions about the future of the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands—both of which I have visited—as well as discussions about the future of St Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha, Anguilla and the sovereign territories in Cyprus. In each case, the discussions took place on the basis of the interests of each sovereign territory concerned and I believe that that will remain the case. I cannot see why this treaty over the British Indian Ocean islands and the Chagos Islands will affect the discussions that we will have with our other overseas territories about their futures. I think that the situation will remain as it has been in the past, so I do not feel that I can support this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hannan.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I certainly do support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. I will be very brief. The amendment on which I want to focus is not one regarding referenda and consulting the Chagossian people, even though that is very important. Amendment 20L simply states—and I would be surprised if the Government could not accept this—that the Secretary of State needs to come up with a report
“assessing the potential implications for other British Overseas Territories that would arise from this Act and the Treaty”.
What is wrong with that amendment? Nothing. It would cost the Foreign Office a certain amount of time and effort to put together a report but, in the context of what has been said—at Second Reading, in the debate that we had on the treaty, on the first and second day in Committee—it is not asking a lot.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, was looking specifically at the interests of the citizens in those different territories. He has a huge amount of knowledge, wisdom and experience, and what he said made a huge amount of sense. What he perhaps did not address is the signals that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, and the treaty, will send to other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, made some specific points about Argentina—where we know that the dispute will not go anywhere; it will go on and on—as well as Gibraltar. I will also mention one other territory that could well—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hesitate to interrupt, but I think we need to remind ourselves before it gets repeated again that we have just done a deal on Gibraltar with Spain. That has been welcomed by the Government in Gibraltar and that situation is no longer as is being implied by the noble Lord.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I understand that, but circumstances can change and this may well be seen as a precedent in the future.
I want to mention one other territory: Anguilla. As the Minister will know, Anguilla went through a period of huge unrest to resist becoming part of St Kitts and Nevis. The consequence was that a UK battalion of the Parachute Regiment had to deploy to Anguilla to control the unrest that took place. This is a small but incredibly proud territory that wanted to remain British. In the past few years, there have been a number of attempts by St Kitts and Nevis to reopen the whole issue of Anguilla.
There will be consequences of this treaty going through, which could be to some extent alleviated if the Government would accept this very simple amendment, Amendment 20L. This is the amendment in this group that concerns me most. I do not think that it is asking a great deal of the Government to put this in the Bill. This would be a very important signal in the Bill that those other territories would be properly considered.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I want to say a few words. I have been rather sparing in the Committee debate today, but the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, has prompted me to speak.
I have been a passionate supporter of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I have served on this Parliament’s executive committee of the CPA UK and I have had the great privilege of visiting a great number of Commonwealth nations in all parts of the world, including early this year Malaysia. We have to be very careful, particularly perhaps in this House of Parliament, when we debate a process that has been very difficult on decolonisation. We have to be very cautious with how we approach it and very mindful of the language that we use.
We had 12 years of the Malayan Emergency and I have met the relatives of those who were affected by that. There is not a Commonwealth country that does not have difficult stories, on many occasions. We are still living with this today. I would counsel anybody that, yes, of course, we are free to make any contributions, but we have to be very mindful.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, whom I greatly respect, indicated that perhaps the precedent was this deal. Now, there may be circumstances where a bad deal might be seen by other people as some form of precedent, but I do not think that that is the point that is being made in this group. The point that I hear being made in this group is that the very point of principle that we opened negotiations to cede sovereignty is the precedent. Well, that decision was made in 2022. If we are to see the consequences of decisions taken by a British Government to recognise that negotiations should take place to cede sovereignty, then we have had three years of knowing what the consequences of that will be. I have heard nothing from anybody on this group saying that they have seen the consequences of that decision taken by the previous Administration in November 2022.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I want primarily—perhaps later—to talk about my Amendments 20Q and 20U, but I will say something about my noble friend Lord Hannan’s Amendment 20L to emphasise one particular precedent he mentioned in passing but seems the most compelling and dangerous. Indeed, in line with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I have been rather cautious about discussing this because I did not want to put ideas into people’s heads, but, for two reasons, I will go ahead and talk about it now. First, there is no better way to keep a secret than to pronounce it in the House of Lords; and secondly, as my noble friend Lord Hannan said, there are lawyers in every country looking to see whether this is a precedent that they could use to right some past wrong or to change some past circumstance which they would like changed.
The most compelling comparison is between what we are doing now and the reasons given for doing it and the independence of Cyprus, where we severed off the sovereign bases. They were part of a whole. The territorial integrity of Cyprus was divided between the sovereign bases and the rest. That is exactly what we are accused of doing in the case of the Chagos Islands. It is actually much more true in the case of Cyprus than in that of the Chagos Islands, because Cyprus was always governed as one unit by us whereas the Chagos Islands had separate laws, even if they were transmitted from somebody resident in Mauritius. Therefore, if we are saying that there is compelling reason for us to say we cannot separate the Chagos Islands from Mauritius, of which it has never been part, then surely there are compelling reasons why we should never have separated the sovereign base territories from the rest of Cyprus.
Those bases are hugely important. They played a role time and again in recent disputes and interventions, and in the prospect of interventions in the Middle East. We have been able to help fly from them and intercept missiles from Iran coming towards Israel. In previous conflicts, we used the bases there. They of value not only to us but to the whole of NATO. If we put them at risk by saying to the world that we have no right to have separated them then we would be doing something very foolish.
The only difference I can think of—I am offering a solution to this dilemma, because I do not want the issue of the sovereign bases to be opened up in a dangerous way—is that the decisions in Cyprus were taken before the United Nations General Assembly resolution on which the advisory opinion of the ICJ was based, and therefore it did not apply to them. Of course, advisory opinions are not actually binding—they are wrongly taken as being binding but they are not—but do they apply retrospectively? In many cases when courts rule, they say, “This has always been the case; we’ve only just now ruled it”.
I would like to hear how the Minister proposes to defend the sovereign bases in Cyprus from this precedent. She is obviously not doing this willingly; she is obviously unwilling and she is a wonderful Minister, but she has been given a tough job to do. I would like to hear some justification for this. I do not know whether the precedent in Committee allows me to sit down now and stand up later to deal with my amendments, but assuming I can do that, I will.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I will briefly make two points. First, on behalf of my noble friend Lord McCrea, who has had to leave for a family wedding, I will speak to Amendment 57, which principally brings to the Committee’s attention the role of British legal firms in this issue.
We have been critical in this House of the current and, to some extent, the previous Government. Those criticisms are not entirely without merit on the issue of sovereignty. There has also been further British involvement in any number of aspects, the four most significant legal interventions being two cases in connection with UNCLOS; one relating to the advisory opinion of the ICJ; and one on the drafting of the UN security resolution. In each of these four cases, the Mauritius Government used British firms as their legal representation in order to further their aims. In effect, British firms acted on behalf of a foreign Government to challenge British sovereignty, British defence rights and the wishes of British citizens. We cannot do anything about what happened in the past, but I suppose the amendment queries whether there is an appropriate way forward in terms of that level of support for Mauritius. Raising my noble friend Lord McCrea’s amendment gives the Government an opportunity to respond to it.
I want to deal briefly with the wider point. We do not always see eye to eye, but I agree with at least one phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, used: he said that we have to be careful about words, and words matter. One of the major concerns, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, and others, might be described as the precedent and the ripple effect. It is undoubtedly the case that in the past we as a nation have made mistakes in dealing with overseas territories. In particular, we have sent out the wrong signals on both the Falklands and Gibraltar. It is probably the case that some, at different points within Governments in the past, would have been quite happy to see those territories dispatched to another sovereign territory on that basis. They can best speak for themselves but, fortunately enough, in each case we have drawn back from what might be described as a fatal mistake. The danger with this is that it crosses the line in handing over that level of sovereignty.
Mention has been made of a range of overseas territories. The one thing that largely unites them is that whatever discussions we have had with different Governments, about whatever level of co-operation, they have ultimately respected the self-determination and the inhabitants’ will for sovereignty. That is what at times has drawn us back. I think this goes beyond that and moves towards a situation regarding the wishes of the Chagossian people and their right to self-determination—and that self-determination may, because we do not know definitively, express itself in them saying, “We want to be part of Mauritius”. If that is their self-determination, so be it. I think it is unlikely to be the case; nevertheless, so be it. The concern is the signal that this sends out to the outside world.
The Minister mentioned the arrangements as regards Gibraltar. I think there has been work ongoing with both this Government and the previous Government to try to find arrangements that are in the best interests of Gibraltar. I entirely acknowledge that, while it is sometimes easy to criticise when looking from outside, the Gibraltar Government themselves have been supportive of those actions and have backed the moves made so far.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is really important that there is not a dispute with regards to Gibraltar. There is an arrangement that is agreed with Spain and it is not in question at all, in any sense.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
Absolutely. I have taken the Minister and the Government to task on a range of things, but this may be one issue on which we are in vigorous agreement. I do not question the Government’s bona fides as regards Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands. I know there is a strong commitment to both. I fully acknowledge that and believe it would be the case under a future Government, but this is not a concern over the attitude of this Government or other UK Governments over the ripple effect. It is the danger of what message will be sent out; as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said, there is a ripple effect towards Madrid and Buenos Aires, which might take a very different approach in future.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am really sorry, but we have an agreement with Spain. The matter is settled. Madrid takes the same view that London takes; it is the same view that the Government of Gibraltar take. It is settled, and it is beyond unhelpful for noble Lords—unintentionally, I realise, as this is a relatively recent development—to suggest in any way that that is not the case.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I am not querying that. What I am saying is from experience and from having spoken directly to Gibraltarians in relation to this. They know that a very good agreement may have been done with this Government, but Spanish Governments down the years have sometimes tended to blow hot and cold as regards Gibraltar.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
Yes, but part of the problem is that sometimes in this country we fall into a trap where we see agreements as final settlements. There are sometimes other Governments who either see them as a process or, while they may be fully committed to them, cannot say whether a future Government would feel bound in their attitude towards them.
I appreciate that we have it in black and white as regards Gibraltar and I do not doubt the actions taken by the Government. I fully support them, beyond any question mark of doubt, but we have been told by Gibraltarians that sometimes what happens in Madrid can run contrary to what happens in the border provinces with Gibraltar, which want to have a much stronger relationship. Depending on what attitude they want to take, they can turn hot and cold on the relationship. I have no doubt that the Government have done a very good job in nailing down that agreement but, again, I just express the concern for a future situation—perhaps it is more pertinent for Buenos Aires, which down the years has had a much more volatile approach to some of these issues—over the signals that we inadvertently send by way of this to other Governments. I have no question over the bona fides of either this Government or future UK Governments in relation to that.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Does the noble Lord accept that perhaps a closer analogy is where a party has one position when it is in government but a completely different one when it is in opposition, which is true of His Majesty’s Opposition towards this treaty with Mauritius?
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
That is true of a party that votes against it at Third Reading in the House of Commons and then seems largely supportive of the deal here. So, yes, that could be a perfectly good opportunity, but that can be applied in several parts of the body politic.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I am getting rather tired of this Front-Bench thing about what the last Government did. The reality is that the last Government did not sign any treaty. They may have been talking. They could have talked and talked, but they did not sign a treaty. This Government came in and signed a treaty.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
I do not hold a brief for either the Government or the main Opposition. I am happy for them to spell it out. Undoubtedly, what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has said is correct, but rather than essentially being in a position where we look to see where the lines of accountability and blame should lie, we should ultimately be focusing on ensuring that we support the self-determination of the Chagossian people. That is the fatal flaw with this agreement.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I just want us to remind ourselves of the history of the British Empire and how Macmillan suddenly said: there are now winds of change and, if we resist, we may lose something very good. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II created this wonderful thing called the Commonwealth. She put in a lot of effort and energy, and those countries that were once ruled are now part of the Commonwealth, and what is interesting is that in most of those countries the national language is English. So there can be a transition that does not destroy a lot of goodness nor give the impression that those territories where the sovereign is still His Majesty the King will simply look at this and say, “They did it, so we can”. You will find that politically, in Jamaica and other places, the Crown has made it very clear that this is a decision of those nations. If they wanted to become independent, that is their decision. They are not going to force themselves on anybody.
I thought the treaty that was entered into with Mauritius was to create a long-term use of Diego Garcia and the archipelago. If we did not, the challenge was soon going to come because of what happened at the United Nations. We would have found ourselves with a big challenge. Even China was interested in challenging British sovereignty, but now a treaty has been signed and has secured this.
Another good thing on which I want to congratulate the Government is that they did not simply sign a treaty so that this base can be used for 99 years. Because sovereignty is now being transferred, they also provided a trust fund for the Chagossians to be better looked after than when the British had sovereignty over the place. This is a win-win situation for the Chagossians and for Britain. We now have security of the base for a 99-year lease. That is quite a long time. I do not think you and I will be here in 99 years, but those who are here may say we did a good thing at the time. As for the fear of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, of what other places may do, it is their right to do whatever they want to do.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity also to speak to my Amendments 20U and 20Q. Amendment 20U would provide that the Bill shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has published
“a report on how the Treaty may increase any political or legal risks”—
that is what we have been told underlie it—
“related to … reliance on third countries required to service the base … risks of litigation from Mauritius regarding the base in Diego Garcia in the International Court of Justice”—
and I hope this will include some explanation of the Government’s reactions to the Mauritian declarations of 23 September 1968 which, as I understand it, mirrored our determination that the ICJ should not have jurisdiction on disputes between previous and current Commonwealth states and ourselves; Mauritius likewise said that any such disputes should be settled reciprocally. Finally, the report should include the
“risks of litigation in an arbitral tribunal under Annex VII of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”.
The Minister said a little while ago that we spent many hours discussing the reasons or rationale behind the decision to cede sovereignty. In fact, we have spent many hours dragging out from the Government an explanation of their decision to do so. It is pretty clear that the decision came first, and their justification has been cobbled together in response to each successive challenge that has been put forward to it. The more it has been challenged, the more tenuous the rationale has become. It has been spread out like an elastic band and has become thinner and more transparent. It is very clear that, if we keep on this process, it will eventually break and then the Government will be without any rationale at all.
The Government first suggested that the ICJ decision was purely advisory but Mauritius might come back and somehow get a definitive ruling out of the ICJ. However, that was then abandoned because, of course, we had the specific opt-out when we signed up to the ICJ that it would not be able to consider disputes between ourselves and present or previous Commonwealth countries. One thing has puzzled me. Looking back through the record, I have never seen Ministers refer in words to that opt-out. They have tacitly acknowledged it, because they move on to talking about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Likewise, when we have heard from the great mandarins of the Foreign Office, none of them has ever explicitly let past their lips—if I have read the transcript correctly—the existence of this opt-out. That is a great mystery. When people do not say something, one wants to know why, particularly when they tacitly admit it.
Oh dear, I hope I have not caused the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to leave in disgust. We were hoping he would be able to break this omertà that has forbidden him and his colleagues ever to mention this.
My suspicion—of course it is no more than a suspicion, and the person who could have set that right has left the Chamber—is that the Permanent Secretaries in the Foreign Office and the other mandarins who have spoken in defence of the Government on this never actually told Ministers about this opt-out and they do not like to admit that. Ministers do not like to admit that they did not know about it, because that looks pretty difficult. Maybe in the course of debate we will find that that is an unworthy consideration and they were told explicitly at the beginning there was no possibility of the ICJ reaching a binding judgment on the sovereignty of the Chagos. They tacitly accept that is the case and move on to the possibility of a judgment coming from the tribunal set up under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
My amendment would force the Government to be more explicit about that. What precedents are there for this tribunal ruling on sovereignty? The noble Baroness said that she thought it was very unlikely—I think that was her phrase—that the tribunal would directly rule on sovereignty. I think she is more than right on that, because there are no precedents I can find for it ruling on sovereignty. But then she said that it might rule on other things and sort of assume sovereignty. I would like some examples of that sort of thing happening, if it is a sufficiently big risk for us to be doing this nefarious deed of ceding sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. We have not had that up to now.
The tenuous justification moves on to say that there may be a ruling that would somehow assume sovereignty, but what negative effects would that have? It would apparently put the base at risk, because of its reliance on being supplied from other countries. From which other countries is the Diego Garcia base supplied, and in what way, and how would that be put at risk? Is it supplied from Aden? Would the Suez Canal be closed to British shipping if it was thought to be supplying the base? Would we get labour from mainland Africa to help run the base? Would the Philippines refuse to send Filipino workers to help run the base? When we are given such a tenuous reason, at the end of a long chain of tenuous arguments, we need some substance to it. This amendment would require the Government to give that.
Amendment 20Q would provide that the Bill would come into force only
“when the Secretary of State has published a report into the governance of the Chagos Archipelago under the Treaty, including local administration and democracy”.
The Minister has said that there was never any settled population in the Chagos Islands, nor any system of local administration. I am sure that was said in good faith, and I can well understand that the detailed history of the Chagos Archipelago is not something most of us have studied, but a letter has now been sent to the Minister, and to the committee that has been asked to consult with the Chagossians, pointing out that, in the absence of the British, who sort of came and went, the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands elected a chief to help with the governance and local administration of the islands. Therefore, the settled inhabitants did have a local administration in the past, and we want to know what is going to replace it in future.
We know that Mauritius, while it has no obligation to, will be able to resettle the islands. It may, of course, settle them with Mauritians, not Chagossians. Either way, what system of administration will there be, and will it be democratic or autocratic? I think we should know. My Amendment 20Q would require the Government to spell that out, and to acknowledge and accept that it was a mistake to say that there has never been any system of local administration, when clearly there has.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere for leading this debate. He set out a very strong argument for his amendments in this group, as did my noble friend Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown.
Amendment 20L, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hannan, is a very helpful amendment in Committee, as it affords the Committee the opportunity to debate the impact of the Government’s decision on the Chagos Archipelago on other overseas territories. While I accept that there are, of course, legal arguments here, we believe that they should be explored fully. I want to focus on the impact of the UK Government’s treatment of the Chagossians, and on our reputation among other overseas territories, which look to the UK for steadfast support and security. How do residents, and descendants of the residents, of other overseas territories feel now that the Government have caved in to pressure from their international lawyer friends on the question of the Chagos Islands?
As my noble friend Lord Hannan observed, the British Indian Ocean Territory is not the only overseas territory subject to legal claims by foreign states. Does the Minister accept that the behaviour of our Government on this issue will have ramifications for the level of trust in the UK held by residents of other overseas territories? We should be standing up for our overseas territories and protecting those who live on them, not caving in to activist international lawyers. In my view, it really is that simple. Can the Minister confirm that the UK Government are not considering ceding sovereignty over any other British Overseas Territories? Will she rule out such a move in future? We want residents of the overseas territories to feel secure, and I hope that the Minister’s words in response to this group will help to give them that security.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, a large number of the amendments that have been tabled seek to mandate the Government to renegotiate the treaty with Mauritius on various points. The noble Lord told me this on many occasions in the last Parliament, so I am sure that he understands the point that I am about to make: treaty-making and international negotiations are a matter for the Government, in exercise of the royal prerogative. It is simply not practical for that to become a matter where Parliament seeks to direct this or that isolated element of what can be intense, dynamic and sometimes difficult negotiations. In this case, I can assure the Committee that the Government have thoroughly considered all aspects of the treaty that the UK has entered into and used all their efforts throughout to achieve the best possible deal for the UK. These requests to reopen negotiations on different points are not realistic and would make the UK appear an unreliable counterparty on the international stage. This treaty has gone through a rigorous assessment and been agreed at the highest levels of the US security establishment.
Our reasons for rejecting Amendment 20U are, essentially, those that I set out earlier in relation to Amendment 20J, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. I do not intend to repeat them.
Amendment 20L was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. I enjoy the noble Lord’s contributions. His speeches are as entertaining as they are, unfortunately, inaccurate and misleading sometimes. My grandfather fought in Malaya, in the Green Howards, and so it was an unfortunate example that the noble Lord chose to resort to—but I forgive him for this, because he puts so much into his speeches. I assure him and other noble Lords that this deal has been welcomed by both Gibraltar and the Falklands Islands. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, their Governments have both stated that there is no read-across to them, and we should respect what they have to say.
Through Amendment 20M, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, seems to be suggesting that the Government have not complied with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act in respect of the treaty. I respectfully disagree with him on this. The treaty was laid in Parliament on the day that it was signed, under the process set out in the Act. CRaG requires that a treaty is laid in both Houses for 21 joint sitting days before it may be ratified. The period expired on 3 July 2025, with neither House resolving against ratification. During that 21-day period, two committees in this House held evidence sessions, including with the Minister for Overseas Territories, and produced reports, which we have responded to. There was a debate and a vote on the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, against ratification, which this Government defeated. As a matter of practice, the UK Government do not ratify treaties until the necessary implementing legislation is in place, and that is what the Government are currently doing with the Bill.
Amendments 20P and 20Q appear to misunderstand the archipelago. I feel uncomfortable making this point, as it feels very cold, harsh and legalistic, particularly given the testimonies, many of which we have heard directly from Chagossians in their accounts of what happened in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I do not feel comfortable repeating it but this is the legal situation as it is, and it is important to be clear. The archipelago has never had a permanent population. The islands have not been inhabited since the population was removed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. As such, there is no “economy” of the Chagos Archipelago. Once the treaty enters into force, Mauritius will be sovereign and will have jurisdiction over the regulation of commercial activities unrelated to the operation of the base throughout the archipelago, subject to the constraints of the treaty. On the exclusive economic zone around the archipelago, Mauritius has announced its intention to establish a marine protected area and, importantly, there will be no commercial fishing allowed. It will be for Mauritius to decide how any resettlement will work, including in respect of governance of the islands.
Amendment 57, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and spoken to on his behalf, cannot be accepted. The UK’s legal services industry and the English Bar are internationally recognised for their expertise. That includes expertise in public international law, and UK-qualified lawyers act for states all around the world on various matters, facilitating the peaceful settlement of disputes. The standing of UK legal expertise should be a matter of pride for this House, not a tool for manipulation by politicians to achieve narrow and short-term advantage. An attempt to place a prohibition on who can utilise our world-leading legal services would undermine access to legal representation—an important element of the rule of law. It is wholly inappropriate for the Government to dictate who can be represented by whom. It risks undermining our standing on the world stage.
I hesitate to repeat the debate we had last week, but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that, had there been no legal risk to our position, why did the United States stop investment in the base at that point? It was because it was sufficiently concerned about the legal risk. Had there been no basis whatever for our concerns on legality, why on earth did the previous Government even begin to negotiate, accepting that they did not manage to conclude a deal? Our view is that there was sufficient legal risk. The noble Lord disagrees, as is his right, but the fact is that the principle of this treaty, and the necessity for it, has been through the appropriate process. It has been voted on in this place and we have voted that this treaty should be ratified. We have already taken that decision in this Chamber. This legislation is about making the necessary changes to UK domestic law to enable us to sign, fully ratify and implement.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, but I ask her to respond to the point I made: why, even now, does she refuse to let pass her lips any recognition that there was never any possibility of the ICJ reaching a legally binding decision that would affect us, because of our opt-out from the power of the ICJ to decide on disputes between ourselves and Mauritius? UNCLOS is a different matter, but would she let those words pass her lips?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I accept that about the ICJ, but the point is that other countries will act on an advisory opinion even if we choose to ignore it. We have not chosen to ignore it. That is a judgment call. Partly, that is because we think that, by negotiating now, we negotiate from a stronger position than we would have had we waited for other, binding judgments. Those judgments can come from any treaty to which both parties are signed up. That is why we feel—and not everyone has to agree with the Government on this—that there is sufficient legal question that we needed to act and to negotiate. If they are honest with themselves—there is a lack of former Ministers who were responsible for this arguing the point that the noble Lord makes; they argue other points but not this one—there was sufficient legal jeopardy for the previous Government to enter into this process. I hope noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for dealing so comprehensively with all those points, and to all noble Lords who contributed: the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Ludford, my noble friends Lord Bellingham and Lord Lilley, the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Purvis, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu.
On finality, almost all treaties are said to be final at the time but they are not always treated as final by one or both parties. The treaty of Utrecht was pretty final. It said that Spain would have first refusal if Britain ever left, but it was pretty final about granting sovereignty. I absolutely agree, as the Minister says, that Spain has now agreed to a permanent settlement, but it is one of many, and experience tells us that incoming Governments do not always regard treaties signed by their predecessors as final. Indeed, the treaty we signed when Mauritius became independent and renounced all claim to the Chagos Islands was said to be permanent at the time, so I am less reassured than I think she hoped I might have been.
Let me put it the other way around: the way to make these treaties final is to stop inviting people, through our behaviour, to reopen them—to refuse to countenance it. The French had a very similar issue in the Comoros; they just refused to countenance it. I cannot see any other country doing what we are doing now. Indeed, I am afraid to say I cannot see any British Government other than this one having done it.
I do not want to get into the whole history of the Malayan emergency, but there is a wonderful record that, when Malaysia became independent, one of the first acts of the new Government was to give some very valuable land containing the house called Carcosa Seri Negara—a very fine house—to Britain in perpetuity as sovereign British territory. It became the seat of the high commission in Kuala Lumpur in recognition of all the things that we had done together. A young anti-colonialist Minister said, “But if we give them the best land in KL, no one will believe that we fought for our independence”, and there was a rather awkward moment around the Cabinet table because, of course, they did not: we were in Malaya supporting a democratic Government against a communist insurgency. We would have left much earlier had we not had the requests of that Government to remain and support them. That is getting slightly off topic so, with your Lordships’ permission, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 do not come into force until the Secretary of State has produced a report assessing the impact of Article 6 of the Treaty and the transfer of sovereignty under this Act on Chagossian civic identity.”
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, nationality has two distinct meanings: it is what it says on our passports, but it is also what we feel. The second of those, the sense of identity and belonging, of being a link in a chain between past and future generations, can be unconnected to territory.
Perhaps the supreme example of nationality that exists in the heart is the State of Israel. History affords few stories like it: a people who for 2,000 years were stateless and scattered but never lost the aspiration of statehood—“Next year in Jerusalem”. Then, one day, quite extraordinarily and almost providentially, they fulfilled it. The British Government recognised a claim of nationality based on cultural, ethnic and religious homogeneity, even though it had been unrelated to territory since time immemorial.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my Amendment 50B is very clear and simple, and nothing to do with security on Diego Garcia or the details of the treaty between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. It is simple: it is for our Government to recognise the Chagossian people in the law of the United Kingdom as an indigenous people of the Chagos Archipelago.
I raise this because so many of the Chagossians we have met and know are men and women who have lived on these islands, who were baptised in the island chapels, who fished, who tended their gardens, who raised children and buried their dead there. They are the indigenous people of the Chagos Archipelago. It is important that what they have asked for, that they are recognised by our country, is agreed to.
The need for this amendment arises because even now, more than half a century after their removal, the Chagossian people are still being told by Ministers that they never existed as a permanent population, that their islands were never self-governing in any meaningful sense and that there is therefore no question of self-determination. Only last week, on the first day in Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, repeated that claim, saying:
“The Chagos Archipelago has no permanent population nor has ever been self-governing. No question of self-determination for its population can therefore arise”.—[Official Report, 18/11/25; col. 795.]
That statement is not true. It is contradicted by every serious historical study, by the records in the National Archives, by the findings of the International Court of Justice, by the judgment of our own courts and most importantly by the lived memory of the men and women who have written to and met us and live all over in the diaspora.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said that he would not go into the history, but it is important when we are discussing a people that we understand the history. Archival records from the 19th and 20th centuries list births, marriages and burials across multiple generations on Peros Banhos, Salomon and Diego Garcia. Parish registers from Notre Dame de L’Assomption on Diego Garcia record entire family lines. Children were born there, married there and died there. The High Court in the Bancoult judgments accepted that the Chagossians were a settled people. The International Court of Justice—one of the reasons we have this treaty—in its 2019 advisory opinion recognised the Chagossians as the people of the territory with a right to self-determination. Research and documents from various academics have shown that there is at least 150 to 170 years of continuous multigenerational residence.
That is what an indigenous people is; that is what a permanent population is. Yet the Government continue to repeat a narrative first invented back in 1968, when the Foreign Office issued internal instructions to describe the Chagossians in public as temporary contract workers to avoid United Nations scrutiny. Those instructions are still in the archives and still legible. They show unequivocally that the United Kingdom knew the truth then, and it should know the truth now. It is time for this Parliament in discussing this treaty to put the truth into law.
The Minister also claimed that the islands were never self-governing but, as every historian of the archipelago now agrees, the islands were in practice run not by resident British administrators, who were almost never present, but by the Chagossians themselves. Families organised communal work, maintained chapels and community buildings and settled disputes. Testimony from multiple surviving islanders shows that respected elders served as local leaders.
One of the older Chagossian families that has been mentioned before in Committee, the Mandarin family of Peros Banhos, has given oral testimony that their ancestor, Jean Charles Mandarin, a blacksmith serving the whole island, was nominated by the community to act as a local headman in the long absence of any resident British authority. His leadership was even recorded in a scholarly Brill volume on the dispossession of the Chagos Islands, describing him as “a thorn in the flesh of the administration”. His grandson, Fernand Mandarin, born on Peros Banhos, later led the Chagossian Social Committee, represented his people at the United Nations and wrote one of the most detailed oral histories of island life. Today, his descendants continue that leadership in ongoing legal actions before the High Court. How can the Minister stand in this Chamber and say there was no permanent population and no self-organisation when the evidence is so overwhelmingly clear?
The amendment puts this right. It recognises in law what the world’s historians, courts and international institutions have already recognised: that the Chagossians are the indigenous people of the Chagos Islands. The amendment clearly defines them as those born on the islands
“prior to their depopulation between 1968 and 1973”
and their direct descendants. It requires the Secretary of State, when exercising any function under the Bill, to have regard to their identity, cultural integrity and rights.
The amendment is necessary, because the Bill does exactly the opposite with Clauses 2 to 4, which would abolish the British Indian Ocean Territory for every island except Diego Garcia, stripping away the only remaining statutory recognition of the Chagossian people’s historic and legal connection to their homeland. It would remove the very provisions in the British Nationality Act through which they are currently recognised in law. It would hand their homeland to another state without any act of self-determination, despite the clear findings of the International Court of Justice that the Chagossian people are entitled to that right.
We now know what that means in practice. Mauritian authorities have already begun issuing new birth certificates to Chagossians, in which the place of birth is rewritten as Mauritius, erasing all mention of the islands. That is actually happening. I have seen some of that documentary proof.
The recognition in the amendment would prevent that erasure. It does not settle the question of sovereignty, prejudge the right of return or determine citizenship policy, but it ensures that the people who lived on these islands for generations, who were removed without consent and who have been fighting to preserve their identity ever since cannot be written out of their own history or out of our legislation.
One native islander wrote:
“We want our name to exist before we die. We want to be seen as the people of our islands, not as shadows erased from paper.”
Another wrote:
“They took our homes. They took our animals. They took our graves. Please, do not let them take our identity in law.”
Another important one says:
“The Minister says we were never a people. I lived my whole childhood on Peros Banhos. My father and mother were born there. How can she say we were not there?”
The world knows that there was a people in the Chagos Islands. The archives know, the courts know, the UN knows, the historians know and the survivors who still bear witness know. Only this Bill seems to pretend otherwise. I believe that recognition is the minimum moral duty owed to a people who were removed from their homeland, denied their rights and then told that their existence did not matter.
The amendment affirms that they did exist, they do exist and they will continue to exist in the law of this country. I know that a group of Chagossians have written to the Minister in the last few days questioning why she made such a statement. I hope that she will be able to give them some support tonight and say that she recognises their existence and that they should be recognised in the law of the United Kingdom. The amendment does not affect anything to do with security, which seems to be and rightly, perhaps, is the real reason for what the Government are doing. This does not affect one single bit of anything to do with the security of the Chagos Islands, so I hope that the Minister will go back and accept the amendment on Report.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, Amendment 81 in my name is in some key senses the most important of all the amendments that I have tabled in Committee. The purpose of Amendment 81 is to probe the question of what will happen to the Chagossian people if the Bill receives Royal Assent and the Mauritius treaty comes into force. The logic that underpins the Government’s position is that Chagossians are, from the civic perspective—the perspective of their citizenship—Mauritian.
Of course, this will not change their ethnicity, but it will extinguish a critical dimension of their identity, which, while in a very real sense it was suspended as a result of the gross injustices that were committed against them in 1968 and 1973, has not been extinguished. Although the splitting of the Chagos Islands from Mauritius in 1965 was imposed on the Chagossians, it bestowed on them a civic identity apart from Mauritius that they were pleased to receive and enjoyed while living on their islands from 1965 until their forced expulsion.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for his Amendment 81 that he has just talked about, which rightly puts the focus of our debate on the citizens of the Chagos Islands, the Chagossian community themselves. It has so far been a disappointing aspect of this Committee to hear the Government dismiss the rights of the Chagossian community. Throughout the process of agreeing the treaty, it is clear that the Chagossians have not been properly consulted. In fact, the Government’s official view—I think the noble Baroness has repeated it again this evening—is that there is no relevant claim of self-determination in respect of the Chagos Archipelago.
I also welcome Amendment 50B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The resettlement of the Chagos Islands under the treaty is an option, not a requirement, and it is increasingly clear that it is possible that the Mauritians will simply ignore it and not take any steps whatever to achieve resettlement of the Chagossians.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, would certainly help put pressure on the UK Government and, in turn, the Mauritian Government to use the provisions of the treaty in respect of resettlement and allow those Chagossians who wish to to return to the outer islands.
On a separate but related note, I am of course pleased that the International Relations and Defence Committee has launched its relatively short piece of work to finally hear the views of the Chagossian community, but I think there are some serious procedural flaws in its survey. There seems to be no control of who can submit views: I am sure the relevant Chinese bots are already on the subject of submitting the survey forms, and there are already concerning reports of Mauritian government officials actually filling in the forms on behalf of Chagossians in Mauritius. But, when the results are in and we have the report of the committee, I hope the Minister will commit to considering it carefully before we proceed to the next stage of the Bill.
We obviously understand that there may be limited time between the committee’s publication of its report and Report stage, so the Government may not have the time to consider and table their own amendments to reflect the views of the Chagossian community as expressed in the—valid, hopefully—responses to the committee. Should that be the case, we would ask the Government to engage constructively with others in this House on amendments before Report so that we can put the needs and welfare of the Chagossian community front and centre as we progress with the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to give that assurance today.
As the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, seeks to do, we need to step up and support the Chagossian community, who have been mistreated for far too long.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 20M, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, requests that the treaty does not come into force until the publication of
“a report assessing the impact of Article 6 of the Treaty”.
As I and other Ministers have said on numerous occasions, it will be for Mauritius to establish a programme of resettlement once the treaty enters into force. It is not sensible, or a good use of taxpayers’ money, to be reporting on something that will not be in our gift to achieve.
The Government are increasing our support to Chagossians living in the UK through new and existing projects. These include Chagossian-led community projects in Crawley and elsewhere, education and English language support, and have involved the creation of a number of FCDO-funded full-time jobs for Chagossians.
Amendment 81, from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, requests a report of the forecast impact of the treaty on Chagossians. The Government have already released the public sector equality duty report relating to the treaty, which addresses all the issues around an equalities impact assessment. This, in addition to the IRDC’s current review, should support understanding of the impacts to the Chagossian community.
I understand, respect and appreciate the noble Lord’s support for the Chagossian community, but I must also speak to the many different views within the Chagossian community, including several groups that welcome the deal. I think that this will perhaps be surfaced as a result of the work that the IRDC is doing, and I obviously commit to reflecting on it as the Bill proceeds.
Amendment 50B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, seeks to recognise in the domestic law of the UK that the Chagossians are the indigenous people of the Chagos Archipelago. I hear absolutely what she says about lived memory and the persuasive way that she puts that across. But the unfortunate fact—and I think it is unfortunate—is that both the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have considered in a series of judgments since the 1970s the related questions of a claimed right of abode or other rights said to flow from the rights that she seeks to gain for the Chagossians through her amendment. On each occasion, the English courts and the European Court of Human Rights have ultimately dismissed the claims.
Had that not been the case—the noble Baroness clearly wishes that that had not been the case; it is her strongly held view and I can see why she feels so—the Government would perhaps have had to take a very different course, because the rights would have held a different weight in law. However, the situation is that history has taken us to a position where, much as we do not like it and it goes against some of the things that we feel and what we may even argue is the moral case, the legal situation is, I am afraid, as it is.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
Will the Minister just give me a short, simple answer to why the United Kingdom Government will not recognise the Chagossian people as an indigenous people?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The legal situation is as I have described. The noble Baroness may wish that that were not the case, but the legal position is as it is, and the Government do not intend to amend the Bill in order to change that legal position.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
That legal position is guidance; it is not law.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There have been legal judgments in English courts and elsewhere that have established that the right that the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to grant to the Chagossian people does not currently exist in law. It is not guidance. Those are decisions of English courts. I hope that, with that, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
I thank the Minister. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who were diligent and eloquent in their defence of the dispossessed Chagossians. Sometimes people approach the story of Britain overseas as a kind of morality play where Britain plays the villain, the Alan Rickman of the global drama. We heard a hint of it, I think, from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in the previous round. Every disengagement was somehow disagreeable. Here, the disagreeable thing is pulling out in a way that disregards the wishes of the people who have been most injured. I was grateful to the Minister for making the clarification on birth certificates. She is doing enormously well defending this position, I have to say. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lilley
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act come into force only when the Secretary of State has produced a report on the economic partnership under Article 11 of the Treaty and a motion to take note of the report has been approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Amendment 20S seeks to get the Secretary of State to produce a report on the so-called economic partnership between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, which is set up under Article 11 of the treaty. Parliament should have an opportunity to take note of that and debate it in both Houses.
The reason that is important, apart from the fact that the control of money is the supreme function of Parliament, is that the economic partnership article, Article 11, in the agreement, is very strange. It says:
“In consideration of this Agreement, the United Kingdom agrees … a. to pay Mauritius an annual sum; … b. to capitalise a Trust Fund for the benefit of Chagossians as established by Mauritius; and … c. to grant multi-year funding as part of a development framework for projects to be undertaken by Mauritius across twenty-five (25) years. … The arrangements for such payments, including amounts and modalities shall be agreed separately”.
It then says that this is a “full and final settlement” of the financial aspects of ceding sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius.
Now, to call this a partnership is a very strange thing. We give them money annually. We give them more money for the benefit of the Chagossians. We give them yet more money for the benefit of the Mauritians. Where is the partnership in all this? If this partnership were ever to be introduced, I hope that Ministers would feel obliged or, out of their natural desire to be helpful, would seek to explain to us why this is a partnership rather than a kind of surrender where we give up the money, we give up the territory and we let them decide—even the trust fund that we set up for the benefit of the Chagossians is “as established by Mauritius”. So the Mauritians are going to determine how this trust fund is used and spent; the Chagossians will have no say in it and will probably get precious little benefit from it.
I hope the Minister will let us in on the secret. What is the quid pro quo in all this? Normally, any partnership means that there are two sides to it. I used to be a partner in a firm, and we were partners; we all benefited from each other. We did not have one side being partners and the other side getting all the benefits. I am genuinely mystified about this. Was it just that this was signed up for when the Government were suffering a fit of generosity? Perhaps the coffers were overflowing with funds. They could not think what to do but give some away to Mauritius for this, some away to a trust fund for that, then more away to Mauritius for 25 years. Where is it all coming from? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. I beg to move.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I did not expect to participate in this, but I was having a conversation earlier with my noble friend Lord Minto, who is very knowledgeable about corporate finance. He posed the question: is there anything in this whole arrangement that would stop Mauritius capitalising on the revenue stream that they have coming to them and selling that off to someone else?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Kempsell is not here to move his amendment, which I thought was a particularly good one.
We debated some of the financial aspects of the treaty on the first day in Committee. The Minister at that time asked to delay her remarks on those amendments to the appropriate group. I assume this is the group that she was referring to, so we all look forward to the fuller answer on the finances that she promised then.
The core contention of the Government is that the deal costs an average of £101 million a year and the present net value of payments under the treaty is therefore £3.4 billion. This has been challenged by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Altrincham, but the Minister, rather than engaging in the substance of those challenges, has relied on the Government’s published figures and refused to explain why she believes those figures accurately reflect the cost of the deal.
The Minister has relied on the approval of the Government Actuary’s Department and simply argued that consistency was essential. These are typical deflections that, no doubt, many Ministers have used in previous cases, but they do not address the concerns of my noble friends. We know that the payments are front-loaded at £165 million for the first three years, and then £120 million for the next 10 years. After that point, it is index-linked. As my noble friend Lady Noakes set out at Second Reading, that will see the cash payments hitting more than £650 million a year by the end of the 99 years, depending, of course, on what indexation you use. With all those additional considerations, it is our contention that the true cost of the deal is not £3.4 billion, as claimed by Ministers, but something more like £35 billion.
So the question lands: why would the Government seek to play this down? If they are so delighted with the deal—if it is such a good deal for the British public that they keep claiming that they deliver for, as all government policies should surely be—then surely they would want to be open about the true cost of things. They brag about spending on every other area; they take every amount of money per year, cumulatively add it all up and then put it in a press release and brag to the British people about what a great amount they are spending in every area except for this one. Does the Minister think it is better that the country should know the full costings before the treaty comes into effect, or would she prefer that the UK tie itself into these vast annual payments first, before admitting what the true cost of the deal actually is?
We are clear that the British people deserve to know what their Government are signing up for. Ministers should engage with the detailed costings laid out by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Altrincham, and the points made by my noble friend Lord Lilley, rather than hiding behind their pre-prepared lines. If they have nothing to hide, what is wrong with producing a report that we can all see and study and get checked by independent financial experts? Once Ministers have admitted the true cost of the deal, then they can start justifying the so-called benefits of the treaty against what the true cost actually is. I do not think that people would be impressed by arguments justifying that figure, but Ministers should do the decent thing and justify the real numbers openly and in public.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Noble Lords will recall that we debated the financial elements of the treaty in some detail last week, and I genuinely do not think that further debate is going to persuade anybody of anything this evening and probably is not a good use of time at this stage. However, I respect that the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Kempsell, who was not here to speak to his amendment, have tabled further amendments, so I am happy to put their minds at rest about the matter to the best of my ability this evening.
Noble Lords already know that the Government published full details of the financial payment on the day that the treaty was signed. These details are in the finance exchange of letters, which is included in the treaty in the version laid in the House and published on the government website. The details are also set out in the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum, which was also laid before the House and published on the government website. It is plain to see how much the treaty is costing. The breakdown on page 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum is particularly straightforward for anyone who might desire further information about what will be paid in each year of the treaty. Indeed, the clarity with which the information was presented by the Government was welcomed by the Office for Statistics Regulation, which confirmed that it was consistent with the principles of intelligent transparency.
Therefore, there is no requirement for any additional report on the financial costs, either before the Bill comes into force, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, proposes, or before each payment, as is suggested in the other amendment.
The quid pro quo I was asked about is that we get a unique military asset shared with our closest ally on a legally secure basis. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asks why I rely on government figures and the answer is because I am representing the Government. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, the particular question I pose—and I am not being polemical; I think there is an issue—is: what actually stops Mauritius, contractually, from commercially transferring this revenue stream in a capitalised form to another purchaser?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness is asking me what a sovereign country would do with some money that it gets as part of payment from this treaty. I am not sure what the problem would be with Mauritius investing that money in something that then provided it with a return, which it could then use to support public services or anything else in Mauritius. I am not sure if I have properly understood exactly what the noble Baroness is concerned about. I would be happy to engage further—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Okay, that might be a good idea. I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment on that basis.
Lord Lilley
(2A) Sections 2 to 4 of this Act do not come into force until the duties in section (Joint UK–Mauritius Parliamentary Commission) have been discharged.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, connected with another in the name of Lord Lilley, seeks to ensure that the sections 2 to 4 of the Act only come into force once the Secretary of State has sought to establish a Joint UK-Mauritius Parliamentary Commission.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 20T and 81K. Amendment 20T just requires that Amendment 81K would happen before the treaty, or parts of it, comes into force.
Amendment 81K proposes setting up a parliamentary commission between the United Kingdom and Mauritius. The proposal is that we seek to agree with Mauritius that this parliamentary commission should reflect equal representation from the Parliaments of the United Kingdom—this Parliament—and the Republic of Mauritius, which one hopes would be acceptable to the Mauritians as fairly rational in these circumstances. More important, what is the function of this commission? It should be to ensure,
“the recognition and protection of Chagossian rights, including but not limited to … ensuring a right of return … ensuring the right to self-determination via a referendum of all Chagossians on the question of sovereignty is held by the UK”,
and
“access to compensation, resettlement, or other forms of support”.
The Minister has repeated again today this extraordinary affirmation that there is no Chagossian people and never has been—that there has never been any permanent population of the Chagos Islands. I can see why the Minister can say that there no longer is, because we shamefully removed them. But to rely on the fact that we removed them and therefore they are not permanent, when all of us now think it was monstrous that this was done with no possibility of return at the time, and that we should be setting this right, now that we are trying to sort the aftermath of decolonisation, as it is seen, is to my mind extraordinary. How can there have been no permanent population in the past if there are churches, graveyards, signs of habitation, work, agriculture and fishing on several of the islands? Above all, how can we pretend that there never has been any Chagossian population and, at the same time, grant British citizenship to those who can demonstrate that they are descended from Chagossians?
The Minister cannot have it both ways. She cannot say that there has never been anyone there and that we are now recognising that those who have been there, or are descended from them, have the right to British citizenship. It is there in the treaty. I know that when she mentioned this she said it with obvious distaste and embarrassment, but that distaste and embarrassment should have been sorted out with her officials before she got round to saying it again in this Chamber. It is very insulting to the Chagossian people to say that they have never existed.
Given that the Chagossian people have existed, and that we recognise that it was wrong to remove them without in any way trying to provide them with some prospect of undoing that wrong, surely we should, through the parliamentary commission that I propose in this amendment, discuss with the Mauritians, if sovereignty is handed over to them, at least giving Chagossians the right of return and the right of self-determination via a referendum, along with access to compensation, resettlement or other forms of support. If we do that then at least we will go a small way to undoing the wrong that was done in the late 1960s—I think it extended into the 1970s—which all of us now recognise.
It is clearly important that we have some kind of parliamentary commission overseeing this, because the treaty does not do these things. It could allow the resettlement to be extended to Mauritians and not be given to Chagossians, and it could result in the fund that we set up not being paid out to Chagossians—certainly not to Chagossians who have been in the United Kingdom, but solely to Chagossians who now live in Mauritius. It is only right and proper that we have some parliamentary oversight from both sides—from Mauritius as well as from the UK—to ensure this is all properly done. I am sure this proposition is so reasonable that such a reasonable Minister as we have on the Front Bench cannot fail to agree with it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
I want to add to my noble friend’s words. I will not read the whole letter, but this is a copy of the letter to the Minister from the Chagossian people. They write that the Minister’s words
“cut deeply. They erase our history, our dignity, and the truth of who we are. They echo the very language used to justify our people’s deportation between 1968 and 1973. And they are demonstrably false … For more than a century before our exile, the Chagos Islands were home to a multigenerational, settled population. This is not our opinion. It is documented in church registers of births, marriages, and burials across Peros Banhos, Salomon and Diego Garcia; colonial-era records describing communities with homes, chapels, gardens and workplaces; judgments of the UK High Court in the Bancoult cases; the International Court of Justice; United Nations resolutions; academic research stretching across decades. We were not transient workers. We were a Creole-speaking people, rooted in our islands, with our own traditions, our own culture, and our own community life. To say that our homeland had ‘no permanent population’ is simply untrue … You also stated the islands had ‘never been self-governing’. Chagossians have never claimed to have operated a Westminster-style system. But for generations, in the long absence of resident British administrators, our islands were organised and cared for by local leaders from within our own community”.
This has been confirmed in academic work. Misley Mandarin, who lives here in London now with his family, finishes,
“We ask you not for sympathy, but for recognition. Not for pity, but for accuracy. Not for charity, but for truth. We deserve self-determination. We want to stay British and return to our islands as British citizens”.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 20T and 81K, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley, seek to achieve a similar objective to Amendments 80 and 82. Given the similarity of the two pairs of amendments, I was slightly surprised to see the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, degroup his amendments. We could have had a very satisfactory debate with the original grouping, but of course I fully respect the noble Lord’s right to degroup his amendments. I am slightly surprised, because he criticised me for doing something similar last week, but it is, of course, only right that noble Lords should be able to debate their amendments in the groupings that most suit them.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Lilley has the right to self-determination, as confirmed by a referendum of the Chagossians, in his amendment. This is an important point that I am sure many noble Lords will agree with.
Amendment 20T would also delay the implementation of the key parts of this Bill until some progress has been made on establishing the joint parliamentary commission. It seems to me that too many core parts of the treaty are not tied to deadlines or quantifiable outcomes. As a result, it would be hard to monitor whether Mauritius, and indeed the UK, are fulfilling their obligations under the treaty in a timely manner. My noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendment helpfully ties the joint parliamentary commission to the coming into effect of the Act, forcing Ministers and their Mauritian counterparts to get on with the job so that the commission can play an important role from the very beginning of the treaty’s effect. It is a very sensible proposal.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on whether the Government will agree that establishing a joint parliamentary commission would be a useful tool going forward.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord opposite has indicated, it is slightly surprising that the four amendments on establishing a joint UK-Mauritius parliamentary commission or committee have been degrouped. Members are well within their rights to do this and I am glad at least that this time noble Lords have had sufficient notice of what is happening.
I am sensitive to the sentiment of these amendments. I take them to come from a genuine desire for greater parliamentary involvement in the scrutiny of the implementation of the treaty on specific areas that are of concern to the Committee. The Government have always said that they welcome scrutiny, and this remains the case. We are not opposed to the strengthening of links between the UK Parliament and that of Mauritius, although this would be a somewhat novel approach. I think it seems pretty likely that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, took inspiration from the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on this occasion.
There is a question of proportionality and the proper extent of the remit of such a parliamentary commission. Out of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I propose to discuss this in much more detail when we reach the debate on Amendment 80, which he has tabled. I hope that is acceptable to the noble Lord. I will be very happy to meet with him and other noble Lords to discuss this proposal, and specifically the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in more detail. I hope that, with that, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to issues around the ceding of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius. I asked a question on the previous day of Committee about the drafting of this Bill and why it does not mention Mauritius. I wonder whether the Minister has had time to think about that and will be able to give your Lordships’ Committee an answer today. As I mentioned then, there are some previous examples of similar legislation that actually named the state that is gaining sovereignty, so I am keen to know why the precedent was not followed in this case.
My Amendment 33 simply seeks to remove two unnecessary subsections from the Bill. If we remove Clause 3(1) and (2), as my amendment would, we will be left with the simple statement that
“His Majesty has under his prerogative the like powers to make laws for Diego Garcia as His Majesty had before commencement for the British Indian Ocean Territory”.
With that simple statement, the Bill would assert His Majesty’s powers sufficiently and he could use those powers to ensure the continuity of law from the British Indian Ocean Territory to Diego Garcia. Given that these powers are under the prerogative, we cannot understand why a statutory provision is necessary to ensure the continuity of law following the ceding of sovereignty.
Furthermore, if the Bill passes in its current drafting and a future Parliament were to repeal this clause, what would the effect be on His Majesty’s prerogative powers? I understand that the Government’s intention is not to undermine the prerogative with the Bill—that is clear from Clause 5(4)—but why have they not included an identical provision in Clause 3? If the Government are merely confirming His Majesty’s prerogative powers, should the drafting not be simpler, so as not to risk limiting the prerogative?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords have not had the opportunity to hear from me on the Bill previously. I apologise for not having intruded on previous debates, but I have listened to many of them.
I tabled Amendments 51A, 51B and 51C in pursuance of my continuing interest, over a number of years, in the exercise of prerogative powers and their relationship to parliamentary scrutiny. The combined effect of these three amendments would mean that any Order in Council that exercises a Henry VIII power—that is, to amend, repeal or revoke an Act—would be subject to affirmative procedure, instead of negative as proposed in the Bill, and that any other order, in other words not a Henry VIII power, would be subject to the negative procedure instead of no procedure.
These amendments reflect, and are in accordance with, the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which, in its 37th report on 13 November, said of the Henry VIII power in paragraph 17 that
“the Government has failed to provide a full explanation as to why the power … is subject to the negative procedure … We recommend that this power should be subject to the affirmative procedure”.
In relation to orders that are not of a Henry VIII power character, the committee went on to say:
“We recommend that the power in clause 5(1) when used to do anything other than amend, repeal or revoke an Act should be subject to the negative procedure”.
So my three amendments are intended precisely to deliver the recommendations of the DPRRC.
The Constitution Committee, in its 14th report, also drew attention to the provisions of Clause 5. It observed that Orders in Council that are made in relation to treaties are commonly made by way of the prerogative power—because treaties are made by the prerogative power—and with limited parliamentary scrutiny as a consequence. However, the committee did not dissent from the DPRRC’s recommendations in this case.
Orders in Council in relation to the British Indian Ocean Territories have historically been made by virtue of the prerogative. The terms of this agreement with Mauritius mean that that precedent no longer applies. Article 1 of the agreement recognises—or confers, depending on how you view it—sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, including Diego Garcia, to Mauritius. Therefore, the basis for the exercise of the prerogative power—in other words, the exercise of sovereignty over the territory—is no longer applicable. I shall go on to explain why I therefore disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench in his argument for Amendment 33.
These provisions provide for the continuation of the law in Diego Garcia. This is in accordance with the agreement in relation to Article 9 on jurisdiction. It follows in my view that the future exercise of the prerogative is sanctioned by this legislation in relation to Diego Garcia and that, as a result, any Orders in Council made should be regarded as statutory orders and, as such, subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Government have accepted that the orders that have Henry VIII powers should require a parliamentary procedure. They do not, however, provide for a parliamentary procedure for other Orders in Council.
Paragraph 48 of the Explanatory Notes says that this measure is in subsection (5) of Clause 5—in fact it is in subsection (6). The notes say that
“the intention is to maintain a clear distinction between prerogative and statutory orders”.
That is to be achieved, according to the Explanatory Notes, by stating that these powers are not exercised in pursuance of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. This is a very curious place that we have arrived at, since the Government are disapplying the Statutory Instruments Act while at the same time requiring that Orders in Council that are made that have a Henry VIII power attached to them require parliamentary scrutiny and are therefore statutory orders.
Let me be clear about the argument behind my three amendments. The prerogative stems from the exercise of a sovereign jurisdiction, which in relation to the United Kingdom is exercised by the sovereign in Parliament. In other dominions where His Majesty is sovereign, other forms of sovereign powers may subsist, but this treaty and agreement with Mauritius states baldly, in Article 1, that His Majesty is not sovereign in Diego Garcia. No prerogative power can exist without being dependent on this legislation.
Subsection (6)(b), in excluding this legislation from the interpretation under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, is incorrect. On Report, and in response to this debate, I will be asking Ministers to think very carefully about two things. First, I hope positively, I ask them to change the procedures for the parliamentary scrutiny of Orders in Council so that Henry VIII powers are dealt with by an affirmative procedure, and, secondly, that Orders in Council for any other purpose are dealt with by a negative procedure. I ask them also to think very carefully about the terms of Clause 5(6), which incorrectly seeks to disapply the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.
It follows from my argument that I do not agree with my noble friend on Amendment 33, and I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Lilley in relation to his Amendment 51BA. He goes further than the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee would in applying an affirmative procedure to Orders in Council that are not for a Henry VIII purpose. Neither can I support other opposition to clauses standing part, but I expect that my noble friend was rightly seeking to probe the meaning of Clauses 2, 3 and 5. Of course, if one were to remove them, one would effectively repudiate the treaty. That may or may not be his intention, but I do not propose to speak to the opposition to those clauses standing part.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I am persuaded by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that his amendments are somewhat narrower but much more justified than my broader amendment. When the appropriate moment comes, I will not press my amendment and leave his standing.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
In response to the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that we are clearer in the Bill about what it does, I have read it a couple of times and honestly do not think that it could not be any clearer. It is a Bill to enact an agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago. I think that is sufficient, and if he does not, I am not sure what he is getting at.
The Government rejects Amendment 33 on the basis that the provision in question is not redundant. It is needed to ensure the secure and effective operation of the base. It ensures clarity on which law will apply through the jurisdiction that the UK will exercise under the treaty. Legal continuity and certainty for operations on the base once the British Indian Ocean Territory is dissolved is far from unnecessary.
Let me explain why we have Clause 3. This clause saves the law of BIOT, and law which relates to BIOT, as the law of Diego Garcia and law which relates to Diego Garcia. This has been done as the default, to ensure the continued effective running of the base on Diego Garcia and to make sure that there is no legal gap. Detailed work is being carried out to establish where technical amendments may be needed to this preserved law to reflect the new status of Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is defined in Clause 3 as the whole area that the UK can exercise jurisdiction over, as covered in the treaty. This includes the island of Diego Garcia and the 12 nautical miles surrounding it. Preserving the existing prerogative power to legislate for Diego Garcia means that we can continue to operate the base and its legal architecture in much the same way that we do today, and it gives the maximum flexibility for the future.
Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, seems to be based on a misapprehension. As I mentioned in my response to the amendments related to Clause 3, His Majesty has a prerogative power to legislate for BIOT at present and Clause 3 preserves this power. It does not allow him to make laws for other parts of the realm about BIOT or Diego Garcia. If the noble Lord reads that clause of the Bill again, he will see that I am right about that.
The statutory power in Clause 5 is necessary to enable amendments to Acts and statutory instruments which form part of the law of Diego Garcia and amendments to legislation which forms part of the law of other jurisdictions—the UK Crown dependencies and the other OTs. These other jurisdictions have laws which refer to BIOT or treat it as one of the overseas territories. Amendments to those laws may be necessary to reflect the new status of Diego Garcia.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—as is becoming classic in his contributions on these occasions—has read the report from the DPRRC. His Amendments 51A, 51B and 51C appear to seek to implement its recommendations. Amendment 51BA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, appears to be less consistent with the recommendations—I think he has recognised that in his remarks—in that it would impose the affirmative procedure in respect not just of Orders in Council, which amend primary legislation, but of those which amend secondary legislation. Without showing too much leg so late at night, we are still considering these suggestions and we will return to them on Report. With that, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others who contributed to this group. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply to my amendments. I appreciate that they are technical and relate to the prerogative, but they are important none the less.
In essence, we seek to understand whether the Government believe that Clauses 3 and 5 will limit the prerogative in any way because as we see from the drafting of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which we discussed earlier, this has effectively ended the Government’s adherence to the original Ponsonby rule. Statute is so often deficient when compared with convention. As in the case of the prerogative, statute should not limit the prerogative without very careful consideration.
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Given the complexity of these issues, I hope she will write to us to set out the impact of the Bill on the prerogative before we proceed to Report. In the meantime, I will, of course, study her reply in Hansard. Obviously, we reserve the right to return to any unresolved issues on Report.
Baroness Hoey
“Demographic study of the Chagossian peopleThe Secretary of State must produce a report projecting the population growth of the Chagossian people over the next 30 years, including their global diaspora, and the impact of this Act upon that projected growth, and assess the implications for international recognition of their national identity.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as some comments were made on the previous day in Committee about how few Members there were on the Government Benches, I thought it might be nice to say how pleased I am to see so many tonight. I am sorry that the Lib Dems still have not produced many people, but anyway: it is very nice to see so many people.
Amendment 47 is a stand-alone amendment, which again does not really affect the security aspects of Diego Garcia or the treaty in the sense of changing it hugely. It asks the Secretary of State to
“produce a report projecting the population growth of the Chagossian people over the next 30 years, including their global diaspora, and the impact of this Act upon that projected growth, and assess the implications for international recognition of their national identity”.
One of the Government’s recent arguments for the treaty and the Bill is that the Americans want it. They have explained that the United States is troubled about having a military base on an island with contested sovereignty, and that it has said that until matters are resolved and there is legal certainty, it will not invest in the base. That is probably précising the argument. The Government argue that the treaty and the Bill will deliver the requisite legal certainty. The argument is based on the assumption, if this Bill becomes an Act and the Mauritius treaty can then be ratified, that all the legal uncertainties will be put to bed.
It is my contention in moving Amendment 47 that if this Act passes and the Mauritius treaty is ratified—two things I very much hope will still not happen—all that will happen is that one legal uncertainty will be replaced by another, and the Americans will have made no progress towards getting that certainty. Instead of the uncertainty arising from the Republic of Mauritius contesting United Kingdom sovereignty over the islands, we will be presented with the uncertainty that arises from the Chagossian people contesting the Republic of Mauritius’s sovereignty. I get the sense that, in removing the basis for Chagossians living in the United Kingdom to continue to enjoy British Overseas Territory citizenship after the passage of this Act, there is a desire to try to collapse Chagossian civic identity into British civic identity, to the extent that Chagossians reside in the UK, so that distinctive Chagossian civic identity disappears.
The truth, however, is that the identity of the Chagossian community in exile will not go away, resting as it does principally across three states: the United Kingdom, Mauritius and the Seychelles. The number of Chagossians is increasing and they are becoming more animated in their commitment to securing self-determination as a people defined, even in exile, by their relationship to their islands.
There is a sense that, until this point, the impact of the Chagossian identity in international relations has been somewhat muted, in that their desire is not to be returned to their islands to become a sovereign, independent state. The Chagossians who issued the statement of self-determination, who have written to us and whom we have met, were very clear on this point. Since they see themselves as connected to the UK, there has never been a need hitherto for them to assert their identity and seek international personality to claim the islands. This will change completely if the islands are transferred to the Republic of Mauritius. Even while the United Kingdom has shamefully failed to resettle the islands, they have remained under British sovereignty, which over 99% of well over 3,000 Chagossians are recorded as saying that they want. Obviously, they do not want things as they are at present, but to be resettled.
In this context, the contention of my amendment is that the Government and the United States of America need to think carefully about what is likely to happen to the Chagossians as a people in exile. I believe that, rather than allowing themselves to be absorbed into other countries, they will continue increasing in number and adopting an ever-stronger and more resilient identity, and that in times to come we will look back on this Bill and this treaty, if it goes through, as something that has made even more uncertainty over Diego Garcia. I beg to move.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. It would be interesting not only to look at the future projections of the population of Chagossians but to have a proper, full-on demographic study of this unique people. We heard it asserted again by the Minister, in a very embarrassed and regretful tone, that there was no population and the people do not really exist, “This may not be my view but it is the view of the courts”, and so on. It is worth spending a moment reminding ourselves of who these people are, some of whom—to remind noble Lords opposite who have just turned up—are observing this debate.
There was a unique inheritance in the Chagos Archipelago. The population came from both directions: largely from Africa—from Madagascar, which has its own unique demographics, east Africa and Mozambique—as indentured labourers from the Indian subcontinent, from Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Bengal and Ceylon to some degree, and a little bit from France. This is reflected in a unique linguistic tradition. I have listened, over many years representing the part of Sussex where most British Chagossians live, to the Bourbonnais Creole. There is a kind of French spoken throughout the Indian Ocean, in the Seychelles and in Mauritius, but Chagossian French is clearly distinct. It is not simply a dialect of Mauritian French. There are very different words. For example, a boat is a “pirog” rather than a “bato”, and a net is a “lagoni” rather than a “rezou”. My apologies to any watching Chagossians for my pronunciation. There is a unique and distinctive oral tradition, rich in nautical metaphors and especially in longing, melancholy and a sense of exile.
In the grey and unpromising streets of Crawley—I mean no disrespect to Crawley, which is part of my old patch—people have worked to keep alive these old folkways and traditions. They are focused on the sense of longing and return. There are ritual incantations that mention the villages now lost. There are special celebrations and meals marking what was taken away. A sense of exile can become a central part of your identity as a people. We have seen it happen many times. I invite noble Lords to recall the words of Psalm 137:
“If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, Let my right hand forget her cunning …let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, If I remember thee not”.
With every passing year, it becomes a stronger part of your identity as a people.
All this is by way of saying that the idea that once this treaty is signed and a couple of signatures are exchanged, the people of Chagos will forget their identity, blend happily into the Mauritian population and become just one more exiled group with no more prospect of returning home is an utter fantasy. We will have replaced a legalistic dispute with a much more visceral one, which will carry on for as long as there are people who still remember the noise of the surf and swell of the archipelago. Those people will press every future Government for their right to return not as Mauritian citizens but as what they are asking for now, Chagossians under British sovereignty. Eventually, they will get a Government who honour their wish.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, in this amendment, we are talking about a democratic study of the Chagossian people. However, I want to speak about a matter that has been mentioned briefly by my noble friend Lord Callanan and that goes to the very heart of democratic integrity and the dignity of an entire people.
I wish to address a survey issued by the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee that aims to capture
“Chagossian views on the Agreement with Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago”.
This survey cannot be relied on. It is methodologically flawed, structurally careless, open to manipulation and in several aspects dangerously misleading. The Chagossian people, who have endured decades of dispossession, displacement and injustice, deserve far better than an instrument that falls short at every level.
First, on the technical design, the survey is hosted on Microsoft Forms, a rudimentary platform that any undergraduate research supervisor would reject for a project involving even minimal verification. There are no safeguards against duplicate submissions, no protection against cyber manipulation, no identity checks and no mechanism whatever to confirm whether a respondent is actually Chagossian. For a survey that concerns sovereignty, citizenship, resettlement and the legacy of one of the gravest forced removals in modern British history, this is astonishing. It leaves the process exposed to interference by anyone, anywhere, with any motive.
Unfortunately, that is not a theoretical risk. The survey still has a week to run, and we already have deeply troubling reports from Mauritius. There are claims, supported by video evidence which I have seen and direct testimonials, that Mauritian officials and intermediaries have been filling out the survey on behalf of Chagossians who cannot read English, cannot understand the political implications and cannot write their own responses.
Even more seriously, multiple Chagossians have told us that they oppose the agreement with Mauritius yet believe that they have been marked down as supporting it in this survey. If this is true, then a foreign Government are, in effect, interfering with a House of Lords committee’s evidence-gathering process. Not only does this compromise the validity of the survey but it threatens the independence and integrity of Parliament itself. Let us be absolutely clear: this is not a consultation but contamination.
Let me take your Lordships through some of the survey questions. It begins with text that states that:
“A new law implementing the Agreement is currently being debated … and members of the House of Lords want to hear … opinions … before voting on it”.
What it does not say—and very much ought to—is that this agreement is not yet in force, that ratification is required and that Parliament can still reject it. The omission is misleading and may lead many to believe the treaty is inevitable. When you are asking a displaced people about the fate of their homeland, clarity is not optional; it is essential.
The survey repeatedly instructs respondents not to provide any identifying information. At the same time, it allows anyone in the world to submit answers as many times as they like, with no checks. There is no way to confirm whether responses come from Chagossians, non-Chagossians, organised political activists or even automated submissions. I have personally seen a text message from a high-ranking Mauritius official stating:
“My guys in the Mauritian Government are”—
I will change the wording—very worried.
“They are planning for civil unrest when they cancel the tax cuts”.
It is clear what the Mauritians want. For a consultation that claims to express Chagossian views, this alone renders the entire exercise invalid.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for moving this amendment, my noble friend Lord Hannan for his excellent speech and my noble friend Lord Leicester, who also made some very good points.
Amendment 47, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, gets to the core of a problem that the Government have so far avoided. When we originally considered passing a Motion requiring the Government to consult the Chagossians, which the Government were totally against, Ministers resisted it, not only because they felt that a consultation might be subject to judicial review but because the challenge of defining the Chagossian community presented challenges.
We have heard throughout our debates on the treaty that the UK Government have mistreated the Chagossians, not least through their forced removal from the Chagos Archipelago. The Government have gone some way to recognising this through the establishment of the trust fund. Does the Minister consider the creation of the trust fund for the Chagossians as the end of the matter, or will her department continue to look at further ways to support the displaced Chagossian community?
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce a report projecting the population growth of the Chagossian people over the next 30 years and to assess the implications of the outcome of the report for recognition of their identity. If we are to properly support the Chagossian community, as we believe we should, it is important that the UK Government make a proper effort to understand the community, its growth over time and where Chagossians have chosen to live. Will the Minister take this on board and look closely at ways in which the UK Government can improve their understanding of the Chagossian community? I look forward to hearing her response.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I have said repeatedly throughout these deliberations that the Government are very interested in thinking about different ways of working alongside the Chagossian community on these issues. That applies to Amendment 47 as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asks the Government in her amendment to produce a report consisting of a demographic study of the Chagossian community. I am going to have to disappoint her this evening. It will not be possible to produce a useful report, at a cost to taxpayers, in time for it to do anything of consequence alongside this treaty. It is not a bad idea to have a report such as this, for many of the reasons that have been described. I would not be against it. What I am saying is that the responsibility for conducting the study does not belong in this Bill, but that does not mean it is a bad thing to do in principle. The noble Baroness will know, as we have heard most recently from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, about the IDRC leading a report into the Chagossians, which I hope will be published soon. I hope that all these things will help to mitigate some of the noble Baroness’s concerns.
I saw that Jeremy Corbyn had also written to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, wo chairs the IRDC, which is responsible for the survey. It is not something that the Government are responsible for. We are looking forward to the results. We were asked what weight we put on the survey. It is for the committee to determine that. I am sure that it will take on board the comments that have been made by those who are concerned about how the survey has been conducted. I know that some Chagossians would be completely unable to access a survey such as this, for reasons of literacy or access to the means by which the survey is being conducted. I am sure that the committee will want to reflect on that. We certainly will when we receive its report. I look forward to it and hope that it is useful in assisting us to understand the complexity of opinion that exists within Chagossian communities.
On the substantive point that the noble Baroness raises, such a piece of work may well be useful, but I am not able this evening to commit the Government to commissioning it. With that, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather thoughtful answer. I note that she did not rule out what I said—that the Americans would still be seeing uncertainty in the future. I think that we will see that whatever happens in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lilley
“Review: impact on nuclear treatiesWithin three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of this Act on the ability of the United Kingdom and Mauritius to comply with international treaties relating to nuclear weapons.”
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, we are approaching the home straight now, which is good news. A lot of noble Lords have joined the debate at this stage. They will know that the Government attach great importance to adherence to international law. They will probably be aware that we have established that the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over disagreements between Commonwealth states and therefore none on our dispute with Mauritius about sovereignty, and that we have established that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has no power to rule on sovereignty.
However, there is a treaty which does apply to Mauritius and which no one disputes the existence or authority of, and that is the Pelindaba treaty. It was never mentioned in the early stages of the Government’s declarations about their need to cede sovereignty to Mauritius or their claim that doing so would increase the security of the base. But the Pelindaba treaty is one which the countries of Africa—and that includes Mauritius—signed, creating a nuclear-free zone. I do not think anyone disputes that if the Chagos Archipelago is recognised as part of Mauritius then the Pelindaba treaty will apply to the Chagos Archipelago, and therefore to the Diego Garcia base. It is significant that the Pelindaba treaty says it should be a nuclear-free zone and that therefore Diego Garcia will be nuclear-free.
It is important that we establish what that means. Does it mean that no nuclear weapons can ever be stored, based or transited through Diego Garcia? If so, does the United States know about this? What is their reaction to it? It is less clear whether or not it means that nuclear-powered vessels can use the facilities of Diego Garcia. My noble friend Lady Goldie’s amendment would make that clear, and her amendment is at least as important as mine in seeking to establish the truth of this.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 88 in this group is very much in a similar vein to my earlier amendments, although I see I do not have the presence of my newly acquired fan—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—to encourage me. I seek reassurance that the
“unrestricted access, basing and overflight”
provisions in Annex 1(1)(a) of the agreement includes the right of the UK to allow nuclear-propelled vessels and nuclear-armed vessels and aircraft to enter the sea and airspace of Diego Garcia.
Although not in the amendment, the annexe of the treaty referred to also specifically covers the United States of America, and, for the avoidance of doubt, I include it in the confirmation I seek from the Secretary of State in this amendment. Again, I am asking that this be confirmed by the Secretary of State before the Bill can come into force. In this respect, I am perhaps baring my teeth more than my noble friend Lord Lilley, which is a rather unusual situation.
As my noble friend Lord Lilley pointed out, Mauritius is a party to the Pelindaba treaty, which establishes the African continent as a nuclear-weapon-free zone. This prohibits the research, development, manufacture, stockpiling, acquisition, testing, possession, control or stationing of nuclear weapons in any signatory state. Article 7 of the Mauritius treaty states that both Mauritius and the United Kingdom confirm that no
“existing international obligations or arrangements … conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, and that nothing in this Agreement shall affect the status of existing international obligations or arrangements except as expressly provided for in this Agreement”.
Annex 1 of the treaty states that the United Kingdom retains
“unrestricted ability to … control the … deployment of armed operations and lethal capabilities”.
Nuclear weapons are lethal capabilities. So Britain and the United States must, as per the terms of the treaty, have an unrestricted ability, surely, to house nuclear weapons or to dock nuclear submarines at the base on Diego Garcia should we choose to do so. Yet that would appear to require an express provision in this treaty, and I cannot find it.
Article 7(3) appears to seek to allay those concerns, but I would welcome an absolute clarification from the Minister. Will Mauritius’s membership of the Pelindaba treaty prevent us basing Vanguard-class submarines or, in the future, nuclear-armed aircraft, or the United States stationing any nuclear weapons at the base on Diego Garcia? That is a question that I require answered. This cannot be left in doubt—hence my requirement that the Secretary of State publish a statement to confirm the matters I have raised before this Bill comes into force, so that everyone is clear about what the UK and the US can or, perhaps more alarmingly, cannot do. As my noble friend Lord Lilley commented, although they are not directly covered by the Pelindaba treaty, my amendment also makes reference to nuclear-propelled vessels and, for the avoidance of doubt, I seek reassurance that Mauritius would not take exception to that. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their amendments. I appreciate that they have questions about how the treaty protects the full operation of the base, and I want to reassure them that the treaty enables the continued operation of the base to its full capability. The treaty and the Bill we are debating today will have zero impact on the day-to-day business on Diego Garcia. Importantly, it will not reduce our ability to deploy the full range of advanced military capabilities to Diego Garcia. I am putting some of this on the record, and the noble Baroness, as a former Defence Minister, will know the careful calibration of the language that I am using: I am putting it on the record so that we are all clear.
As I say, noble Lords will understand that I pick my words with care in this particular context. I cannot and will not discuss operational matters on the Floor of this place, but I am confident that the Chamber would not necessarily want me to. The long-standing UK position of neither confirming nor denying the location or presence of nuclear weapons must stand. But let us talk about the hypothetical. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, concern the application of the Pelindaba treaty. Mauritius is a signatory, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness said, to the treaty. The UK is not a signatory to the treaty but is a signatory to Protocols 1 and 2. I can confirm to the Chamber that the Governments of the UK and Mauritius are both satisfied that the Diego Garcia treaty is compatible with these existing obligations.
I also remind colleagues, because this is important—again, I think the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, if I remember rightly from his remarks, and, indeed, the noble Baroness raised this—that we are not alone in the matter. The Government of the United States have also tested all aspects of the Diego Garcia treaty in depth and at the highest levels of the security establishment. They, too, are satisfied that it protects the full operation of the base. Indeed, when I was talking about the earlier amendments in answer to that, I quoted the remarks of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his comments about being satisfied with the treaty in every aspect.
Amendments 63 and 88 therefore are not necessary. We do not need a review of the impacts of nuclear treaties on the future operation of the base, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has proposed, because the future operation of the base has been protected. I say to the noble Baroness that we do not need to reopen paragraph 1.a of Annex 1 to the treaty, as has been suggested, because this already provides for unrestricted—that is the key word—access for UK and US vessels to enter the sea of Diego Garcia. Paragraph 1.b.i provides for unrestricted ability to control the conduct and deployment of lethal capabilities.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do of course understand the sensitivity of not discussing operational activity in a public domain. However, if I revert to the Minister’s understandable reliance on what I described at Second Reading as that “huge protection” in Article 1, that is explicitly in contradiction with Article 7(1). Article 7(1) says expressly with reference to international obligations or arrangements that, if they are not to be obtempered or agreed to, that must be provided for in this agreement. That is the dilemma that is perplexing my noble friend Lord Lilley and myself. We seem to have on the face of this treaty a self-evident contradiction.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making. What I am saying to her is that the Government of Mauritius, the Government of the UK and the Government of the US see no contradiction in what the treaty says, and explicitly lays out, in respect of the ability of Diego Garcia to operate in the way that it has always done, with the lethal capabilities as outlined elsewhere in the Bill.
I hope that is helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness as reassurance that the situation will stay the same as it is now. As I have said, all those three parties to that treaty are confident that that remains the case.
I will say, however, that, although resisting the amendments, I am grateful that they were tabled. They are really important amendments to have made in order for the Government to have put on the record important elements of the treaty and the Bill. We have been able to clarify for the Chamber, and for those who read our proceedings, that the position that we would all want to see will continue with respect to Diego Garcia and that the full capabilities will be maintained.
Let me be absolutely clear: the full operational use of the base is protected to ensure that the base is able to continue in every way that it always has done. I hope that is helpful. On the basis of the reassurances that I have made and the comments that I have put on the record, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lilley (Con)
That is very helpful and I entirely respect what the Minister says. He is a man of obvious integrity and commitment to the defence of this country. I am comforted that he is speaking for the Government, and therefore that the Government will maintain the freedom to use the Diego Garcia base to its full capabilities. I am not persuaded that that is necessarily in line with the Pelindaba treaty. That does not worry me so much. It may worry the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, or any future Lord Hermer in Mauritius, but let us hope that they will be ignored. So I will, of course, withdraw my amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
“UK–Mauritius Inter-parliamentary Committee(1) Upon the passage of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must engage with the Government of the Republic of Mauritius with a view to establishing a UK-Mauritius Inter-parliamentary Committee to oversee the implementation and operation of the Treaty.(2) In undertaking the engagement required by subsection (1), the Minister of the Crown must make representations that the composition of the Inter-parliamentary Committee should reflect equal representation from the parliaments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius, and that its purpose should be to promote mutual understanding of the provisions of the Treaty through dialogue and debate, including consideration of the operation of the Joint Commission established under Article 12 of the Treaty.(3) The Minister of the Crown must further propose that the Inter-parliamentary Committee’s responsibilities include—(a) monitoring and assessing the implementation and operation of the Treaty;(b) evaluating the recognition and protection of Chagossian rights, including but not limited to—(i) the right of return,(ii) the right to self-determination, and(iii) access to compensation, resettlement, or other forms of support;(c) considering the welfare, integration, and general needs of Chagossians residing in the United Kingdom;(d) assessing progress made in negotiations between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Mauritius relating to the rights of Chagossians; and(e) reviewing any financial arrangements made under the Treaty, including those supporting resettlement, welfare, or the development of the Chagossian community.(4) If the Inter-parliamentary Committee described in subsection (1) is established, within five years of the commencement of the Treaty the Inter-parliamentary Committee must be invited to conduct a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Treaty arrangements.”
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 82, which is consequential upon Amendment 80. As the Minister referred to before, Amendment 80 had attracted some flattering imitation yesterday, but nevertheless I hope that we might be able to see progress on what I would consider to be a serious proposal to address some of the concerns that have been raised very sincerely. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said earlier, we have a lot of history to make good, and I agree.
This has been an unusual Committee stage of a Bill in many respects. Perhaps it is because this legislation and the treaty that it is connected to will have, unlike some other legislation that we often might consider to be indirect, a direct impact on people’s lives. They are a defined but diverse group of individuals who have been in touch with many noble Lords. Therefore, I believe that we have an obligation to treat this seriously. In Committee, there have been many passionate, but also proper and probing, questions on how the terms of the treaty will operate and how UK interests will also continue to be represented. We have just heard that from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and we heard it earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad.
Amendment 80 in my name is a proposition for an ongoing inter-parliamentary committee for the duration of the treaty. The Minister mentioned before that she felt it was perhaps a novel response. It is not entirely novel; there are precedents which I have based this on. There have been quite frequently free trade agreements that had parliamentary committees associated with them. There is the EFTA agreement, which the UK had been part of. There was the AWEPA for our African partners in parliaments, which we had been part of. There is doubt from many about how critical parts of the treaty negotiated by this Government will be handled, both by the UK and the Mauritian Governments, and operate through the commission.
We have heard many references today to the deeply flawed Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. It was fascinating for me to listen to this debate, because this House in 2021 passed a Motion—it happened to be in my name—about the ability for Parliament to have a straight up-and-down vote on treaties. The House passed an amendment to the then Trade Bill which stated that negotiating objectives or before-treaty negotiations would have to be presented to both Houses, and the House of Commons would have an opportunity to vote on those. I believe that those aspects would have been beneficial for this treaty. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, forgot that he voted against that, so I am happy to remind him, just for the record, that on the latter part—on the first part, he was not in the House—in one of his very first votes in this House, he was against what he has been arguing so passionately for today.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My point is that there has not been a vote in the other place, so the only proper chance is here.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
No, the case that the noble Lord was making passionately was about the faults in the CRaG process, and I agree with him about that. It is just that if he had not had his view, with his noble friends, in 2021, we would have had the enhanced processes for treaty scrutiny.
However, we are we are because the current Government were supportive of changing the CRaG process for up-down votes on treaties, and now they are against. The Opposition, who had been against then, are now in favour of it. It probably has to do with whoever is sitting on the government side of the House, rather than the opposition side, but we are where we are now. The issue is how we go forward, to some extent. That is not denying that there is still Report stage, and there will still be divisions potentially, but I wanted to flag at this stage, in Committee, the proposal to try to address some of the major concerns.
Before briefly addressing that specific part of the amendment, I want to put something on record, as there have been quite a few allusions today to the notion that the negotiations on this treaty were halted by the previous Administration. In a letter to the Foreign Affairs Committee from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, on 5 April 2024—just seven weeks before the Dissolution of Parliament—he reaffirmed that negotiations were ongoing and that questions on the future administration of the islands were subject to the ongoing bilateral negotiations between the UK and Mauritius. He also said in the letter:
“We will continue to update Chagossians as negotiations progress”.
The negotiations were ongoing at the time of the election. It is worth stating that on the record, because there has been quite a bit of misleading information today. It is interesting that the Foreign Affairs Committee had been making the case since 2008 for a strong moral case for resettlement. That was denied again in the letter from the Foreign Secretary in April 2024.
We have a moral duty to try to ensure that, whatever circumstances arise from the parliamentary proceedings, we have a mechanism by which we allow the Chagossian community to be represented. Through Amendment 80, my proposal is for an inter-parliamentary committee, with MPs from the Republic of Mauritius and MPs from the UK forming a committee for the duration of the treaty. We know, and I agree with much of what has been said today, that trust is low to non-existent among many in the Chagossian community and suspicion is very high. I acknowledge all of that. A means by which that can perhaps be addressed as the treaty is implemented, if it is brought into force, is one where UK and Mauritian parliamentarians, through dialogue, debate and mutual understanding, can observe and scrutinise their respective Executives. Back in their Parliaments, they can scrutinise how the treaty is operating, the implementation of the treaty, whether rights of return are being implemented, the right to self-determination as understood in customary international law, and access to compensation, resettlement and other forms of support.
The commission in the treaty is executive but this would add a parliamentary oversight function, which I believe would be of value. I hope that the amendment will receive cross-party support. I am open to discussing its particular wording, but I hope that the principle will receive support. We owe a moral duty to that community for ongoing representations to address their concerns and suspicions. I therefore beg to move Amendment 80.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, this is the last group of amendments in Committee. I am delighted to see so many noble Lords opposite taking a close interest in the Bill and what it will do to the Chagossian people. I am delighted that they are taking an interest in what their Government are finally doing to the Chagossians.
I have already spoken to my noble friend Lord Lilley’s amendments, which are similar in drafting to those of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. I must say that I prefer my noble friend’s amendments to his Amendments 80 and 82, principally because they include reference to a referendum of the Chagossians. My noble friend the Earl of Leicester has talked about how deficient the current survey being undertaken by the International Agreements Committee is. I think that we could greatly improve on that, but the best mechanism would be simply to hold a referendum of the Chagossians asking them whether they approve of this treaty.
I know that the Liberal Democrats were previously very supportive of a referendum, but, despite criticising the position of my party, this amendment implies that they may not now be so supportive. I hope to see information to the contrary from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. His amendment also differs from my noble friend Lord Lilley’s, in that it would apparently come into force after the treaty, whereas that of my noble friend would come into operation beforehand, which seems much more appropriate. I am of course happy to take up the offer of the noble Lord to discuss the wording of amendments because, as is so often the case in your Lordships’ House, we bring about improvements to a Bill only if we work together. I am certainly prepared, from my point of view, to work with him on the drafting of these amendments. I hope my noble friend Lord Lilley would be involved as well, so we can get them into a form where we can support them on Report and ask the Government to move on this.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for the considered and balanced contribution that he has made throughout the Bill but particularly on his Amendment 80. The amendment is interesting, and I understand the effect that he is seeking to achieve. It is a welcome addition to our debate today. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, earlier, I will also take Amendment 81K into consideration in the comments that I am about to make.
The proposal put forward by the noble Lord is a novel one. I could not recall any examples of where there have been joint committees set up between different legislatures in this way, but the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned some, and I will reflect on those to see whether there is anything we can glean from them that might be useful.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has made some changes to his amendment, but, unfortunately, we still cannot accept it in its current form today. The structure is not something that the treaty with Mauritius was drafted to contemplate. Of course, there is nothing to prevent parliamentarians in the UK engaging with their equivalents in Mauritius on these matters, but we do not see this as being a matter for domestic legislation in the way that we are considering it at the moment because, obviously, that does not have any effect on what the Mauritians themselves do.
Some elements in the noble Lord’s proposed scope for a joint parliamentary commission seem to be very much for the UK alone, so we could look at them. The Government are committed to building a relationship with the Chagossian community that is based on respect. As noble Lords will be aware, we have established a Chagossian contact group to give Chagossians a formal role that shapes decision-making on the UK Government’s support for their community. We are also providing additional support to build the capacity of community groups so that more are eligible for grants.
There are two elements in the amendment that are an issue for the Government and that we will disagree on at the moment, and those are the right to self-determination and compensation. On self-determination, we have been over this several times in this House and in the other place. To put it simply and plainly, in legal terms no question of self-determination applies. The English courts, noting the conclusion of the ICJ in the 2019 advisory opinion, have proceeded on the basis that the relevant right to self-determination in the context of BIOT was that of Mauritius. On compensation, again it is legally the case that the UK paid compensation to the Chagossians in the 1980s and the English courts in a series of judgments and the European Court of Human Rights have ruled that this settled the claims definitively.
Having said all that, I recognise and understand the noble Lord’s intentions and his determination with this amendment. He has been consistent about arguing along these lines throughout our consideration of this Bill, and I suggest that we meet to discuss his amendment in more detail to see if we can find a way to move this forward ahead of Report. With that, I hope that for today he would be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am glad there are so many witnesses who saw my ability to bring the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the Minister together with some form of consensus at the end of this Committee. I am grateful for both the noble Lord’s and the Minister’s responses. She will know that I have been keen to see the areas where we can move towards formalisation and a degree of statutory underpinning for some structures of ongoing representation, because this is a special case. Even if it was novel—I am sure officials will now be studying all the examples I have given; by the time we get to Report I will try to find some more—I believe it is justified, given the circumstances are in. I am grateful for the willingness to discuss this. There are ongoing debates on the particular aspects the Minister said she had difficulty with. I will happily give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I was just going to give him another example, not at British level but at the European level. There is of course the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, which has Members of the European Parliament and all the representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful. We have even got some good elements of Brexit incorporated in this debate as well, so we are on a roll. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw, on the basis that we will be returning to this to have what I hope will be constructive discussions with the Minister.