Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Last week, the House paid tribute to Lord Flight, who served as the MP for Arundel and South Downs from 1997 to 2005. My condolences go to his family and friends.
Before we begin, I would like to pay tribute to Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who died last week. Previously elected as the MP for Orkney and Shetland in 1983, Lord Wallace joined the Scottish Parliament in 1999, where he held the role of First Minister on three occasions. On behalf of the House, I offer my condolences to his family and friends.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Can I associate the Government side of the House with your tributes to Lord Wallace and Lord Flight, Mr Speaker? I pay tribute to Captain Philip Gilbert Muldowney of the 4th Regiment Royal Artillery, who died on 25 January. He was an outstanding young officer. I convey the condolences of the whole House to his friends and family.
I also inform the House—as you know, Mr Speaker—that my hon. Friend the Armed Forces Minister is in the Norwegian High North on reservist training. When we said we would boost the reserves, this is the Defence team delivering in person.
Turning to the question, my message to Great British businesses of all sizes is that we want the UK to be the best place in the world to start and grow a defence business. That is why we have set a target to spend an extra £2.5 billion with SMEs by 2028. That is an uplift of 50%. This is a Labour Government delivering for defence and delivering for Britain.
Dr Opher
Impcross, a company in my constituency of Stroud, is the sole supplier of flight-critical parts to the Typhoon aircraft and a key supplier for the Vanguard submarine fleet. It is on the verge of collapse, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is filing to wind it up, after the owners were prohibited from selling their business on the grounds of national security and sovereign capability. What support is the Secretary of State offering to critical suppliers that are struggling financially, and will he meet me to discuss what steps we can take to support this company?
John Healey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing Impcross in his constituency. I think he will accept that it is right that when British companies deliver the sort of sovereign UK capabilities he mentions that we scrutinise hard any sale to foreign firms. Impcross does indeed play an important role in the Typhoon and F-35 supply chains, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry would be happy to meet him.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Domo Tactical Communications in my constituency manufactures drones and communications equipment used around the world. It is having some problems engaging with the Ministry of Defence on sovereign capability, and the previous Minister of State for Defence Procurement was due to visit the company in my constituency, but that meeting has since fallen through since the reshuffle. The Minister confirmed on 25 November that he would visit. Can I ask that the meeting is arranged as soon as possible, please?
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman points to a firm in his constituency, and it is true that for too long too many small firms have felt locked out of MOD contracts. It is also true that the last Government, his Government, missed their own targets for SME defence support. Our new office for small business growth, which opened its doors for the first time last week, will help turn that around. At the risk of overburdening my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, I am sure that he would be willing to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
UK defence SMEs remain essential to safeguarding our national security, and while drones remain an essential part of modern warfare, so are helicopters. Yet The Times has reported that our sovereign capability to produce military helicopters could now be under threat because of Government indecision as to whether we actually need helicopters. Apparently, the Treasury has deemed that they may not be essential to operations going forward. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether it is the Ministry of Defence or the Treasury that decides on defence procurement priorities? Also, can he clarify when the decision to award the medium-lift helicopter contract will finally be made?
John Healey
My hon. Friend and his Committee know a great deal more about this than The Times does. He will know that a competitive contract process is under way for the new medium-lift helicopter. He will also know that we are working flat out to finalise the defence investment plan. And he will know that, as part of that plan, we are dealing with a programme of record—a previous commitment to equipment—that was hugely overcommitted, underfunded and, in some cases, unsuited to the threats we face. For the first time in nearly 18 years, the Ministry of Defence is taking a line-by-line approach to building up our plans for the future.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Does the Minister recognise that many small and medium-sized enterprises in the defence sector are supported by bigger defence firms? Companies such as Honeywell operate on the Leonardo site in Yeovil. Does he therefore accept that, if bigger defence firms such as Leonardo cannot get contracts like the one for the new medium-lift helicopter, we risk losing not just Leonardo but smaller defence firms, too?
John Healey
Firms such as Leonardo are getting defence contracts. I was in Edinburgh just the week before last to award a £450 million contract to Leonardo for a really important part of upgrading our Typhoon jets for the future. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that the supply chain to smaller and medium-sized firms is often mediated by primes such as Leonardo, which is why it is important that, since the election, we have let over 1,100 major contracts in defence, 84% of which have gone to British-based firms.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I associate the Opposition with the condolences expressed to the families of Lord Wallace, Lord Flight and, of course, Captain Philip Muldowney.
Last June, from the Dispatch Box, the Secretary of State promised to deliver the defence investment plan by the autumn. He failed to do so. At our previous oral questions in December, he promised to work “flat out” to deliver the DIP by the end of the year. He failed to do so. With continual dither and delay, it is no surprise that reports last month indicated the worst sentiment among UK defence SMEs for 20 years. The DIP is well overdue, so can the Secretary of State confirm that it will finally be published this month?
John Healey
We are working flat out to complete the DIP, and the hon. Gentleman above all, having been responsible for defence procurement in the last Government, will appreciate just how overcommitted his own programme is. He will appreciate the truth of his former boss saying that, over 14 years, the Conservatives had “hollowed out and underfunded” our armed forces. We will deal with that overcommitment, we will deal with the underfunding and we will deal with the fact that his plans were unsuited to many of the threats we face.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
We all know that we must urgently increase defence spending, but we are not hearing many ways to get it moving right away without harming British security in other ways. Slashing international development aid or investment in renewable energy, for instance, is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The Chief of the Defence Staff has warned that there is a £28 billion funding shortfall, so I want to offer the Secretary of State a practical, costed way to close much of that gap. Defence bonds would raise £20 billion over the next two years and get investment straightaway into capability and the industrial base, including the SMEs we rely on. Will the Secretary of State give this proposal serious consideration as part of a clear, funded plan to plug the funding gaps and get defence investment moving?
John Healey
I remember when the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor stood in this House after the election to argue, like the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) did, for this country to invest 2.5% of GDP by 2030—the hon. Member for South Suffolk called for it 13 times before the Prime Minister said, a year ago, we would do it three years earlier.
We will look at any way of raising the level of investment going into defence, but the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) could start by recognising that this Government have made a commitment to record investment in defence—the largest increase since the end of the cold war. I note in passing that he seems to be against how we will fund this to reach 2.5% and 2.6% next year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
We are still on Question 1, so it would be useful if Members can help me.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Three weeks ago I was in Kyiv. I saw for myself the savagery of Putin’s brutal assault on the Ukrainian people and I saw also their extraordinary defiance. Next week I will co-chair the 50-nation strong Ukraine defence contact group in NATO, and the UK is providing more military support now than ever before, and we will continue to stand united in this House, will continue to stand united in this country, and will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Mr Perkins
The Defence Secretary is absolutely right to spell out the strength of our commitment but there is increasing concern about the extent to which China is propping up both the economic and military capabilities of Mr Putin and his barbaric regime, so can the Secretary of State tell me what his latest assessment is of China’s contribution to Putin’s war machine and what steps we are taking to ensure the international community remains united?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right to raise this, and as a nation and a Government the UK will not hesitate to act against those supplying and funding Putin’s war economy. We have sanctioned a range of organisations that operate in third countries over economic and military support for Russia, including 50 Chinese companies. We will continue to work across other nations with other nations and to bolster the support for Ukraine and the principles of the UN charter.
Rachel Taylor
In North Warwickshire and Bedworth, many, like Felicitas in Water Orton, have welcomed Ukrainian refugees into their homes and have stood by Ukraine, just as this Labour Government have. Meanwhile, Reform-led Warwickshire county council has removed the Ukrainian flag from county hall despite public protest. Given the ever-growing threats of Russian aggression, what steps is the UK taking to strengthen its anti-submarine warfare capabilities?
John Healey
My hon. Friend is right that politicians of any party are judged on what we do, not just what we say, and the performance of Reform-led councils will certainly come home to roost, I suggest, for their party. But my hon. Friend is right: in this new era of Russian threat, we must ensure that our Royal Navy has the innovation it needs to detect, to track and to deter threats beneath the waves, and so today we have announced a new £40 million contract with a British-based SME to buy new sonobuoys, exactly to be deployed and used beneath the waves to track Putin’s subs.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
Our Ukrainian friends want not just to physically rebuild after this devastating war, but to recover with a modernised, reformed economy that can attract investment and support their entrepreneurial population. This is something Britain can help with, given our strengths in defence and technology and, indeed, as a global financial centre. So may I ask the Government to fully lean into these efforts alongside our allies, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the private sector, because an economically strong Ukraine is good not just for Ukraine’s future security, but for ours as well?
John Healey
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: a strong Ukraine is the key to a long-term secure Europe. He is also right that British defence, British innovation and British financial muscle can help Ukraine in the medium term. I think he would also recognise that we can contribute to Ukraine in a unique way, having been, since the start of Putin’s brutal invasion, Ukraine’s closest and most reliable ally under both Governments.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
As we approach the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine this month, with reports that Russian troops have killed 12 people and injured 17 others after launching a drone strike on civilians just yesterday, the brutality of Putin’s war shows no sign of abating. So can the Secretary of State confirm that the UK will not follow any US lead that undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty or territorial integrity, and will he commit to maintaining Britain’s military support at current levels or above, ensuring that decisions about Ukraine’s future remain with Kyiv, not with Washington or Moscow?
John Healey
Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is at the heart of our determination to stand with Ukraine, and we are determined to step up our support for Ukraine. The House will recognise the brutal attack on those mineworkers, who were going to work to mine the coal that keeps their own Ukrainian citizens warm in this period of unprecedented cold in Ukraine.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
Pembrokeshire is at the heart of Britain’s defence future, and I am excited about the opportunity for local people. To help deliver that, I am proud that this Labour Government are working with the Labour Government in Wales on progressing the defence growth deal for Wales, which will help prove that defence is an engine for growth right across Wales.
Henry Tufnell
I welcome the Government’s increased investment in the defence sector in Pembrokeshire; it represents a real opportunity for businesses and the local community, with good, well-paid jobs and strong local supply chains all strengthening our national security. Can the Minister set out what engagement he has had with the local supply chain, as well as any discussions regarding the new munitions and energetics factory in Milford Haven?
Luke Pollard
Since I met my hon. Friend, we have been discussing how we can not only roll out faster the new munitions factories that the Government have committed to deliver but support growth in skills, and our £182 million for skills in the defence industrial strategy includes skills funding for Wales. The defence growth deal provides the opportunity to uplift skills for defence right across Wales, and I am happy to continue our conversations on how that can benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents in Pembrokeshire.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
As the strategic defence review sets out, the High North is becoming more important to the UK and our NATO allies, as it becomes more accessible through climate change. We have Royal Navy deployments in the High North and Royal Marines undertaking cold weather training in Norway, as well as Ranger exercises in Sweden and Finland. We will continue to step up on Arctic security alongside our NATO and JEF allies.
Mr Carmichael
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your words about the late Lord Wallace of Tankerness? Jim Wallace was not just my predecessor in this House; he was a friend and, in fact, my London flatmate for many years. I am sure that his family and all those who mourn his passing, especially in the Northern Isles, will appreciate your acknowledgment of his contribution. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Through the years of the cold war, the RAF radar station at Saxa Vord in Unst was the frontline of our nation’s defences to the north. That was drawn down 20 years ago, and it is now home to the Shetland spaceport. We have seen the recent activities of the Russian tanker Yantar and the interception of the Bella 1. With space being identified as a priority in the strategic defence review, will the Government now reassess the significance of Shetland and its waters as we look to the developing situation in the far north?
John Healey
We deeply value the role that Shetland—and Scotland in general—plays to reinforce the security of the United Kingdom. That is demonstrated by the fact that there are 9,500 full-time troops in Scotland; the fact that there are around 3,000 civilian defence personnel based in Scotland; and the fact that, as a Government, in the last year we put over £2 billion into the Scottish economy to support defence and the role that Scotland plays in general. It is not only part of keeping this country safer but of defence driving economic growth throughout the UK.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Along with that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), my constituency has an obvious interest in the High North and the defence of the western approaches. I welcome the £40 million investment in anti-submarine sonobuoys and the Atlantic Bastion operation’s defence of our subsea cables, but can the Minister give us a similar assurance on the integrity of cables and communications between our islands across the Pentland Firth, the Minch, the Irish sea and even the Isle of Wight?
John Healey
My hon. Friend quite rightly points to a growing level of Russian activity in particular that monitors and potentially threatens our critical undersea infrastructure. He will see the way in which we have demonstrated that we see, understand and track those Russian threats. We are working, particularly together with JEF allies, to deal with those threats, and we will step that up further in the months ahead.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The US remains the UK’s principal defence and security partner, and our co-operation on defence, nuclear capability and intelligence remains as close and effective as any anywhere in the world, keeping Britain safe in an increasingly dangerous environment. As close friends, we are not afraid to have difficult conversations when we need to. Friends turn up for each other, as we did for the US in Afghanistan, and friends are also honest with each other, as the Prime Minister has set out.
Ayoub Khan
Will the Minister and the Secretary of State consider diverting defence spending away from programmes that do not truly protect the British people? Our nuclear deterrent now consumes nearly a third of the defence budget through Trident, a system that cannot be launched without US approval. In pursuing nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction, we have drained funding from conventional forces and neglected the diplomacy and development that actually prevents conflicts. Does the Minister believe that prioritising nuclear defence over reducing tensions, ending conflicts and promoting peace genuinely delivers security for our people, and if so, can he explain why?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; it comes from a point of view that is different from that of many people in this House and in the wider public. Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent; the only person who can authorise its firing is the Prime Minister. It is a part of our security apparatus, which keeps us safe every single day, and has done for decades. As a Government, we are continuing to invest in our nuclear deterrent, just as we are investing in jobs and skills right across the country that keep us safe every single day. Our relationship with the United States is a key part of that, but we will also continue to invest in our relationships with our other allies, especially around Europe.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
In Bury St Edmunds, we have many US servicemen from Lakenheath who are living off-base. They are a huge asset and greatly welcome. Does the Minister agree that the US remains our most essential ally, and will he join me in expressing gratitude for the service of those brave US servicemen and women, who are so important for our security?
Luke Pollard
There are thousands of US personnel stationed in Britain. Their presence here helps keep us safe, as well as protecting American interests. We will continue to work closely with our US allies—it is important to do so—and will continue to invest in deepening the security partnership with personnel based in the United Kingdom, to keep us safe in these more dangerous times.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The Government now admit that they cannot ratify the Chagos treaty without first amending the UK-US agreement on Diego Garcia. Currently, that binding agreement requires Chagos to remain under UK sovereignty until at least 2036. Can the Minister confirm that if the United States does not agree to amend that agreement, the UK would be in breach of international law? More importantly, does this not mean that the Chagos giveaway deal is now dead in the water?
Luke Pollard
I am sorry that the shadow Minister missed my concluding remarks at the end of the Opposition day debate on the subject last week. Not once did he say why his Government started that deal; nor did he give details of the preparatory work that his Government were supposed to do to answer his own question. This deal secures the future of that UK-US base. We will continue working closely with our American allies to progress the deal, and will continue those conversations, but I am afraid that all the shadow Minister is asking for is more uncertainty. We are securing the future of that base; he is just talking it down.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
We entered negotiations on SAFE participation in good faith; however, no agreement was possible that met our national interests. We will continue to explore co-operation with the EU and its member states that strengthens European security and underpins our NATO-first policy. We are pleased that the Government have been able to conclude new defence partnerships with our European partners, including France and Germany.
Max Wilkinson
Does this not go back to the key problem that faces us as a nation, which is the failed Brexit bestowed upon us by the previous Government and their friends in the Reform party? Ministers have my sympathy as they try to unpick this mess, but they are going too slowly. Brexit is clearly the biggest barrier to us participating in this scheme. Is it not now obvious that our best economic interests and our national security are best served by a more rapid reintegration with the European Union?
Luke Pollard
The biggest security threat facing the United Kingdom is Russia. We are responding to that by deepening our alliances right across the NATO alliance, especially with our European friends, and we will continue to do so. We were not able to conclude the SAFE negotiations in a manner consistent with the objectives we set when we started that work, but we will continue to work with our European friends, because they are also our NATO allies. Their security is our security, and we take that very seriously.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Building European strategic autonomy is vital to deterring Putin from making further attacks on us, but that is completely undermined by attacks on NATO—the bedrock of our security—by the Green party. Does my hon. Friend agree that when our alliances are undermined for superficial political gain, the Green party is, in essence, doing the work of Putin?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is right. In the space of one minute, the Green party leader veered from reforming NATO to pulling out of it altogether. The era of growing threat is far too serious for this kind of student-union, “make it up as you go along” politics. The only person cheering at the rank amateurism of the Green party leader is sat in the Kremlin. Labour is the party of NATO, and we will stand by our steadfast support for the alliances that keep us all safe every single day.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It was reported last night that the Prime Minister wants a closer defence partnership with Europe, and that last November’s talks on UK access to the EU’s €150 billion SAFE defence fund have collapsed. France reportedly drove the impasse by demanding an inflated price for UK entry, despite many EU partners wanting to open the fund up to UK participation. As the UK is Europe’s largest defence producer and a unique security partner, not just another third country, will the Secretary of State reopen negotiations? Will he urge the Prime Minister to raise this matter directly with President Macron—perhaps in their reported WhatsApp group—and publish the Government’s cost-benefit analysis for joining SAFE, including the entry price that they judge to be acceptable?
Luke Pollard
I, too, want a closer defence partnership with Europe. That is why we set that out in the Prime Minister’s announcement on the EU reset. We will continue working closely with not just the European Union, but European Union member states, the majority of which are NATO members. That will support their security. We are an important player on the international defence scene, and it is important that UK businesses are able to access markets, not just for the purposes of economic growth, but because that keeps European Union member states safe.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Veterans across this country are benefiting from record levels of investment. The new veterans strategy celebrates our remarkable veterans as a vital national asset; there is £50 million for Operation Valour, and £12 million for the reducing veteran homelessness programme, alongside Operations Courage, Restore, Fortitude, Ascend and Nova. We are committed to ensuring that our veterans can easily access the support that they deserve when and where they need it.
Catherine Fookes
Veterans in my constituency benefit from the stellar Monmouthshire veterans support hub in Abergavenny. Such organisations, and the volunteers who keep them running, are invaluable to our communities. We also have excellent branches of the Royal British Legion, and a veterans-informed GP service in Monmouth. As the Government’s Valour programme gets under way, will the Secretary of State accompany me when I next visit the Monmouthshire veterans hub, not only to sample its brilliant breakfast fry-up, but to see brilliant examples of what can be achieved by these support hubs?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is truly wonderful to hear about the great work being done in my hon. Friend’s constituency to support veterans. Far be it from me to get between the Secretary of State and a fry-up, but if I can, I may take his place on a visit.
John Whitby
What assessment has the Minister made of the adequacy of housing provision for military veterans, particularly those with service-related injuries or disabilities, in rural areas such as Derbyshire Dales, where there is severe pressure on our affordable and supported housing stock?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Those veterans who choose to resettle in rural areas may face additional challenges in accessing the services that they deserve. This Government are committed to reducing veterans’ homelessness, and I note the £12 million that we have spent to do so.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Whose job is it to protect and enhance the moral component of fighting power?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I wish the hon. and gallant Member a happy birthday.
Protecting the moral component of fighting power is a duty on those of us who have the huge privilege of serving as Ministers in this Government. I am sure that every officer will know that they have a role to play as well.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Veterans’ Commissioner for Wales has said that support for veterans to tackle
“substance abuse, mental health crisis and residential services do not exist within NHS Wales as they do in NHS England”.
What steps is the Minister taking to work with the commissioner and the Welsh Government to improve access to essential services? Will she encourage veterans to attend my event in Caernarfon on Sunday, which will bring together a host of key support organisations?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I echo what the right hon. Lady says in promoting her event; she is doing an excellent job. Of course, my commitment is to veterans across the entire nation. We must do what we can, where we can, to ensure that veterans, wherever they are, can access the support that they need. Some of the matters that the right hon. Lady referred to are devolved, but of course work I with all my counterparts across the devolved Administrations to deliver.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
We had hoped to see the Minister for the Armed Forces today, but we accept that he is on manoeuvres.
More seriously, we learned last week that the Prime Minister’s interest in British Army veterans once even stretched to working with disgraced lawyer Phil Shiner to help prosecute them. What is the Minister’s reply to the subsequent comment from General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, who said of those actions:
“If that’s the Prime Minister’s moral stance, then one has to ask questions about how compatible that is with his job of making decisions about putting soldiers in harm’s way in the national interest for the defence of the realm”?
What is the answer to the former Chief of the General Staff?
Louise Sandher-Jones
Apologies. The right hon. Member played a pivotal role in the previous Government’s disastrous record on looking after the armed forces, overseeing the horrendous decline in accommodation and real-terms cuts to military pay, and hollowing out and underfunding our armed forces, so I know he is not a details man. I gently remind him that the Prime Minister did not work with that individual or with any organisation, and his role was limited to working with the Law Society on points of law. The Prime Minister actually has a record of representing people who were wrongfully accused or killed on operations.
Mr Francois
Let us try this for detail. Why should any British soldier, past or present, or those who commanded them, owe loyalty to a Labour Government who contain an Attorney General who once willingly represented Gerry Adams, or to a Prime Minister who once wrote a legal treatise on how best to prosecute them under the European convention on human rights? Why, before he was elected to Parliament, did our Prime Minister agree to take formal legal instructions from Phil Shiner, a man hated throughout the British Army for his years of false claims against veterans, for which he was convicted as a fraudster and struck off? What kind of politicians support our soldiers by helping to sue them?
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is well known in the House that the Prime Minister was a human rights lawyer, so obviously he wrote in connection with that. What really stands as a testament to the Prime Minister’s support for veterans is the fact that this Government are delivering record spending for veterans and rolling out £50 million for valour hubs. I think that speaks for itself.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I have paused the declaration of IOC for Ajax until the investigations of safety incidents have concluded. Let me be clear: I want the Ministry of Defence and our forces to be bold, to innovate and to challenge, but they must never compromise on safety. We are preparing a recommendation on the next steps on Ajax, and I will keep the House informed, as I have since Exercise Titan Storm on 22 November last year.
Ben Obese-Jecty
The Minister knows that I have a keen interest in this topic. There were 33 injuries sustained during Exercise Titan Storm. General Dynamics achieved initial operating capability for Ajax on 23 July, and between then and Exercise Titan Storm on 22 November, there were three other exercises: Exercise Scorpion Cyclone, Exercise Cyclone Storm and Exercise Tradewind. I asked the Minister a written question last year about how many injuries were sustained, but I am yet to receive a response. How many noise and vibration injuries were sustained on those three exercises? Will he confirm whether there were any injuries prior to his signing off IOC on 5 November?
Luke Pollard
It is good to know that the hon. Gentleman, the Member of Parliament who tables the most parliamentary questions to the MOD, keeps track of all his questions. I am certain that I have replied to that one, but will check when I get back to the Department, and make sure that he has the reply. We are looking at all the incidents from Titan Storm, at previous suggestions of incidents, and at potential injuries. The injuries under the last Government were well documented, but we have instigated a number of investigations to get to the bottom of what happened, and why that information did not flow to Ministers ahead of the IOC declaration. I will continue to keep the House updated on progress.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Under the plans set out in the defence housing strategy, 90% of military homes will be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt. The strategy is backed by a record £9 billion investment over a decade. That work will be driven by the Defence Housing Service. We have already rapidly improved military homes by delivering our charter commitments, including transforming 1,000 of the very worst homes.
Mohammad Yasin
I welcome the new publicly owned Defence Housing Service, which is already improving conditions for service families by bringing 4,688 of the 5,088 military homes in the eastern region back into public ownership for upgrade and renewal. Does the Minister agree that we must continue investing in our armed forces—the backbone of our national security—and that after years of neglect under the last Government, Labour’s £9 billion military housing strategy is finally delivering the homes and support that our service families deserve?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend is right to point out that under the previous Government, forces families were severely let down on housing. Under the plans set out in the defence housing strategy, 90% of military homes will, as he rightly notes, be upgraded, renewed or rebuilt.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is massive improvement in forces housing, but there is a site at Ballykinler that has been lying vacant for, I understand, five years. It is heated, and it has new windows. There has been lots of work done. I have written to the MOD, asking whether it is possible for properties that are not being used to be used for another purpose. For instance, they could be used for youth camps, for youth groups or for social housing, because this site in Ballykinler is secure. The Minister may not be able to answer that question now, but I would very much appreciate an answer on that.
Louise Sandher-Jones
As the hon. Member will be aware, I cannot provide an update on that specific instance now, but I will get an answer for him. We are exploring how we can make best use of the existing estate.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The Government are already making the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war; we plan to hit 2.6% of GDP being spent on defence in April 2027, and 3% in the next Parliament.
David Chadwick
Britain faces a once-in-a-generation threat to our national security, as Putin’s war continues in Europe and uncertainty grows about the future reliability of the United States. Will the Secretary of State therefore take up the Liberal Democrats’ proposal that we issue time-limited defence bonds? That would allow the public to invest directly in modernising our armed forces, raise billions for new equipment, and ensure strong parliamentary oversight of how the money is spent.
John Healey
I note the arguments that the hon. Gentleman and his party are now making, but it was just in autumn 2024 that the Lib Dems were calling for this Government to set a pathway to 2.5%. We went further than that, with the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, three years before he was calling for it. We have a plan to hit 3% in the next Parliament.
Munira Wilson
I appreciate what the Defence Secretary has just said, but with President Trump attempting to tear apart the international alliances that have kept us safe for decades, and with Putin waging war in Ukraine for almost four years, the world is changing fast. We need to come together as patriots to decide how we can best invest in the defence of our country as quickly as possible. Can I press him again to convene cross-party talks on how we can reach 3% of GDP on defence quickly, and will he ensure that defence bonds are part of the solution?
John Healey
In the first instance, I would welcome support from the hon. Lady and her party for the fact that in this Parliament, we will invest £270 billion in defence to keep Britain safe and our alliances secure for generations to come. This is a Government who are delivering for defence, and delivering for Britain.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Veterans of Operation Banner, like all veterans, are benefiting from record levels of investment by this Government. The new veterans strategy celebrates our remarkable veterans with £50 million for Operation Valour and £12 million for the reducing veteran homelessness programme.
Joy Morrissey
Today was my brother’s birthday. He was a veteran who died at age 36, and he would be proud that today I am talking about the 250,000 veterans of Operation Banner. Those veterans put their lives at risk to fight to keep us safe and free and they deserve our support, so will the Minister explain why the Government no longer believe those veterans deserve to be protected from more years of lawfare?
Louise Sandher-Jones
I note the service of the hon. Lady’s brother. As she well knows, this Government are bringing in real protections for veterans, and if she wishes to support legislation that gives blanket immunity to terrorists, that is of course her prerogative.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
To deter and defeat aggression, this Government are investing in innovation in the latest capabilities for our forces. R&D is critical to maximising defence ability to be an engine for growth. It is this Government who have ensured that 10% of our equipment plan must be spent on novel technologies, and we have introduced a £400 million defence innovation fund.
Bobby Dean
The Minister will know that investment in defence R&D has tremendous impacts on the UK economy, not only through jobs and crowding in private investment, but through the spill-over effects of new technologies helping Britain to prosper. Is it therefore not clear that if the Government were to issue defence hypothecated bonds, that would make a brilliant return for the British taxpayer too?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that defence innovation has considerable positive spill-over effects for the wider economy. That is one of the reasons why this Government are investing in technologies that have dual use potential—not just to give our fighting forces the equipment they need but to provide benefits for the wider economy. He will have heard what the Secretary of State set out on defence spending, but I welcome his support for defence innovation and investment in R&D.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
For the past few months, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) and I have been campaigning for a new drone centre to be designated at the Dorset Innovation Park. The park already hosts a strong defence ecosystem for testing, developing and researching drone technology. Alongside this, the county has a well-established network of colleges and universities, in Bournemouth, Poole and Weymouth, offering the skills we need to make this a success. With all this in mind, will the Minister continue to work with me and all relevant stakeholders to establish a drone centre at the Dorset Innovation Park, which I know will help to strengthen national security and, of course, secure good jobs?
Luke Pollard
As a fellow west country MP, I recognise my hon. Friend’s ambition and determination to see more of those innovative technologies—autonomy, drones and other types of novel technologies—creating good jobs in his community. He has been speaking not only to me but to the Minister for the Armed Forces, who leads on drones, and I wish the businesses in his constituency and the wider region the very best as they innovate to provide our armed forces with the kit they need.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
This Government have stepped up our support for naval shipbuilding. We have secured the largest shipbuilding export in British history, with the Type 26 being sold to Norway; we have invested in strategically important infrastructure; and we are driving naval programmes in UK shipyards. The shipbuilding and maritime technology action plan will set out our future ambitions to support the naval and civilian shipbuilding and maritime technology sectors.
Mr Quigley
Wight Shipyard and Diverse Marine in my constituency do fantastic work and they thoroughly welcome the launch of the new dedicated unit to help ensure that small defence companies can access Ministry of Defence contracts. However, given the recent news that a £200 million contract has been awarded to the Dutch firm Damen, what assurances can the Minister offer to companies such as Wight Shipyard and Diverse Marine that they will have a fair and credible route into competing for these major programmes?
Luke Pollard
Serco has indeed awarded a contract to Damen as part of its provision of tugs for the UK military. We have set out clearly our intention that more of our rising defence Budget should be spent with British companies, supporting the construction of more naval assets in British shipyards. We will continue to do that, not just through supporting the Type 26s and Type 31s being built in Scottish shipyards but, as we move to a hybrid Navy, through more platforms being built in shipyards right across the United Kingdom.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
We could invest better in naval shipbuilding if the Government paid attention to a report published by the National Audit Office, which estimates that £1.5 billion a year of defence spending is lost to fraud and that the Ministry of Defence recovers only 48p in every £1 spent on counter-fraud work, less than other Departments. What will the Minister do to ensure that more of that funding can be recovered for our national defence?
Luke Pollard
Let us be absolutely clear: any money lost to fraud is money that people have taken away from our national security and our national defences, and that is unacceptable. The Department is looking at how we can continuously improve our anti-fraud measures, and we will continue to do so. As we roll out increased defence spending, it is even more important that we spend the money wisely.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent—only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of the UK’s nuclear weapons, even if they are deployed as part of a wider NATO response—and £15 billion is being invested in the sovereign warhead programme over the course of this Parliament.
Cameron Thomas
If the Government want to make inroads into the EU Security Action for Europe fund via Emmanuel Macron, they could do worse than recognise the foresight of Charles de Gaulle, whose suspicion of the United States has been fully vindicated by Washington’s national security strategy. The French nuclear deterrent is the only truly independent nuclear deterrent. What steps are the Government taking to minimise the UK’s reliance on the US for nuclear deterrent servicing?
Luke Pollard
Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent. It supports thousands of jobs up and down the country. We will continue to invest in the skills and technologies required to keep our continuous nuclear deterrent at sea. We will continue to invest in that sovereign capability, but we will also continue to participate across defence programmes with our partners, both in the United States and in Europe.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
Armed forces families play a vital part in supporting members of our armed forces and helping them to perform their role of defending our national security. Our ambition is for our Valour hubs to support not only veterans but members of our wider armed forces communities, including families.
Sarah Smith
Another important factor in support for our brave troops is the provision of military clothing. The previous Conservative Government tied us into a contract whereby about 90% of Army clothing is secured through overseas suppliers, and a significant amount is secured from China. In my constituency of Hyndburn, the home of textiles, many businesses are eager to meet the needs of our British troops. Will the Minister review this and look into whether British companies can meet those British needs?
Mr Speaker
Order. Can the Minister weave in the subject of the main question, which is about families rather than the supply of garments? Good luck.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I know that armed forces families will be very concerned about the kits that their loved ones are wearing. I hope that the majority of our clothing is sourced from British companies, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry will be happy to speak to my hon. Friend about the issue in more depth.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It is over a year since I raised the subject of the 5,700 women who were wrongly and unfairly dismissed from the armed forces for falling pregnant while in service. Will the Minister please update me on what she has done in that time to ensure that they get their caps and berets back? They absolutely deserve that, because we should be supporting those in the armed forces who want to have families.
Louise Sandher-Jones
The hon. Lady is right to raise that important point. I have received updates from officials, and I will push for a further timeline on which to update her.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
This month marks four years since Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the Ukrainian people continue to fight with huge defiance and courage, recently retaking parts of the city of Kupiansk, striking military targets deep in Russia, and reporting a Russian casualty rate of 25 to 1 in some parts of the frontline. Putin is increasingly under pressure. He has thrown 17,000 North Korean troops into the fight, and has recruited thousands more from Africa and other nations. Four years on, the Ukrainian courage will be matched by our UK determination. Next week I will travel to NATO and will co-chair the 33rd meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group, where 50 nations will step up the provision of military aid and support to keep the Ukrainians in the fight.
Rebecca Smith
Ministers stress how keen they are to remove obstacles hampering defence innovation, and nowhere is that more important than in my South West Devon constituency, which is home to the majority of Plymouth’s national centre for marine autonomy. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency has spent the past 12 months or more looking into how to remove licensing obstacles for autonomous vessels such as underwater drones. Given that Plymouth’s marine autonomy sector is set to receive a share of the £250 million defence growth deal, will the Secretary of State commit to putting further pressure on the Government Legal Service—or whoever else it will take—to get the legislation in place to update the MCA’s workboat code 3 as a matter of urgency?
John Healey
The hon. Lady makes an important point. The doubling in this Parliament of our investment into autonomy will be directed in significant part towards marine technology. Her part of the world—the south-west—plays a leading role in that. She urges action across Government, so I hope she will see that the shipbuilding and marine autonomy plan that we will publish shortly will show exactly what we are doing on a number of fronts.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I know that more than 14,000 private organisations have signed the armed forces covenant, and one of its core principles is that service personnel should face no disadvantage compared with other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. I am glad that some insurance companies have taken steps to address this issue, and I urge all businesses to ensure that their policies fully support the armed forces community and reflect their commitment to the covenant.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Last August, the Deputy Prime Minister of Mauritius said that when his Government take sovereignty over the Chagos islands, nuclear weapons could no longer be stored there. In last week’s Chagos debate, in answer to our repeated questioning as to whether that was true, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry replied three times by reading annexe 1 of the treaty, whereby it grants
“unrestricted ability to…control the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”.
Does the use of the word “weapons” in that sentence of the treaty definitely include nuclear weapons?
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
I have read it to the hon. Gentleman three times. Do I have to read it to him a fourth time for him to start understanding this? No wonder the Conservatives do not want to admit that they started the negotiations over Diego Garcia. They do not want anyone knowing that because they are clearly not prepared for it, unlike this Government, who are securing that base.
James Cartlidge
It is interesting that the Secretary of State passed responsibility for answering the question to the DRI Minister next to him, but the Minister did not answer the question. This is of profound national importance because, for us and the United States, these are our most important and sensitive capabilities. When the Minister answered three times last week, he read that sentence about controlling
“the storage of all goods, including but not limited to fuels, weapons and other hazardous materials”.
The word “nuclear” is not there. Does that sentence cover nuclear weapons—yes or no?
Luke Pollard
I am not going to read it to him a fifth time—my God! The hon. Member is not being serious. He also knows, as a former Defence Minister, that we do not comment on the storage of nuclear weapons, but I am happy to read it to him again any time he wants, so that he can note the word “weapons” in there.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. We are now on topical questions. It is very important that we get orders for Lancashire—I am fully behind her on that—but do it quickly. Go on, Minister.
John Healey
Mr Speaker, you above all people will recognise the importance of the contract we let to Leonardo 10 days ago, worth £450 million, to upgrade British Typhoon radars. As my hon. Friend will understand, those radars will be a big part of how we sell Typhoons, which will be made and assembled in Lancashire, to other nations such as Turkey.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Luke Pollard
As the Secretary of State set out earlier, we are working flat out to deliver the defence investment plan. We are continuing to speak to our colleagues in Leonardo, not just about NMH but about how we are investing in Leonardo’s services nationwide.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Many injured service personnel face prolonged recovery journeys, and access to specialist rehabilitation is crucial. How is the Department expanding the role of allied health professionals in the Defence Medical Services to strengthen rehabilitation and provide joined-up care from injury to recovery?
Louise Sandher-Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. All armed forces personnel are supported by dedicated and comprehensive rehabilitation services. Allied health professionals play a crucial role in supporting the treatment and rehabilitation of armed forces personnel in the UK and on operations.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
John Healey
I take that as an early indication that the hon. Lady might want to serve on the Bill Committee, in which case we welcome her stepping forward. I think she will recognise that the legislative framework, which allows us to take action to bring down malign and menacing drones over UK defence sites and defence bases, is long overdue. I look forward to her support in introducing that.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The ongoing threat to our nation’s security from grey zone activity illustrates the importance of international associations and alliances, such as NATO. Does the Minister share my concern at what the leader of the Green party said yesterday? In the same sentence, he said that he would both leave and reform NATO. Does that not show how unserious he is?
Luke Pollard
We live in incredibly uncertain and difficult times, so the clarity and strength of our commitment to NATO matters. Labour is the party of NATO; we helped found it. We will continue to support it and to support NATO allies, because the strength of NATO is the UK’s strength as well. We are going to continue to have a NATO-first approach.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, for the first time, we have in place a security and defence partnership agreement with the European Union. That is part of our stepping up our willingness to work with the European Union. He knows that the SAFE negotiations did not come to a successful conclusion. That was quite simply because it was not in the interests of the British taxpayer and the British defence industry. We will do a great deal more to support the wider security of the European Union and European nations through NATO.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Intensifying security competition in the Arctic necessitates enhanced co-operation with our regional allies. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to invite Canada to join the Joint Expeditionary Force?
John Healey
The 10 JEF nations, led by the UK—JEF was established by the previous Government—have stepped up their leadership, with support from Members on both sides of the House. JEF is an important part of NATO and allows us to act ahead of unanimity in NATO. From critical infrastructure to exercising in the High North, JEF has led the way and will continue to do so.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Louise Sandher-Jones
Just last week, we launched the single living accommodation review, which is designed to get at exactly these issues to ensure that our serving personnel have the accommodation they deserve.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Following President Trump’s insulting remarks about our hard-working British personnel, a constituent of mine contacted me saying he was very happy to hear the Prime Minister condemn those remarks. His eldest son has retired from the Army following injuries and his youngest son is a medic in the Army. My constituent is here in the Public Gallery today. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to our hard-working servicemen and women and to all our veterans, and recommit this Government to supporting and protecting our hard-working servicemen?
John Healey
I can, indeed; I welcome my hon. Friend’s constituent in the Gallery today. This Government are on the side of those who serve and on the side of those families who support those who serve.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for her interest. It is precisely for those reasons that we established the Armed Forces Commissioner, an independent champion for our armed forces and their families. That legislation has now become law, and the recruitment process will conclude shortly.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Our servicewomen are currently not as well protected by in-service body armour, which is designed around male body types, providing inadequate ballistic protection. With testing of female body armour now under way, will the Minister commend the work of NP Aerospace in improving women’s safety, and commit the MOD to continuing to cultivate vital UK sovereign capabilities such as this?
Luke Pollard
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been leading the charge for female body armour. NP Aerospace is doing a superb job on this, and I know she will be bringing female body armour to Parliament so we can all see that this can be delivered. We have a strong commitment to investigate—and to support our female serving personnel through—better body armour, and I look forward to working with her to deliver that.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Luke Pollard
The defence readiness Bill was set out in the strategic defence review. We are looking across Government at how we can bolster readiness measures—not just legislative ones, but policy changes, removing stupid rules and spending more. We are looking to implement the defence readiness Bill later in this Parliament. The Armed Forces Bill is now before the House, and that is our immediate focus.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
Taskforce Kindred has been a fantastic success of this Government. Can the Secretary of State outline if there are plans to extend the programme and how defence SMEs can get on board with it?
John Healey
I can, indeed. Taskforce Kindred has been at the heart of the UK’s rapid response and our reliability as Ukraine’s closest ally since Putin first invaded Ukraine nearly four years back. It will continue to play a central role in the future, and it has lessons for the procurement and provision of our own kit and systems for our forces.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman will know that we inherited a base closure programme from the Conservative Government, with announcements of closures right across the country. We are looking carefully at the bases we have, at how we can use them for military needs, and, where we can dispose of them, at how we can ensure that we build houses for our armed forces and veterans on that land.
Mr Francois
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fear that the Veterans Minister, who is still here, may have inadvertently misled the House earlier. According to House of Lords legal records, from 29 to 31 October 2007 in the al-Jedda case against British soldiers held before the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the applicants were represented by several QCs, including the now Prime Minister, who were instructed—it is in the records—by Public Interest Lawyers, Phil Shiner’s law firm. Would the Minister or the Prime Minister care to correct the record?
John Healey
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will set the record straight, including the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks before the House this afternoon —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We have had enough of trying to continue this debate—it now ends.
China and Japan
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
With permission, I will update the House on my visit last week to China and Japan, where we delivered for the British people.
With events overseas directly impacting on our security and the cost of living, I made it a founding principle of this Government that, after years of isolationism, Britain would face outwards once again. This was an 18-month strategy to rebuild our standing and we have delivered: strengthening our US relationship with our world-first trade deal; resetting our relationship with the EU; striking a groundbreaking free trade agreement with India; and now, thawing our ties with China to put this relationship on a more stable footing for the long term.
China is the second biggest economy in the world. Including Hong Kong, it is our third biggest trading partner, supporting 370,000 British jobs. It is also an undeniable presence in global affairs. It would be impossible to safeguard our national interests without engaging with this geopolitical reality. Yet we inherited a policy from the previous Government not of engagement with China, but of hiding away and sticking their heads in the sand. While our allies developed a more sophisticated approach, they let the UK fall behind. We became an outlier. Of my three predecessors, none held a single meeting with President Xi. For eight years, no British Prime Minister visited China—eight years of missed opportunities. Meanwhile over that period, President Macron visited China three times, German leaders four times, the Canadian Prime Minister was there a few weeks ago, and Chancellor Merz and President Trump are both due to visit shortly.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
They went on their feet, not on their knees. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker
Thank you. Can we calm it down? I am sure you will want to catch my eye and I would like to hear what you have to say, so let us not ruin the opportunity.
The Prime Minister
In this context, refusing to engage would be a dereliction of duty, leaving British interests on the sidelines. Incredibly, some in this House still advocate that approach. But leaders do not hide. Instead, we engage and we do so on our own terms, because, like our allies, we understand that engagement makes us stronger.
Protecting our national security is non-negotiable. We are clear-eyed about the threats coming from China in that regard, and we will never waver in our efforts to keep the British people safe. That is why we have given our security services the updated powers and tools they need to tackle foreign espionage activity wherever they find it, and to tackle malicious cyber-activity as well. The fact is that we can do two things at once: we can protect ourselves, while also finding ways to co-operate. It was in that spirit that we made this visit.
I had extensive discussions, over many hours, with President Xi, Premier Li and other senior leaders. The discussions were positive and constructive. We covered the full range of issues, from strategic stability to trade and investment, opening a direct channel of communication to deliver in the national interest, enabling us to raise frank concerns about activities that impact our national security at the most senior levels of the Chinese system. We agreed to intensify dialogue on cyber issues and agreed a new partnership on climate and nature, providing much-needed global leadership on this vital issue.
I raised a number of areas of difference that matter deeply to this country. I raised the case of Jimmy Lai and called for his release, making clear the strength of feeling in this House. Those discussions will continue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in touch with Mr Lai’s family to provide further briefing.
I raised our human rights concerns in Xinjiang and Tibet. We discussed Taiwan, wider regional stability, Iran and the middle east. I called on China to end economic support for Russia’s war effort, including the companies providing dual-use technologies, and urged it to use its influence on Putin to push for the much-needed ceasefire in Ukraine.
I also raised the fact that Members of this House have been sanctioned by the Chinese authorities. In response, the Chinese have now made it clear that all such restrictions on parliamentarians no longer apply. I want to be clear: this was not the result of a trade. Yes, Members will want to see more—I understand that—but that is precisely the point: ignoring China for eight years achieved nothing. This step is an early indication, not the sum total, of the kind of progress that this sort of engagement can achieve through leader-to-leader discussion of sensitive issues, in standing up for British interests.
My visit was also about creating new opportunities for British businesses to deliver jobs and growth for the British people. We took with us a brilliant delegation of nearly 60 businesses and cultural powerhouses—the very best of British—as an embodiment of what this country has to offer. If anyone is in doubt as to why this matters, I urge them to spend a few minutes with any one of those businesses; they will describe the incredible potential there and the importance of getting out there and accessing the market.
We made significant progress, paving the way to open the Chinese market for British exports, including in our world-leading services sector. We secured 30-day visa-free travel for all Brits, including business travellers. We secured China’s agreement to halve whisky tariffs from 10% to 5%, which is worth £250 million to the UK over the next five years—a significant win for our iconic whisky industry, particularly in Scotland. That lower tariff comes into force today. In total, we secured £2.3 billion in market access wins, including for financial services, £2.2 billion in export deals for British companies and hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of new investments.
In addition, we agreed to work together in some key areas of law enforcement. Last year, around 60% of all small boat engines used by smuggling gangs came from China, so we struck a border security pact to enable joint law enforcement action to disrupt that supply at source. We also agreed to scale up removals of those with no right to be in the UK and to work together to crack down on the supply of synthetic opioids.
We will continue to develop our work across all these areas, because this is the start of the process, not the end of it. My visit was not just about coming back with these agreements, but about the wider question of setting this relationship on a better path—one that allows us to deal with issues and seize opportunities in a way that the previous Government failed to do.
Finally, I will say a word about my meetings in Tokyo. Japan remains one of our closest allies; together, we are the leading economies in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, and we are partners in the G7, the G20 and the coalition of the willing. Japan is the UK’s largest inward investor outside the United States and Europe.
I had an extremely productive meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan, where we set out our shared priorities to build an even deeper partnership in the years to come. Those include working together for peace and security, supporting Ukraine as we work for a just and lasting peace, and deepening our co-operation in cutting-edge defence production, including through the global combat air programme. We discussed how we can boost growth and economic resilience by developing our co-operation: first, in tech and innovation, where we are both leaders; secondly, in energy, where Japan is a major investor in the UK; and, thirdly, in trade, where we are working together to maintain the openness and stability that our businesses depend on. That includes expanding the CPTPP and deepening its co-operation with the EU. We will take all of that forward when I welcome the Prime Minister to Chequers later this year.
This is Britain back at the top table at last. We are facing outward, replacing incoherence and isolationism with pragmatic engagement, and naive posturing with the national interest. In dangerous times, we are using our full strength and reach on the world stage to deliver growth and security for the British people. 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, but it is utterly reprehensible that he began it by accusing the previous Government of isolationism—the same Conservative Government who—[Interruption.] The Business and Trade Secretary is laughing, but let me tell him this. That same Conservative Government led the world in our response to the invasion of Ukraine and signed the vital strategic alliance of AUKUS—[Interruption.] The Business Secretary asks how many free trade agreements we did. We signed Britain’s biggest post-Brexit trade deal—the CPTPP—bringing us closer to the 11 Indo-Pacific nations, including Japan. I know about that deal because I signed it myself.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s efforts to collaborate more with our long-standing ally Japan, but let me turn to China. Of course Britain should engage with China. Even though the Chancellor was not allowed to go, even though it is an authoritarian state that seeks to undermine our interest, even though it spies on us—sometimes within the walls of this building—and even though it funds regimes around the world that are hostile to our country, China is a fact of life, a global power and an economic reality. Let me be clear: it is not the Prime Minister engaging with China that we take issue with. What we are criticising is his supine and short-termist approach.
I am sure that the Prime Minister means well, but his negotiating tactic has always been to give everything away in the hope that people will be nice to him in return. Before the Prime Minister had even got on the plane, he had already shown that he would do anything to demonstrate his good relationship with China. China, however, uses every interaction to improve its own position. The Prime Minister looked like he enjoyed his trip—in fact, it looked like a dream come true for a man who was virtually a communist most of his life.
Apart from the Labubu doll in his suitcase—which I hope he has checked for bugs—the Prime Minister has come back with next to nothing. We all want cheaper tariffs for Scotch whisky, but if the Prime Minister had bothered to speak to the whisky industry, as I did two weeks ago, he would know that what it really needs is cheaper energy and lower taxes. The Prime Minister also got us visa-free travel, but China already offers that to other countries. It is not big enough for a prime ministerial visit.
The worst thing was the Prime Minister claiming a glorious triumph with the lifting of sanctions on four Conservative MPs, as if he had done us a favour. Let me tell him this: those MPs were sanctioned because they stood up to China. They stood up against human rights abuses, and they stood up against a country that is spying on our MPs in a way that the Prime Minister would not dare to do. Those Members do not want to go to China. The Chinese know that. They know that they are giving him something that costs absolutely nothing. Why can the British Prime Minister not see that?
I say to you, Mr Speaker, and to the whole House that, like with the Chagos islands, the Prime Minister has been played. China is about to build an enormous spy hub in the centre of London—a ransom he had to pay before he could even get on the plane. I would never allow Britain to be held over a barrel like that. Yet again, the Prime Minister has negotiated our country into a weaker position in the world. His entire economic policy is to tax businesses more, regulate them harder and make energy so expensive that we deindustrialise, and then we can import Chinese wind turbines, solar panels and batteries for electric vehicles—all manufactured in a country that builds a coal-fired power station every other week. Did he speak to the Chinese about that?
What did the Prime Minister’s trip achieve for Jimmy Lai? Nothing. Did China promise to stop fuelling Putin’s war machine in Ukraine? It does not sound like it. What did this trip achieve for the Uyghurs who are being enslaved? Absolutely nothing. Has China agreed to stop its relentless cyber-attacks? We all know the answer to that. The reality is that China showed its strength, and Britain was pushed around, literally. It is no wonder that President Xi praised the Labour party; the Conservatives stood up for Britain—we do not get pushed around.
Britain is a great trading nation. Of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Kyle, you said to me when you were going to China how well you would behave and how you owe me a big thank you. You are not showing it today!
Mrs Badenoch
Mr Speaker, I am not worried about the Business Secretary; the entire business community thinks he is a joke and does not know what he is talking about.
As I was saying, of course we should engage with other countries, even hostile ones, but we need to do so with our eyes open and from a position of strength. That requires a Prime Minister and a Government who put our national interest first.
The Prime Minister
Let me see if I understand the right hon. Lady’s position. This is the Leader of the Opposition who said we should empty-chair the most important NATO summit for years, who would not turn up to the G7 and who would rip up our valuable trade deals with the US, India and the EU. This is the Leader of the Opposition who characterised Greenland as a “second-order issue”, and then undermined the Government’s position on sovereignty. When it comes to China, her policy is to stick her head in the sand, unable to influence anything. In a volatile world, that is not policy; that is an abdication of responsibility—no wonder members on her Front Bench are leaving in droves.
The Leader of the Opposition talks of the embassy. China has had an embassy in the UK since 1877. It is currently spread across seven sites. She is so busy trying to hold her party together that she has clearly not read the letter from the security and intelligence services. She claims great interest in the China embassy. She was offered an invite for a Privy Council briefing on the issue. What did she do? She chose not to attend. That is a dereliction of duty. Even worse, she sent in her place the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—that is a double dereliction of duty. Instead of taking up a Privy Council briefing, she took up a megaphone on the streets outside the embassy. I changed my party from a party of protest to a party of power. She is rapidly going in the opposite direction. Her reply this afternoon seems to be that we should engage with China, but not engage with China, and that, instead of leader-to-leader discussions where we raise all the opportunities and the difficult issues, each and every one of them, she would get a bag of sand and put her head in it and influence absolutely nothing. The Conservatives are so unserious about world affairs.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I am pleased to see that his trip went so well. This morning, I was in touch with the Scotch Whisky Association, which wants me to convey its congratulations to the Prime Minister on securing reduced tariffs on exports to China. There is, of course, more work needed, however—a Prime Minister’s job is never done. The biggest overseas market for whisky is, of course, the US, where the tariff is still too high. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this will not be the end of his support for the Scotch whisky industry and that he will continue to be an advocate for it?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can confirm that we are continuing to work with the US. Of course, the India deal we secured will also have an impact on whisky tariffs.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I start by paying tribute to my friend Jim Wallace, one of the great Scottish Liberals. I offer our thoughts and prayers to his family and many friends. Jim devoted his life to public service, his Christian faith and the cause of liberalism. But his judgment was not always impeccable, for it was Jim who gave me my first job in politics. We will miss him.
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of the statement. I listened to the Conservative leader, whose position now seems to be to oppose trade with the world’s biggest economies—so much for global Britain. With President Trump threatening tariffs again, just because of the Prime Minister’s trip, and with Vladimir Putin still murdering civilians in Ukraine, now more than ever the United Kingdom must forge much closer alliances with nations that share our values, our belief in free trade and our commitment to mutual defence. China shares none of those.
The Prime Minister’s main focus should be on the closest possible ties with our European neighbours, our Commonwealth allies and our friends such as Japan and Korea. Once again, he has made the wrong choice. However, unlike the Conservative party, we think he was right to go and engage. But just like with President Trump, he approached President Xi from a position of weakness instead of a position of strength, promising him a super-embassy here in London in return for relatively meagre offers from China.
The Prime Minister rightly raised the case of Jimmy Lai, whose children fear for his health after five years held in captivity, so will he tell us what Xi said to give him confidence that Mr Lai is now more likely to be released? Did he also challenge Xi on the bounties on the heads of innocent Hongkongers here in the United Kingdom, or the revelation that China hacked the phones of No. 10 officials for years? In other words, did he stand up for Britain this time?
Yet again, the Prime Minister had to spend time on a foreign trip responding to revelations about the vile paedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s relationship with Lord Mandelson. The Prime Minister has rightly said that Mandelson should resign from the other place, but since he has not, will he back a simple piece of legislation to strip him of his peerage? Surely this House could pass it tomorrow.
The Prime Minister
I start by offering my deep condolences on behalf of the Government in relation to Lord Wallace. He was a kind and decent man, and I know he will be sorely missed on the Liberal Democrat Benches. May he rest in peace.
Of course we need to build stronger alliances with our key partners, and that is what we have been doing, particularly with the EU. But the right hon. Gentleman is wrong: it is not a choice between doing that and engaging with China. One can do both, and that is what we are doing. Where there are opportunities, and where there are sensitive and really important disagreements, I think it is more important to have a meeting to discuss them.
The House is violently agreeing that there are issues that need to be discussed. The difference between us is that we think that having a leader-to-leader meeting to discuss those big issues is better than sticking our head in the sand, if we really want to influence them. So we can do both.
Yes, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai, and we have now spoken to his family about that discussion. Yes, I raised the case of Hong Kong. I raised a number of human rights issues, as I listed. The point is that, by being in the room and having the debate one to one, at leader-to-leader level, it was possible to raise those issues. There is frankly no point standing in this House shouting and screaming about issues if you are not prepared to get in the room to discuss them. It gets you absolutely nowhere.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I want to welcome the Prime Minister’s serious engagement with serious power: it is essential to safeguarding our national interest. The complexities of China require from Britain a whole-of-society approach, which is completely impossible until the Government publish a clear China strategy to explain what is off limits and how we are going to rebalance competition with Chinese industry that is six times over-subsidised compared with our firms. Last week in Europe, I heard very clearly from our partners that they are worried that the lackadaisical approach to policing Chinese competition risks deeper integration with Europe. The EU has 143 trade measures in place against China; we have none. So will the Prime Minister now follow up his meetings last week and publish a strategy, co-ordinated with our allies, so we can take out the guesswork and put in place the guardrails for this important relationship?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the general approach was set out in the Lady Mayor’s banquet speech I gave just before Christmas. My right hon. Friend made a really important point about Europe. As I mentioned, President Macron went to China just a few weeks ago and Chancellor Merz is due to go very shortly, and my right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that the three of us, as the E3, discussed in advance the approach we would take and agreed to discuss during our visits and afterwards the outcomes and how we go forward as a group of European nations.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
What absolutely unites everybody in this place is absolute outrage at the treatment of Jimmy Lai, a British citizen whose only crime is to campaign for democracy and to ask the Chinese to obey the spirit and letter of the solemn agreement that we made with them before the 1997 takeover. The Prime Minister said at the weekend that he had raised the case of Jimmy Lai “respectfully” with the latest Chinese emperor —“respectfully”? Does the Prime Minister not realise that the Chinese only accept strength—that everything is a deal—so why did he not say to them, “There will be no Chinese embassy until you stop spying on us in this House, you give an absolute assurance to us on Diego Garcia, and, above all, you free Jimmy Lai now”?
The Prime Minister
I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms with the President, as in fact I did, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, at the G20 when I met the President for the first time, and we have updated the family in relation to the progress we have made. But the position of the Conservative party seems to be that we should raise the case of Jimmy Lai by not going to China and raising the case of Jimmy Lai.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We must engage pragmatically with our allies and with others around the world when it serves the national interest. That is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s engagement with our close ally, Japan, as well as with our major trading partner, China. I also welcome his commitment to the global combat air programme, which, as the Defence Committee illustrated, is of vital strategic importance as we develop the next generation of fighter jets. But our Japanese and Italian friends are understandably nervous, because we have as yet not put pen to paper on the full contract for Tempest, as was planned last year. Can the Prime Minister clarify when that fully formalised contract on GCAP will be penned, and can he also confirm that the timeline and programme will slide sideways?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important programme. He will be pleased to know I did discuss it with the Prime Minister in Japan, and we will be publishing our defence investment plan shortly.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you have been stalwart in standing with those of us who were sanctioned by the People’s Republic of China all those years ago, and you have been very clear that we stand as one in this House. Do you not find it as surprising as I do that the Prime Minister has come back with a deal that lifts the sanctions on those six of us who are still in this House, but not the one who is not, nor the lawyers, advisers and academics who support the work of this House? Is this not a direct affront to the democracy of this place, and an attempt to divide and conquer that we have seen China play against the European Parliament and that, sadly, has tricked our Government too?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this point—I know how much it matters personally to him and to the others that he referenced. I raised this point directly, and the response was that restrictions do not apply to parliamentarians. I accept the challenge and the point that we need to go further, but that does not mean that what we have achieved should be put to one side. I accept that we must go further, and I will work with colleagues across the House to do so. In order to go further, we have to engage, and we have to engage at the leader level.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Can I thank the Prime Minister on his grown-up approach to the UK’s engagement with China? Can I also congratulate him on the agreement for a crackdown on manufacturers of small boat engines and parts, which directly impacts my constituency? Given that the Conservative party would not have even gone to China, does the Prime Minister agree that the choice is between a Labour Government doing the hard yards to shut down the smuggler supply chains, and a Tory party that prefers posturing and permanent failure in the channel?
The Prime Minister
Sixty per cent of motors used to cross the channel are coming from China, so of course it is right to engage appropriately in China on this issue, and to get this agreement on information sharing and working to ensure that those engines cannot make their way from China to the north coast of France.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I will have another try at the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) in his original statement. Can the Prime Minister tell us what President Xi said about the case of Jimmy Lai, and what gave him confidence that we might see movement in the case soon? Can he also let us know what response he received on challenging the bounties put on the heads of dissidents here in the United Kingdom? Did he challenge the transnational repression that Hongkongers across the country fear? Is there any prospect of them being able to walk our streets without worrying about interference from the Chinese state?
The Prime Minister
As I have told the House, I raised the case of Jimmy Lai in terms. I will not go into the details of the discussions, save to say that we have subsequently spoken to Jimmy Lai’s family about that. In relation to the wider issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, including Hong Kong: yes, all those issues were raised.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I want to thank the Prime Minister for his incredible leadership on an international scale, which has a direct benefit to us domestically, not least through the disruption of the supply chain for small boat engines. I just wonder, because it is not a silver bullet to solve the challenge with immigration through illegal routes, whether the conversation came up about TikTok being used as a platform to share disinformation and misinformation to encourage people to make dangerous journeys.
The Prime Minister
We raised a number of issues in relation to smuggling. The focus was very much on the engines for small boats because of the fact that 60% of them are coming from China, and we need to stop that supply chain if we are going to deal with the crossings.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
In spite of the somewhat thin economic gruel with which the Prime Minister has returned, he was absolutely right to visit China. If I may return to the issue of human rights, particularly Jimmy Lai, did the Prime Minister say, as the whole House would have wished, that this British citizen—nearly 80 years old, held in solitary confinement and denied the chance to practice his religion—should surely receive clemency and be returned to the United Kingdom? Or did the Prime Minister merely deliver a written note?
The Prime Minister
No, I did not deliver a written note. I engaged seriously on the issue, as the right hon. Member would have expected me to, and I went into the details of the case that I was making in the way that he would have expected me to.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent, the journalist and democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai, was convicted under Hong Kong’s draconian national security law. I have listened carefully to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister has said, and we have heard that he raised the issue on his visit. Jimmy Lai is now desperately unwell—his health is failing. I have heard what the Prime Minister has to say, and I am grateful that the Foreign Secretary will be speaking to Jimmy’s family. Can the Prime Minister share with us his assessment of whether we will see Jimmy Lai free in 2026?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she does on behalf of her constituents. Yes, I raised this issue in detail and made it clear that we were calling for Jimmy Lai’s release, plus other details of his health and the situation he is being held in. I believe it is the right thing to engage at the highest level on issues of such concern and to have that conversation—I believe that is a far better strategy than putting your head in the sand, which is apparently the policy of the Conservative party.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, when the Prime Minister was in China and Japan, he gave comment that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor should testify before Congress in the United States. What the Prime Minister chose not to do was to offer an unreserved apology to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein for appointing his other friend, Peter Mandelson, as the ambassador to the United States of America. Now that he is back from China and Japan, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to do just that, and does he agree with me that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a police investigation for potential criminality while in public office?
The Prime Minister
Only the SNP could go about this in this way—instead of welcoming the halving of tariffs on Scottish whisky, the right hon. Gentleman raises things that have absolutely nothing to do with China or Japan. Only the SNP has no interest at all in delivering for Scotland.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister recall that during the time of Brexit negotiations, the Tories told us that we had more to gain outside of the EU than inside it and that, within days of Brexit, we would be signing trade deals with the US and China that would be bigger than the trade deals that existed with the EU? What we got was a botched Brexit that isolated us from our European neighbours, and now the Tories want to extend that isolation to a global scale. Does the Prime Minister agree that Britain would not be treated decently or with any confidence by our global neighbours and friends if we had adopted such an approach?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that period in our history, because of course, this was 2015 and 2016. The Conservative party had a manifesto in 2015 that dealt with the question of a referendum in relation to Brexit and also set out its position on China. I had a look at that very manifesto this morning; the Conservatives’ position was to
“strengthen our economic links with China”,
including seeking a free trade agreement. That used to be their position, then they veered to the other side of the road, and now they stick their head in the sand and pretend that they can influence events.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s position seems to be that if a bully is big enough, rich enough and powerful enough, the pragmatic thing to do is to pay into his protection racket. Can he at least show some sign of moral compass by accepting the fact that China is a repressive, brutal, communist, totalitarian state that dishonoured all the provisions of the Hong Kong agreement?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives’ position seems to be that if one has concerns in relation to China, the pragmatic thing to do is to buy a bag of sand and put your head in it. I do not think that is going to influence anything—nothing said here has any influence if you do not have a meeting.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on last week’s handsome wins, including on visas in China—I just wondered whether the same issue arose in Japan. I did a brilliant visit to the Japan London school in my seat the other day, but that school is finding the dogmatic visa changes made by the Conservative Government burdensome. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into that, and also praise the contribution of the Japanese in Acton, from sushi to bilingual education?
The Prime Minister
We had very productive meetings in Japan. Among the discussions was how we open up to more trade between our two economies.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Prime Minister has said that this visit to China was good for British jobs. Having wrongly granted consent to the Chinese super-embassy, can he confirm that it will be built with brilliant British steel from Lincolnshire, as opposed to Chinese steel?
The Prime Minister
It was this Government who took the action on Scunthorpe to ensure we had British Steel at Scunthorpe—it is one of the proudest things I have done.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which faces into the world as it is. Des Browne, Baron Browne of Ladyton, is retiring from the other place after decades of distinguished public service as the Labour MP for Kilmarnock and the Defence Secretary and in his work on the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons. China is a significant and growing nuclear power, with more than 600 warheads, and this week the US-Russia new START treaty comes to an end. Can the Prime Minister tell me if the UK is engaging with China at the highest levels to prevent the risk of nuclear weapons and combat nuclear proliferation?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the contribution that Lord Browne has made. I assure my hon. Friend that our discussions with China did include how we derisk the risk in relation to nuclear weapons.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
When John Major went to Beijing, he spoke clearly and said, “We will not forget Tiananmen Square.” In contrast, the Prime Minister refused to say Jimmy Lai’s name until he was wheels up. I have never said that we should not engage with Beijing; I have said that we should not give it a propaganda visit. It is extraordinary to abrogate the responsibility of the Chinese Communist party, whose actions we had to respond to, therefore pausing trade talks, as if it has done nothing wrong. Finally, the Prime Minister met with Cai Qi, the man responsible for running two spies who were undermining this Parliament, but he excluded that from his statement. Why doesn’t he tell us why he thought it was acceptable to meet this man and what he got out of it in the British interest?
The Prime Minister
This is so pathetic. At the highest level and one to one, I raised each of the issues of difference between our two countries—each and every one of them—in the way that the House would expect, and that is what the Opposition are criticising. They seem genuinely to believe that these issues can be progressed or influenced by doing nothing about them. You have to be in the room to have a discussion, and that is what we did.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
It is right that the Prime Minister goes to China if he is acting in the best interests of all those living here. Last year, the Joint Committee on Human Rights undertook an inquiry into transnational repression. In front of us, we had Chloe Cheung, a young Hongkonger from Leeds who had a $HK1 million bounty put on her head. She told us about how she had been intimidated and harassed. Did the Prime Minister speak up for all the Hongkongers in the UK who have had bounties on their heads and who have been intimidated and harassed? Will he ensure that people living in the United Kingdom are safe from the Chinese regime?
The Prime Minister
That is exactly why we raised the issues of human rights at numerous levels on the visit.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I noticed that the mention of Japan took the Prime Minister one minute—the last minute—of a 10-minute speech on China and Japan. Japan is not only the largest inward investor into the UK, apart from the EU and US, but a vital liberal democracy in the Indo-Pacific and a key security partner in maintaining regional stability in the face of growing Chinese assertiveness. Given the growing security risks and strategic instability across the region, can the Prime Minister assure the House that engagement with Beijing will not weaken the UK’s alignment with Japan, which is one of our most important democratic partners?
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
With respect to the statement following the Prime Minister’s visit to China and Japan, I thank him for being in the room and challenging China on its appalling human rights record and for fighting for British jobs. With respect to his visit to Japan, did the issue of Toyota come up? Toyota is a significant employer in Derbyshire and worth more than £5.5 billion to the local economy. Can we do more with Toyota, because it is really good for jobs here?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we did discuss the car manufacturing going on at the moment and the potential for further work in that regard, along with other issues of trade broadening between our two countries.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Prime Minister will be aware that some 80% of the sanctioned dual-use items that Russia needs for the drones and missiles it is firing at civilians and children on a daily basis come from China. He says that he raised that matter. Did he get any assurance that China will stop supplying Russia?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to this issue. That is precisely why I raised it again in terms. I will not go into the details of the discussion, but I did raise it, for the very reasons that he sets out. Across this House, we are committed to a just and lasting peace in Ukraine. This has been an issue of concern for a considerable period, which is why I raised it.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent engagement in Tokyo and the strengthening of our relations with Japan as a key economic and strategic partner. Will he explain how small and medium-sized enterprises in Portsmouth, particularly those in maritime and defence such as Griffon Marine, alongside the creative industries, will benefit from deeper UK-Japan co-operation? My 18-year-old son Archie Cole is a professional wrestler, currently competing on Tokyo TV in “Magic Monday”, so I know at first hand how international engagement can open doors for individuals and Portsmouth’s local businesses alike.
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend’s son on his achievements. On SMEs and businesses, yes, we discussed how we can enhance our engagement and enhance growth and jobs right across all our constituencies, including my hon. Friend’s.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister accept that in his rush to hoover up economic crumbs from President Xi because of his appalling handling of our economy, he is having to increase strategic dependence on Beijing? The public see the risks the Prime Minister is taking with UK security; does he?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives crashed the economy, so lectures from them on the economy are not welcome. As I said in my statement, national security is at the heart of our approach to China, as it is to every issue that we take up. It is quite possible to have a discussion about the opportunities available to our country while also safeguarding our national security. That is what we are doing in a grown-up, mature way.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the anti-dumping measures that we impose on Chinese goods coming into this country protect hundreds of jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, whether in the ceramic tableware manufacturing sector or in the retreading of tyres at the Michelin factory. Can the Prime Minister give a guarantee that as the economic work with China continues, those measures will not be junked? The anti-dumping measures are not abstract: they protect hundreds of jobs in the part of the country that most needs them.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue and I can give him that assurance. I know how much it matters, and that is the approach we have taken.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Over the past weeks, thousands of Chinese fishing boats have been trapped, creating a blockage up to 300 miles long in the east China sea off Japan. This is seen by many as a strategy for a future blockade. Given the huge reliance on that route for trade, such action would cause a global economic shock, threaten thousands of jobs in Scotland and dramatically increase the cost of living. What explanation did the Prime Minister’s Chinese counterpart give for this behaviour? What subsequent discussions did he have with the Japanese Prime Minister about maintaining maritime security in the region?
The Prime Minister
That issue was raised in both China and Japan, because it is obviously a cause of concern. Regional instability matters not just in the region but globally, so I discussed it in both China and Japan.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but will he tell the House what steps the Government are taking to protect parliamentarians and others in public life against foreign influence?
The Prime Minister
We have taken a number of measures, including the further powers and tools we have given to our security and intelligence services.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I echo the tributes to Jim Wallace. He was one of the most significant Scottish politicians of his generation and it was a privilege both to know him and to work with him.
We have established that the Prime Minister was in the room, but what difference will it make for people who were not in the room in Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
It will make a huge difference, which is why I discussed it with Volodymyr Zelensky before I went, in terms, and why I will discuss it with him again in the coming days, in terms.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership on his trip, including his words in Japan about the value of the global combat air programme, which is not only strategically important for global security and autonomy, but important for businesses that have grown out of my constituency, including BAE Systems and QinetiQ. Will the Prime Minister highlight the work he is doing to ensure that this critical endeavour makes progress?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because Japan is a key colleague and partner when it comes to defence and security, which is why, across a range of issues, we discussed what more we can do, including on GCAP.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
In an earlier answer, the Prime Minister mentioned Scunthorpe steelworks, where hundreds of my constituents are employed. We welcome the Government’s support to date. Was he able to discuss Jingye’s ownership with his Chinese opposite number, and can he give any positive assurances to my constituents about their long-term future?
The Prime Minister
May I give this assurance to the hon. Member’s constituents? We absolutely believe in the importance of steel being made in this country, and that is why we took the necessary measures, on a Saturday, as he knows, in relation to steel production in his constituency.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will know that many excellent west midlands businesses export to China, including great car makers such as Jaguar Land Rover, the Morgan Motor Company and Aston Martin. Collectively, those car exports are worth more than those from any other region in the UK, I would say. Can the Prime Minister outline how the results of his trip to China, including the agreement on 30-day visa-free travel, will benefit those businesses and drive jobs and exports in our region?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that JLR was there with us on the delegation in China, and it is acutely aware of the difference that better trade and economic measures with China will make to its business, and to jobs in his constituency.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee reported:
“The UK’s academic institutions provide a rich feeding ground for China to achieve both political influence and economic advantage”.
Was interference in UK universities raised with President Xi?
The Prime Minister
I raised a wide range of issues of concern to this House with President Xi, as the hon. Member would expect.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Growing our relationship with China could boost our motor manufacturing industry. The Prime Minister will know only too well that small businesses in this sector are the engine of economic growth in my constituency and right across the west midlands. Can he set out how his visit will help small businesses in North Warwickshire and Bedworth?
The Prime Minister
This issue is so important, in terms of the opportunities that we have. That is why we had representatives from motor manufacturing with us. They are only too well aware of the great benefits that taking full advantage of the opportunities will have for her constituents and others.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister’s friend, Baroness Helena Kennedy, a sanctioned person, clearly believes that the juice was not worth the squeeze or, indeed, the price of the plane tickets, because she has described the returns the Prime Minister has secured as “meagre”. She is right, is she not?
The Prime Minister
I have known Helena for many years. We shared a room when we worked together in chambers. We agree on many things, but not everything.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for what he said about calling on China to end support for Russia’s illegal war effort. We cannot ignore the threat to our shores from Russia, as we know very well in Wales. Nathan Gill, the former Reform UK leader in Wales, is serving 10 and a half years in prison for taking bribes from Russia. Will the Prime Minister join me in condemning that treacherous activity, and reassure me that he will continue to push China on that important point?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the shocking case of Nathan Gill. As my hon. Friend rightly says, Nathan Gill got 10 and a half years for taking bribes in relation to Russia. The leader of Reform is not even interested enough to start an investigation to see whether that is the extent—which it will not be—of Russian influence in his party.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I just want clarification on the Members of this House who were formally sanctioned. The Prime Minister said:
“President Xi said to me that means all parliamentarians are free to travel to China”.
Does that mean that they are no longer legally sanctioned, and did he get that in writing?
The Prime Minister
That is my understanding in relation to all parliamentarians. I accept that in relation to others, we need to see how much further we can go.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Does he agree that the security of this country is the Government’s first and foremost priority at all times?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. It is front and centre of everything we do, whenever we are acting on the world stage.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to follow up on the questions from the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker), on the global combat air programme. The funding for the next round of GCAP is going to run out in a matter of months. That will affect Edgewing and the British phase of the programme. It has been reported that contract for the next phase of GCAP has been delayed, due to the delay to the defence investment plan. Will the contract be signed before the defence investment plan is published?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member will be pleased to know that this was a matter of discussion in Japan, and the defence investment plan will be published very soon.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Mark Carney rightly challenged fellow middle powers to stop “living within a lie”, and to recognise the changes in the geopolitical landscape, because comfortable assumptions about the international order are no longer true, and the system that we once benefited from cannot become the source of our subordination. It was therefore important to hear the Prime Minister’s firm commitment to GCAP in Japan. Does he agree that investment in programmes such as GCAP is essential if we are to address this geopolitical challenge?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do, and my hon. Friend is right to emphasise the changes in the geopolitical landscape; we have approached our relationship to the US, Europe, India and China accordingly.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
In the Prime Minister’s discussions on what he somewhat mildly describes as “areas of difference”, did he raise the discovery of kill switches and hidden comms devices in Chinese-manufactured solar panels? If he did, can he assure us that, rather than politely asking for this practice to stop, he demanded that it stop?
The Prime Minister
We raised all the sensitive issues, and we did it in direct terms, and in the room. That, to my mind, is the right way to try to make progress on these very important issues.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It was a privilege to serve with Jim Wallace in Holyrood, and I associate myself with the tributes to him.
We have had trade deals with Europe, China and India worth hundreds of millions of pounds to Scottish businesses, and defence contracts that secure thousands of jobs. Can the Prime Minister tell us how he will build on this success for Scotland? Does he agree that it is about time the Scottish Government showed the same ambition for Scottish businesses?
The Prime Minister
It is astonishing that the Scottish National party is simply not interested in the progress that we have made on the India trade deal, which is hugely beneficial to Scottish businesses, or in the halving of tariffs that comes into effect today in relation to China. Businesses in Scotland know exactly what that means to them, which is why they are celebrating. SNP Members cannot bring themselves to even welcome it.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I certainly acknowledge the tariff easement for Scottish whisky, and for the apparently superior Bushmills whiskey from my constituency, but will the Prime Minister’s visit do anything to address the proliferation of heavily subsidised Chinese vehicles, which are flooding our nation, particularly in the bus sector? We have 500 subsidised Chinese vehicles on the streets of our capital city, courtesy of Transport for London, whereas in Scotland and in my constituency, we build the highest-quality buses. Will there be any action to support British buses as a result of what the Prime Minister is seeking to do?
The Prime Minister
I see that we have opened a whisky competition, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right: it is really important that we champion the building of buses and so much else in the United Kingdom. We have great examples of that, and we will always put the national interest first.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s report back from his visit to China and Japan. Previous Tory Governments refused to make such reports for many years. He says that the issues discussed included human rights, trade and security. I am particularly interested in what he had to say about the border security pact, because my constituents in Stevenage are very concerned about the small boats crisis. We already have international agreements with France and Germany, and this is a new one with China. How can I learn more about how this will work?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to put this as one package, because what we are doing on small boats with China is looking at the source of the engines; what we are doing with Germany involves the transport of those parts through Europe; and what we are doing in France is working with the French to tackle the crossings.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The whole House can see with its own eyes what is happening here. The Prime Minister, on paper, has the support of more than 400 MPs. If they want to show their support, they can fill every single seat on the Government Benches, as far as the double doors, but they are all drifting away as these exchanges proceed. Even at the start of his statement, the Prime Minister did not have the authority to command that they fill two or three Benches behind him. He is clearly on his way out. The problem is that in his desperation to shore up his position, he is trading away our national interests. Can he name a single tangible benefit that he has secured in respect of the rights of Hongkongers?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we raised the issues of Hongkongers. [Interruption.] We raised the issues. I find the Conservatives’ position astonishing. They say that they take these issues seriously. They say that these issues are “of great concern”. They stay here and raise these issues, notwithstanding the fact that no one else is listening, and then they say, “This is so important to me, but the one thing I do not want you to do is go to China and have a discussion about it at the highest level.” It is a pathetic, unserious approach to foreign policy.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister may have noticed that the Japanese ambassador to the United Kingdom, Hiroshi Suzuki, was in Manchester recently, trying Boddingtons bitter. The Prime Minister will be aware of the importance of brewing to my constituency, and perhaps, in celebration of these trade deals, he would like to encourage the ambassador to come and sample some of the best beer in the brewing capital of Burton-on-Trent.
The Prime Minister
Yes, I certainly encourage that, and I will take the first opportunity to do so.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I am glad that the Prime Minister enjoys a dram as much as I do. For the record, I did welcome the Indian trade deal very publicly, so he may wish to correct the record on that. However, I want to focus on an issue that is important to employment in my constituency: the Ardersier site, part of the Cromarty Green freeport, in which Mingyang has expressed a significant investment interest. I fully understand the national security concerns that need to be addressed, but a decision is long overdue. The issue has been with the Government for a long time, and there is investor jitteriness. The supply chain is vexed about this, and the issue is certainly not helping with the just transition. It is putting important job opportunities at risk. When will the decision be made either to let Mingyang get on with it or to move on to another opportunity?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue, which is of concern to his constituents across Scotland, and indeed the United Kingdom. No decision has yet been made, and I will update the House as soon as I can.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Last Thursday, I held a public meeting with the Hong Kong community in Bishop’s Stortford. We met to discuss the proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain, but there was real strength of feeling about the case of Jimmy Lai and democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, so I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister raise the issue. Will he take this opportunity, for the benefit of my constituents, to set out the details of those discussions again? Will he also assure my constituents of this country’s commitment to those from Hong Kong who have made their home here, and reassure them that this Government will listen carefully to their views in the Home Office’s consultation on earned settlement?
The Prime Minister
Let me give my hon. Friend that reassurance for those from Hong Kong, in his constituency and throughout the country, on the support that we will put in for them.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The SNP Scottish Government undertook a secretive trip to Beijing last year, and caught a case of renminbi fever while they were there. They are now blundering around on the world stage, desperate for Mingyang to put money into Ardersier. Notwithstanding the jobs issue, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take cognisance of national security issues? We do not want jobs at any cost, and we cannot allow wind farms to have Chinese kill switches fitted.
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say a moment ago, no decision has been made yet, but as I explained in my report back to the House, the overarching approach that we take to all matters involving China is that national security always comes first.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
On behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on Japan, may I say arigato gozaimasu to the Prime Minister for his visit? I hope that he had a sugoi time.
I think that all of us in the House are proud of the global combat air programme, which holds great opportunities not only for global, regional and UK security but for British jobs. The Prime Minister mentioned that Japan is already one of the main investors in the UK; does he share my hope that this programme, just like the Concorde programme with France all those years ago, will have knock-on benefits for British jobs and innovations in our economy?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and for his message over the weekend. Japan is a key NATO ally, is a member of the G7 and, of course, the coalition of the willing, and, as he rightly points out, has key investments in the United Kingdom. That is why we discussed all those matters, and the GCAP, when we were there.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Prime Minister mentioned his previous meeting with the Chinese President at the G20 in Brazil. One day later, 45 pro-democracy Hongkongers were sentenced. Uyghurs, Falun Gong, Tibetans, unregistered religious groups, human rights lawyers, pro-democracy campaigners, Hongkongers in this country and Jimmy Lai—what single, tangible difference has the Prime Minister made for their safety and security?
The Prime Minister
Of course there are concerns; they are aired in this House. The difference between our parties is that our position is that the mature and serious thing to do is to have leader-to-leader discussions about them, engaging with the issues. The Conservatives’ approach is to shout about the issues, get a bag of sand and put their head in it, and influence absolutely no one. It is so unserious. They will not be fit for government for many, many years to come.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister will know, many Japanese companies have their British home in my constituency of Bracknell, so I welcome his visit to Japan. Could he set out a little more about how we can further strengthen our relationship with our Japanese friends and allies, and what that will mean for my constituents?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to all those businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency, of which there are very many, as he rightly says. Enhancing our trade and economic ties with Japan is in the interests of both countries, and that is precisely what we are focused on.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Prime Minister has failed to stand up for Britain’s interests. From what we have seen, he could not even make it across Beijing’s red carpet without being guided along the way. What did the Prime Minister expect to receive in return for approving the Chinese super-embassy, and did the Chinese give it to him?
The Prime Minister
We have had a Chinese embassy in this country since 1877. It is currently over seven sites; it is now going to be on one. The security and intelligence services published a letter the day after the decision was made to say that it was better for security in this country, and I think that is the right approach.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for his continued international leadership. I know, however, that wherever he goes in the world, he is always thinking about Harlow, so what difference will a productive relationship with the second-largest economy and our third-biggest trading partner make to businesses in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a champion for Harlow, and it has been so good to visit it so many times. We had 60 businesses in the delegation with us. They were enthusiastic about the opportunities that this visit would open up for them and for all the associated businesses—including in his constituency—that will be able to work with them on projects in the future.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is widely reported in the media that the Prime Minister and his entourage had burner phones when they went to China. Could he confirm that? If so, was the reason that he was worried he was being spied upon?
The Prime Minister
We took appropriate precautions, as we do whichever country we visit.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Like the Prime Minister, I am a musician and a strong advocate for the creative arts sector. Could he set out to the House a little more about why he took so many creative arts and cultural organisations with him to China? Does he agree that Britain is the best in the world at the creative arts, that they are good for trade, good for jobs and good for our young people in particular, and that the kind of visit he has been on will help with that, as will investment at home and abroad?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend; we are the best in the world. The people from the creative sector and the cultural institutions were with us on the visit because they could see the great advantage in better relations and better engagement, and not only in relation to the cultural aspects but because, of course, they are themselves really important businesses.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
The Prime Minister is very full of the abstract virtue of engaging with China and getting in the room with them. He used to say that Britain should not even sign a trade deal with China because of the persecution of the Uyghur people. Having now got into the room with the Chinese leader, can he tell the House a single thing that he achieved on behalf of the Uyghurs, or indeed on behalf of the security of this country?
The Prime Minister
Yes. Engaging is really important for the security of this country. Just for clarity, we did not sign a trade deal on the visit; we simply looked at the ways in which we can open the opportunities for businesses. There were 60 big businesses with us on the visit, and they are absolutely clear about the advantages to them. I would much rather take their view on the advantages than the nonsense that is being spouted on the other side of this House.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
China is helping to fund Russia’s war on Ukraine via the shadow fleet and Russian oil. First, can the Prime Minister unambiguously confirm that he brought up Russian oil and the shadow fleet, because they are not mentioned specifically in the statement? Secondly, what steps will China now take to end its importation of Russian oil, which is funding death and destruction across Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
This is a really important issue, which that is why I had a phone call with Volodymyr Zelensky the day before I left, and I will have a further discussion with him now that I am back. I raised the issue in terms during the course of the visit.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Further to that point, Russia has been able to triple its ballistic missile production because it has access to Chinese rocket fuel, Chinese machine tools and Chinese microprocessors. In return, China is receiving vast quantities of discounted oil, gas, aluminium and other natural resources. China is quite literally fuelling the war in Ukraine, so I ask the Prime Minister once again: what specific guarantees did he receive from the Chinese Government that they will work to de-escalate the conflict in Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
The reason I spoke to Volodymyr Zelensky was to have a discussion in advance on the precise terms in which we would approach this issue. I then followed through on that, and I will talk to President Zelensky about this again in the coming days. We are working hand in glove with the Ukrainians for the outcome that we all want: a just and lasting peace.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I welcome his successful trade missions to China and Japan. In particular, I am heartened by the strides made in Japanese co-operation. However, what steps forward remain in terms of the Chinese treatment of Christians, Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong and other religious minorities? Was the Prime Minister able to use diplomatic soft power to bring about the changes required to provide human rights protection, to stop religious persecution and to enable successful trade between the two nations?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these really important issues. I raised them myself during the course of the visit, and I thank him.
US Department of Justice Release of Files
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
As I know right hon. and hon. Members across the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is unforgivable. His victims must be our first priority. As the Prime Minister has said, anybody with relevant information must come forward and co-operate with investigations, so that Jeffrey Epstein’s victims can get the justice that they have been denied for too long.
On Friday, the Department of Justice in the United States released around 3 million pages from the case files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. It is increasingly clear that his awful crimes involved many—often powerful—people, who facilitated them by actively participating in those crimes, by failing to hear the victims’ voices, by equating wealth with integrity, and by not using their privileged position to speak out, even against a friend. It is incumbent on those of us who hold ministerial office to behave in a way that builds trust in politics and upholds the standards that voters rightly expect from us.
Contained within the release by the US Department of Justice are documents that highlight the close nature of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, including alleged financial transactions when Peter Mandelson was a Labour Member of Parliament and later a Minister. For the avoidance of doubt, this information was not known by the Government until the release of documents by the Department of Justice on Friday.
The nature of the documents has also raised serious concerns about Peter Mandelson’s behaviour while a Minister. Peter Mandelson must account for his actions and conduct. It is an understatement to say that his decision to continue a close relationship with a convicted paedophile, including discussing private Government business, falls far below the standards expected of any Minister. His behaviour was unequivocally wrong and an insult to the women and girls who suffered. No Government Minister of any political party should have behaved or ever should behave in this way.
The Prime Minister has today asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contact with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Government Minister, and to report back to him as a matter of urgency. As the House knows, Peter Mandelson is no longer a member of the Labour party, having resigned his membership last night, and the House may wish to know that disciplinary action by the Labour party was under way prior to his resignation.
The Prime Minister believes, as do the Government, that Peter Mandelson should not retain his membership of the House of Lords or use his title. As the House already knows, the Government do not have the power to remove peerages without legislation. However, the Prime Minister is calling on all political parties—including the Conservatives, as the largest party in the House of Lords—to work with the Government to modernise the disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. The Government will today write to the appropriate authorities in the other place to start that process. It would be better to update those procedures so that they apply to all Members of the House of Lords, instead of having to introduce complex hybrid Bills for each individual peer who has brought the other place into disrepute.
I recognise the strength of feeling on all sides of the House, myself included, and the Government will of course keep Members up to date. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
The crimes of Jeffrey Epstein were truly terrible—paedophilia, sex trafficking, child prostitution. It was an awful abuse of power, and it is of course a great embarrassment to our country that its most senior ambassador should have been caught up with a man like him. In this latest set of releases from the US Department of Justice, it is clearer than ever that theirs was a relationship built not just on affection, but on the transfer of money from Epstein to Mandelson’s family and the transfer of information from Mandelson to Epstein. In some cases, this was apparently market-sensitive information that Mandelson received only by dint of being a member of the Labour Government.
So we of course welcome the belated announcement that there will be an investigation into Mandelson’s conduct while he was a Minister, but this should have happened long ago. I say that because we know that, in February last year, Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, wrote to the Cabinet Secretary explicitly asking for an investigation into the
“veracity of information contained in the Epstein papers about the sale of assets arising from the banking collapse and communications about them between Lord Mandelson and Mr Epstein.”
That investigation never happened.
In any case, I am afraid that the investigation announced today alone will not do. It is not enough to consider Mandelson’s historical conduct; there also needs to be an investigation into his behaviour while he was our ambassador in Washington. Given that he abused his previous position, it is entirely conceivable that he abused his most recent one. For example, I understand that on 27 February last year, Mandelson arranged for the Prime Minister to meet Palantir, a client of Mandelson’s company, Global Counsel. How many more such meetings were there, and what other information was shared? We all have a right to know.
Likewise, the Government cannot hide from their responsibility in having made Mandelson their ambassador in the first place. This was a political appointment, and it happened only because of political pressure. So one of two things must be true: either there was the most terrible failure of the vetting system, or the Government chose to brush that vetting information away. Both are very serious, but the Government must now be honest with us about which it was. It seems very unlikely that the Government’s vetting system broke down entirely. Indeed, on 10 September, the Prime Minister told the House that
“full due process was followed during this appointment”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 859.]
Can it really be the case that this “full due process” did not pick up the extent of the relationship?
On 3 November, Olly Robbins, the then permanent secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, told the Foreign Affairs Committee:
“Back before Lord Mandelson was announced as the appointee, there was a process...within the Cabinet Office to make sure that the Prime Minister was aware of Lord Mandelson and the issues around his appointment...we can confidently say that the relationship with Epstein was indeed surfaced”.
So the Government knew that Mandelson had a long-maintained and unhealthy relationship with Epstein, yet they continued with their appointment anyway.
The question is: who in No. 10 knew what and when? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has a duty to tell this House precisely what the Prime Minister knew when he made the appointment, and to disclose the documents that the Prime Minister saw. If the Prime Minister genuinely did not know, somebody must have done. Who was it? Was it his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, who is reported to have personally pushed the appointment? Was it the now Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the Foreign Secretary and who would have been party to some of the information?
It is time for the Government to be open and clear with us all. Something went very badly wrong with this appointment. It has caused very great embarrassment to this country and it is time that someone took responsibility.
Darren Jones
The person who has to take responsibility for their failings is Peter Mandelson. The shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows that the process for political appointments, whether to ambassadorships or otherwise, was one set up under the previous Conservative Government. It was a process that we inherited and have since updated. The Prime Minister has been very clear that the declarations of interest put forward by Peter Mandelson were not wholly truthful. When it became clear from the release of information that that had not been the case, the Prime Minister moved swiftly to remove Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States.
On the first point that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made, in relation to an investigation requested by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, I can confirm to the House that his statement was incorrect. The former Prime Minister did ask the Cabinet Secretary to investigate in order to look for any particular documents that related, as he said, to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan. That investigation was undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary did respond to the former Prime Minister to confirm that no documents in relation to those questions were held by the Government. Evidently, now that more documents have become available to the public and to the Government, further investigations are now taking place.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The files seem to show that Peter Mandelson was given £50,000 by a notorious paedophile and that a few years later he sent on market-sensitive information to Epstein, who worked for JP Morgan, about market bail-outs. He told him about the Prime Minister’s resignation, said that they should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then told him about matters of national security. Surely this is a matter not of whether Peter Mandelson should be in the House of Lords, but of whether the police should be involved.
Darren Jones
My right hon. Friend is right that each individual issue is wholly unacceptable, and cumulatively they are also unacceptable. The undeclared exchange of funds and the passing on of Government information, let alone the fact that those exchanges were to a convicted paedophile, are wholly unconscionable. The House will know that if any of those activities were to take place today, Ministers would be swiftly relieved of their duties and could be, via the recall petitions available to the House, removed from their constituency, too. As to the matter of criminal investigations, of course that is a matter for the prosecution services and the police. As I have informed the House, the investigation by the Cabinet Secretary into the released documents, as requested by the Prime Minister, is currently under way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are right: we must start by remembering the many women and young girls who experienced unimaginable horrors at the hands of Epstein and his network.
We must also ask what it was that first attracted the politician Peter Mandelson to the billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, and why it was that that relationship continued after Epstein’s character was well known. At the very least, the forwarding of confidential Government correspondence to a wealthy and powerful individual was clearly well beneath the conduct expected of a Cabinet Minister and possibly a breach of the law. When that is combined with the reported financial flows, the evidence is damning. The use of public office for private gain is the very definition of corruption; regardless of the outcome of a Government investigation, millions of people up and down the country are more than capable of judging for themselves on the evidence in front of them.
Is it not time to end the Lord Mandelson charade once and for all by bringing legislation to the House to strip him of his peerage? And what about his membership of the Privy Council? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister referenced declarations of interest, so will the Government work with the House authorities to republish Peter Mandelson’s entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests dating back to his time as a Cabinet Minister in a Labour Government?
Darren Jones
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. He is right that it is time for the procedures in Parliament to be updated. While this House has taken steps in recent years to do so, the other place has not; as I said in my statement, the Government are today making an offer to the other place—to the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords—to put forward proposals to do just that. If we need to make time available to do so, we will.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The key question here is: who advised the Prime Minister? I do not expect the Prime Minister to do due diligence on appointments of this kind himself, but those around him must have done so. It appears that questions that needed to be asked of Lord Mandelson were not asked, or, if they were asked, that the answers were not passed on. Will my right hon. Friend give us a guarantee that when this is investigated, those around the Prime Minister who would have advised him on this appointment will be investigated fully?
Darren Jones
The process for political appointments has since been strengthened by this Government to include additional interviews and processes for declarations of interest. The key thing, though, is that when someone lies in their declaration of interest, there must be a consequence, and that consequence for Members of the other place needs to be removal from the House of Lords and loss of peerage; that can happen only if the other place brings forward proposals to update its own processes, and the Government stand ready to support it in doing so. I agree with my hon. Friend that there need to be robust, clear and transparent processes, that any conflicts of interest need to be surfaced and dealt with adequately, and that when people are found to have lied, there must be some consequence.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is right to say that the other place must modernise its disciplinary procedures, but that kicks the Mandelson can down the road. This is not the first time this modern-day Icarus has flown a little too close to the sun, usually over money; we all remember the Geoffrey Robinson mortgage loan, which of course occasioned an earlier resignation—
Simon Hoare
And the Hinduja passport, yes. Where I disagree with the Minister is in conflating the updating of the disciplinary procedures of the other place and the bringing forward of legislation—which is allowed—to remove Mandelson’s peerage. I am absolutely certain that, were the Government to bring forward a Bill, which need not be complex and hybrid as he suggested, it could be rushed through this House in a day, such is the appetite to make the point.
Darren Jones
For the sake of clarity, can I just make it clear that neither I nor the Government are here to defend Peter Mandelson? We are here to defend the integrity of this House and the other place and to ensure that where processes need updating, they are updated. On the question of legislation regarding individual Members of the other place, the fact—if I might say so—is that there is a queue. That is why the process needs to be updated to apply to all peers: to remove the need to bring forward individual legislation, whether for Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Like the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, I am a parent of young children, and I know that he will have found it very difficult to stomach some of the details that came out over the weekend. The conversation here has so far rightly been dominated by the actions of the men. I ask the Chief Secretary seriously what he is doing to ensure that the victims—mostly children—of sexual violence and sexual assault will be heard by those in power, including the Prime Minister.
Darren Jones
I am sure that there is not one Member of this House who does not agree with my hon. Friend about the level of disgust we feel in seeing the disclosures from the Epstein files. The House knows that the Government are taking forward radical proposals for tackling violence against women and girls. In respect of Jeffrey Epstein, we are doing all that we can to ensure that people who have information make it available to investigators.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does the Minister think that the deep involvement of Mandelson with Epstein shows that Epstein’s victims were not only women and girls but may have included young men?
Darren Jones
It would not be appropriate for me to entertain that hypothetical question at the Dispatch Box. We obviously hope that that is not the case, but, as I say, I am not here to speak for Peter Mandelson.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
This is a disaster, and against the backdrop of the incredible abuse of young women for such a long time, it fills the House will horror.
I must agree with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare); this House would be minded to bring forward legislation and to do so quickly. It would appear that Gordon Brown was very concerned in September 2025 that there had been a disclosure of information by Mandelson to Epstein that may have been used for commercial gain. He turns out to have been right. How is it that such an error could occur within government and that the information was not known? Can the Minister assure the House that those matters will be given full attention in any inquiry and that, from this day on, there will be full engagement with the criminal authorities, because, as many Members have said already, the time has come for criminal prosecution?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right to raise those concerns. As I confirmed to the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Cabinet Secretary did respond to Gordon Brown’s request to search for documents in the Government archive in relation to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan at the time. The review concluded that those documents did not exist in the Government archive. It is now evident from the release of documents by the US Department of Justice that the emails we have all seen account for what took place at the time. That is why the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing the archive again, not just in respect of that particular question but in the round during the time that Peter Mandelson was a Labour Minister. The Cabinet Secretary will report to the Prime Minister as soon as he has been able to do that.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
With the cash for questions scandal or the recent sexual harassment cases in Westminster, the police were called by the Government, proactively. Why, in this case, are the Government conducting an inquiry without informing the Met police? If they are not conducting their own inquiry, will they get on with calling the police straightaway, because it is inevitably going to happen?
Darren Jones
As I have said, the Cabinet Secretary is currently looking at the Government archives to see what documents are available and will advise the Prime Minister accordingly. If the Government can be of assistance to any investigations in due course, they of course will be.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
There are many aspects of this that are hugely troubling, but I will focus on one: the passing on of highly sensitive information by a serving Cabinet Minister to third parties. Clearly, that could amount to misconduct in public office, and I hope that the police investigate it.
The papers reveal a very casual relationship with probity for Mandelson and his apparent willingness to share highly sensitive information with third parties. What concerns me in particular is that he has been in a very senior role in recent times. Could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm whether he or anyone else serving in government in a ministerial or advisory capacity has discussed since in recent times—in the course of this Government—information of a similar nature that could have been used to benefit third parties?
Darren Jones
The information that became available over the preceding few days from the US Department of Justice is new information to the Government.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I echo the remarks made in the House this evening that it might be time for criminal proceedings to take place. When the Government have made such a totem of tackling violence against women and girls, it is important that they are seen to stand up for women and girls on this matter, and to encourage everyone mentioned in the files to co-operate with the American authorities and give any information they have to their inquiries.
Darren Jones
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady, and the Government have called for anybody with information to do just that.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Many of my constituents, like all of us, will be horrified by the revelations regarding Peter Mandelson and the Epstein files, but they will also be shocked to know that the Government do not have the power to remove peerages. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it is absolutely right to do whatever is necessary to modernise procedures to allow for the removal of peers and their peerages when they have bought the other place into disrepute?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that is why the Government have written to the appropriate authorities in the other place today to request that that work is now started.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I do not understand why the Minister, whom I respect greatly, is standing there and speaking as though the Government did not know about the relationship and connection between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein prior to appointing him as the ambassador to the United States. I cannot understand why the Minister is not standing at the Dispatch Box saying that this House will sit until whatever hour required to pass legislation to strip Peter Mandelson of his peerage. I cannot understand why the Minister is acting like the Labour party has been proactive on this, when it has known for months about Peter Mandelson’s revelations and yet has allowed him to maintain a party membership throughout that time. I cannot understand why half an hour ago the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom did not just apologise for his decision making and lack of judgment and say that Peter Mandelson should be subject to a criminal investigation.
Darren Jones
Neither the Labour party nor the Government, or indeed this House or the right hon. Member, knew about the information that was made available by the US Department of Justice only a matter of days ago. As soon as that information became available, the Government have acted accordingly. In respect of the previous decision of the Prime Minister to sack Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States, the Prime Minister was very clear with this House and, indeed, the public that he did so quickly, as soon as the extent and depth of the relationship became clear from the disclosure that took place. The Prime Minister relied on the information provided by Peter Mandelson at the time of his appointment. As soon as that information changed, the Prime Minister acted quickly and removed him from office.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The public are asking how on earth Peter Mandelson ever got to be appointed ambassador to the United States, given what was known. One would presume he passed some sort of security check or vetting. As well as an inquiry into Peter Mandelson’s appointment, can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister reassure the House and the public on behalf of the Prime Minister that everyone in No. 10 who advocated for, or had influence in, securing Peter Mandelson’s appointment, in spite of what was known about his relationship with Epstein, had security clearance, which is a key protection to guard against improper influence and exposure for our country?
Darren Jones
All due process was followed. As the Prime Minister made clear, it was clear that additional measures for political appointments needed to be put into place, which have now been put into place. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the information that became available, both at the time the Prime Minister sacked the former ambassador to the United States and in the last few days, only became available to the Prime Minister and the Government at the same time as everybody else.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Can the Minister not see that it is in the Labour party’s interest, as much as it is in the national interest, that this issue of stripping Mandelson of his peerage should be resolved as soon as possible and that wider legislation is brought in subsequently? The Minister may be a little young to remember when the late John Prescott compared Mandelson to a scorpion in a jam jar that he was holding, but can he explain to the House the fatal fascination of Labour leader after Labour leader appointing this man to post after post, given his chequered record of corruption and multiple resignations?
Darren Jones
I say to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that, whether it is Peter Mandelson, Michelle Mone or other peers who have brought the other place into disrepute, there needs to be a process for removing peerages. The Government are making it very clear today that this should be conducted on a cross-party basis to ensure the integrity of the other place and our democracy in the future, as it relates to all peers. I encourage Members across this House, and in the other place, to make sure those proposals are brought forward swiftly.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Mandelson’s behaviour fell well below the expected standard for a long time, but he was disgracefully allowed to resign very quietly, even though he was sacked as ambassador to the US last year—more action should have been taken last year. I ask the Chief Secretary to do everything he can to expedite legislation to remove all the privileges from this awful man as soon as possible.
Darren Jones
The Government stand ready to work with the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords to update its procedures, and as I informed this House, we have written to them today to start that process. We hope to move as quickly as possible.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I want to focus on the victims—the children and young girls who were trafficked. Will the Government confirm that any UK-linked offences will be fully investigated, that all evidence will be acted upon, and that anyone implicated, whatever their status, will be pursued with the full force of the law to ensure that victims and survivors receive the justice and support they deserve?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady is right that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein need to be at the centre of all our attention. The Government will, of course, co-operate with any investigations that take place. As we have said repeatedly, anybody with any information should make themselves available to investigators, whether here or overseas.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement. Gloucester residents will rightly be angry and incredibly disgusted by the revelations in the papers released by the American Government over the weekend. It is in the interests of the whole House that we get this place in order so that those who commit heinous acts, who align themselves with people like Jeffrey Epstein, are no longer in this place, and so the public can have trust that we are acting in their best interests.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he and the Government will act at pace to ensure that that man is removed from the House of Lords? Will he update the House on the steps the Government have taken to improve the direct appointments process since Peter Mandelson was removed as ambassador?
Darren Jones
I share my hon. Friend’s disgust at what has taken place. As I have said, the House of Lords must update its procedures to ensure that there are consequences for the behaviour of Members who bring their House into disrepute. The House of Commons has been able to do that in recent years, and there is no reason why the other place should not. The Government stand ready to support the House of Lords in whichever way is necessary to make sure that is put into effect.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Appointing Peter Mandelson to our premier ambassadorship was always a grotesque error of judgment by the Prime Minister, given everything we knew about this man. Now we are told that this man leaked confidential information to a convicted sex offender when he was a Cabinet Minister and took tens of thousands of pounds in secret backhanders. It is a total disgrace.
Has the Minister really come to the House to say that he does not intend to bring forward primary legislation to deal with this now but will write to the House of Lords to seek support for modernising its procedures in a few months’ time, and that he will not go proactively to the police to demand an investigation when Peter Mandelson has clearly broken the law and now stands accused of serious misconduct in public office and should be tried for his offences?
Darren Jones
As I have said repeatedly, the Government will, of course, co-operate with any investigation and encourage everybody to do so. We stand ready to introduce legislation at pace, if required, and to work with the House of Lords to update its procedures. We agree that that needs to happen, and that it needs to happen quickly.
I gently say that when the right hon. Member was a member of the Conservative party at the point Peter Mandelson was first appointed to the ambassadorship to the United States, the official Opposition did not object in any way.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were utterly abhorrent, and our thoughts should always be with the women and girls whose lives were destroyed by him and his network. The revelations over the weekend were utterly disgusting. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the Cabinet Secretary should undertake an immediate review of Peter Mandelson’s actions when he was a Government Minister, particularly in relation to the issue raised by the previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, of the potential and unacceptable disclosure of Government papers and information when this country was battling a global financial crisis?
Darren Jones
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The Cabinet Secretary is today reviewing the Government archives to see what information is available for that time, not just in relation to the sale of RBS assets to JP Morgan, as requested by the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, but, more broadly, during the time that Peter Mandelson was a Labour Minister in the then Government.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Do the Government believe that Lord Mandelson should be stripped of his peerage, yes or no? If they do believe that, they should bring forward primary legislation to do just that. I am afraid the Minister’s excuse of a queue does not wash. Will they bring forward legislation for the disgraced Lord Mandelson, their friend? If they do not, and he keeps his title despite Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor being stripped of his, what rank hypocrisy that would be. How much further can this Government stain their tarnished reputation?
Darren Jones
As I have repeatedly said, neither the Labour party nor this Government seek to defend Peter Mandelson, as the right hon. Lady implies. The Leader of the Opposition has herself called for Michelle Mone’s peerage to be removed. The point I make is that that cannot happen either, because the processes are not up to date in the House of Lords. It would be better to bring forward changes to ensure that the rules can be applied to all Members of the House of Lords in these circumstances, whether Peter Mandelson or Michelle Mone, and we stand ready to do so.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for coming to Parliament at the first opportunity to address this issue. Epstein’s crimes were vile, and I cannot begin to imagine how these latest revelations must have compounded the pain for all the women and girls who were victims. Many in this House have already spoken powerfully about our collective alarm at the revelations in the last few days of Government information being passed to Epstein in 2009. I fully support the decision to have an investigation, but, for public trust, will the Chief Secretary reassure me that the Cabinet Secretary will be given everything he needs so that his investigation may move at pace?
Darren Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend and again reiterate that if any Minister were found to be forwarding Government information in that way, they would be quickly removed from post under the rules that we have today and could be made subject to a recall petition in their constituencies by the House authorities. In respect of the Cabinet Secretary’s work, officials from the propriety and ethics team and elsewhere in the Cabinet Office are of course supporting his investigations in reviewing what documents are available in the archive, because the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he wishes the Cabinet Secretary to report back to him as a matter of urgency.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The files released on Friday are an horrific record of the relationships among the rich and the powerful, including Elon Musk and Donald Trump, and we have seen mention of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and of course Peter Mandelson. It is horrific and, as other Members have mentioned, we must keep the victims at the forefront of our minds. We have heard the discussion of the email that Peter Mandelson sent to Epstein about business issues, and there was a second one in 2010 in which he gave a preview of the €500 billion bail-out that was imminent. In the light of that, will the Government be proactive in encouraging a police investigation? Are they in discussions with the US Department of Justice about unredacted emails and, potentially, documents that have been withheld and not yet released, which detail the offending further? Will they also republish Peter Mandelson’s entries in the register of interests from his election in 1992 through to 2010?
Darren Jones
I think the Register of Members’ Financial Interests is a matter for the House, not the Government, but I am sure that the House authorities will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question. He asked a question about an investigation, and the answer is yes. Everybody—whether it is the Government, individuals involved or those with any knowledge—should co-operate with any investigation. As he said at the start of his question, if the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes are at the heart of all our thinking, the answer has to be justice.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
The latest information appears to show that Peter Mandelson, when he was a Minister, worked alongside one of the world’s most notorious paedophiles and conspired against the interests of the British people in pursuit of money, power and influence. That strengthens the case for a Hillsborough law to hold those in power properly to account. Under that law, Ministers who used their office to gain a benefit—financial, reputational or otherwise—or who caused detriment to others while knowing that their conduct was improper, would face up to 10 years’ imprisonment. It cannot come quickly enough.
Can I ask the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister a simple question? Will the Government commit to an immediate investigation into who knew what about Peter Mandelson, before and during his disastrous appointment as ambassador to the United States?
Darren Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all his tireless campaigning on the Hillsborough law, and I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to bringing that legislation back to the House as soon as possible. In respect of Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States, and the Prime Minister’s decision to sack him when more information became available, the Prime Minister has spoken at length on that, both at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere in public.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Labour appointee Lord Mandelson has been a pivotal figure in the Prime Minister’s leadership project, and this is now a damage limitation exercise for the Government. There is deep irony in the fact that a Government can appoint people to the House of Lords, but cannot clear up their own mess. Why have the Government not referred this to the police? Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister admit that this is doing grave harm to the public’s confidence in the accountability of our democratic institutions?
Darren Jones
The Cabinet Secretary, as we speak, is reviewing the Government archives to see what documents we have available on the time when Peter Mandelson served as a Labour Minister. As I have informed the House, the documents released by the US Department of Justice in the preceding few days contained information new to the Government, and we will do all we can to both highlight the information we have and co-operate with any investigation that takes place.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. Does he agree that unless this legislation that we are talking about is brought through swiftly, we run the risk of diminishing any confidence that victims of serious sexual abuse and violence have in Ministers and people who make decisions and laws?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is right that the public expect that if we break the law or the rules, there should be consequences. In this House, that is the case, but in the House of Lords, it is not. That is why the Government are encouraging the appropriate authorities in the House of Lords to come forward with proposals to change that. If the Government are required to assist in any way, including by making time available in this House, we will.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
There are two issues here, one of which is the connection of a Member of the House of Lords to a convicted paedophile, but let us not forget that he is not the only recent Labour appointee who has been connected to a convicted paedophile; Lord Matthew Doyle, who was appointed only recently, has also maintained a persistent connection with a convicted paedophile.
Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it is not enough to refer the matter to the Cabinet Secretary, and that the police should be called immediately? We are seeing misconduct in public office, and this goes all the way to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. The possibility of the destruction of evidence and the obscuring of a future prosecution is now increasing, and that is being masked by the Government.
Darren Jones
I have to refute in the strongest possible terms any accusation that the Government would seek to interfere in, or block, any investigation in relation to Jeffrey Epstein. It is absolutely wrong to suggest that documents would be made unavailable or deleted. The Cabinet Secretary is today reviewing the Government archives from the time in question, and as I have said, he will comply with any investigation that takes place. The right hon. Gentleman must know that accusing me or other parts of Government of misdemeanour in such a way is wholly unsatisfactory and—might I say—out of character.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I can recall the description of the scorpion in the jam jar. Mandelson surely has some sort of self-destruct chip inside his head. It was reported in The Times this afternoon that Mr Butler, the Downing Street adviser to Gordon Brown, said that the memo containing highly sensitive market information allegedly leaked by Mandelson presented an unimaginable breach of trust. Does the Minister agree that this looks like political insider trading on a grand scale, and would he support not only an independent inquiry, but a criminal investigation?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that releasing Government information in and of itself, let alone for personal or commercial gain, is wrong and a breach of rules that we all must comply with. If that is what happened, there should be appropriate investigations and consequences for that behaviour.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I am afraid that it is untenable to suggest that what was already known of Mandelson’s simpering after the conviction of Epstein was not enough to make it inappropriate for him to be ambassador, and I did object to that from day one, on that exact basis, as Hansard shows. I am afraid that a number of questions to the Cabinet Secretary—to whom I wrote on 5 December, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies)—still have not been answered, so I would be grateful for the answers today. Did Mandelson receive a taxpayer-funded severance payment after stepping down as ambassador? If so, how much was it? Will details of his contract be published, in the name of transparency? Was any non-disclosure agreement signed, and when did Lord Mandelson’s salary formally cease? These are not unreasonable questions, but almost two months on, I have had no response from the Cabinet Secretary. That gives me enormous concern.
Darren Jones
On the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, as the Prime Minister made very clear, when the extent and depth of the relationship between Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein post his conviction became clear, the Prime Minister moved very quickly indeed to sack Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister was not aware of that at the point of Peter Mandelson’s appointment, and Peter Mandelson made certain commitments to the Prime Minister that obviously turned out to be untrue. On the hon. Lady’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary, I will feed what she has said back to the Cabinet Secretary and ensure that she gets appropriate answers to her questions.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Could the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister explain what steps this Government have taken to make sure that the voices of the victims and survivors of sexual abuse and violence are heard by those in power?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend knows that the Government have committed to reducing violence against women and girls, and have recently brought forward a strategy, setting out how we will work across Government to do just that in the years ahead. Specifically on the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, we will continue to do all we can to support any investigations in order to ensure justice for those victims, and we encourage everybody with any information to do the same.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I asked the Prime Minister in this Chamber, on behalf of my constituents who were asking the same thing, why Peter Mandelson had been appointed our most senior ambassador at all, given the knowledge of his links with Epstein. By September, it was clear just how close that relationship had been, yet the PM did not immediately sack him, and there still was not a full investigation of Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein. Why is that investigation happening only now? The Prime Minister has stated his commitment to restoring trust in public life; how does the Minister square that promise to uphold standards with the delay in investigating this relationship?
Darren Jones
I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Lady that there has been any undue delay in investigation. At the time of his appointment, Peter Mandelson gave the Prime Minister a commitment about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, but it became evident when documents were released that the reality was different. Within a matter of days of the extent and depth of the relationship becoming clear, the Prime Minister sacked Peter Mandelson from his post as ambassador to the United States. Now that even more information has become available, the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing what documents are available in the Government archive, and will of course comply with any investigation that may take place.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for his statement. His focus on the victims of these terrible crimes is absolutely right. The majority of us in this House, whatever colour rosette we wear, come here to represent our constituency, and I hope I show that I represent my constituency as well as I can, every single day. When we hear of an MP, or in this case a Government Minister, representing the interests of outside bodies—in this case, a vile paedophile —it is absolutely disgraceful, and very upsetting to those of us who come here for the right reasons. What will the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister do, working with the PM, to ensure that we have a strengthened ministerial code, so that this can never happen again?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government, and specifically the Prime Minister, have already strengthened the ministerial code that we are all subject to in this House, and have made the ethics adviser independent. That gives the ethics adviser the authority to investigate Ministers freely, without requiring permission from the Prime Minister, in contrast to what happened under the previous Administration. That has already been shown to be effective; Ministers have had to stand down as a consequence of breaches of the ministerial code. It is right and proper that we have robust rules in this House for Ministers and Members, and it is about time that we had similar processes in the House of Lords.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Try as he might, the Prime Minister cannot escape his responsibility in this latest scandal to engulf Peter Mandelson. Ordering a very limited investigation into Peter Mandelson’s activities is pretty meaningless. We need an investigation that is fully independent of Government and the Labour party, with the scope to investigate not just Mandelson, but those who put him in the House of Lords, those who promoted him to UK ambassador to the United States, and those who have done everything possible to protect him over several decades, despite his scandal-ridden career. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister has acted at every stage with integrity. It is Peter Mandelson who has to be accountable for the actions of Peter Mandelson. To suggest that the Prime Minister should be responsible for the actions of Peter Mandelson is obviously wrong-headed. As I said in my statement, Peter Mandelson, who is no longer a member of the Labour party, should be accountable for his actions, and should account for them.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is disgraceful that the Government are choosing not to bring forward legislation to remove Peter Mandelson from the House of Lords; it is entirely within their gift to do so. The public know that, and will be not only alarmed by the fact that the Government are not doing that, but questioning the motive for their delay. On what date exactly did Peter Mandelson cease to be paid by the Government?
Darren Jones
As the hon. Lady knows from the discussion in the House today, it is not that we do not wish to take action in respect of Peter Mandelson; it is that we expect action to be taken that affects all Members of the House of Lords, including other peers who need to be removed from the Lords as a consequence of their behaviour. We stand ready to act swiftly on that, and have asked the House of Lords to bring forward proposals for doing just that.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The revelations in the press that Peter Mandelson was, while Business Secretary, leaking confidential Government secrets to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein should be more than enough evidence to warrant his expulsion from the House of Lords, yet we hear that this will not happen through legislation. Sadly, this is yet another scandal in the House of Lords. While Labour has promised major Lords reform for over 100 years, time and again it has kicked the can down the road. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree with many in this House that rather than our desperately trying to reform an embarrassingly broken system, it is time for the House of Lords finally to be abolished?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member knows that the Government have stated and believe that Peter Mandelson should not be a Member of the House of Lords and should not use his title, but he is right that the rules need to be updated to allow that action to be taken by the House of Lords. We have written to the House of Lords authorities today to say that this work must begin, and the Government stand ready to support them on that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
To be fair to Peter Mandelson, I think the crustacean in John Prescott’s jam jar was a crab, not a scorpion.
In our system, it is very unusual to appoint ambassadors and high commissioners from outside the ranks of the civil service, and for pretty good reason. When they are appointed from outside the civil service, and particularly when the appointee is a politician with baggage, as here, the appointer has to own it, because he made that decision—in this case, against advice. What does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister think this fiasco says about the judgment of our Prime Minister?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister’s judgment was made clear when, as soon as information that he had been misled by Peter Mandelson became available, he sacked him.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The actions of Peter Mandelson are a disgrace, and I support the proposals to remove him without delay, but he is not the only British person implicated in the appalling Epstein files. What are the Government doing to ensure that all those linked to Mandelson, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and any political, public or civic figure are fully investigated here? We should not just co-operate with US authorities but take action on all the crimes committed on our soil.
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady knows that it is not the Government who instigate criminal investigations. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to take those decisions independently of Ministers. Whether in respect of UK investigations or investigations in the United States, the Government have made it very clear that all individuals should comply with those investigations and make any information available, to ensure that the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s acts can see justice.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
When the Prime Minister sacked Lord Mandelson as the American ambassador, Ministers came to the Dispatch Box and I pointed out to them that for the whole time he was our ambassador he had been subject to politically fatal kompromat, which left him open to leverage—as it finally played out. I said that if we had found out he was spying for Russia or China, we would be turning every single aspect of his time in office inside out, to find out the truth, and the Government said, “Well, he’s been sacked.” Does the Minister regret the fact that, following Mandelson’s sacking, the Government did not do the sort of due diligence and inquiries that might have unearthed the documents from the Department of Justice?
Darren Jones
To be clear, the documents produced by the United States Department of Justice were not available to the Government until they were released a number of days ago. As soon as they have become available, we have instigated processes in our own authorities to make sure that we have a clear view of what information was available to the Government at the time and to comply with any investigations that may take place.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
As so many of my colleagues have rightly said, our thoughts today should be first and foremost with the victims. I hope that no political party in this Chamber would use this as an excuse to cover the backs of some of the less fragrant Members of the House of Lords. The fact that Lord Mandelson was, as ever, interested only in the ruthless pursuit of financial gain will come as a surprise to no one. No. 10 is now saying that Mandelson should lose his peerage, and I wholeheartedly concur. However, is it not staggering that Members of this House seemed more aware of Mr Mandelson’s skeletons in the wardrobe than the Prime Minister who appointed him?
Darren Jones
As far as I am aware, no Member of this House had access to the information recently published by the United States Department for Justice, or to the documents that were released at the time the Prime Minister sacked the ambassador to the United States. The Prime Minister has previously been very clear to the House that had he had access to that information, he would not have appointed him in the first place.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Minister indicated that Mandelson assured the Prime Minister that his relationship with Epstein was of a different nature. Can he explain what sort of relationship with a convicted paedophile would be acceptable in that role? Will the Prime Minister come back to the House to make a specific statement on the advice he received regarding Mandelson’s conduct?
Darren Jones
The information that became available in September that led to the sacking of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the United States made it clear for the first time, to all of us and to the Prime Minister, that Peter Mandelson not only remained a friend of Jeffrey Epstein following his conviction but had actively mentored and encouraged him on how to challenge that conviction and push back against it. That was one example —there is now a list of examples—of how the depth and extent of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, following Jeffrey Epstein’s conviction, was unacceptable. If the Prime Minister had known that at the time Peter Mandelson was being considered to be ambassador to the United States, he would not have appointed him, and as soon as the Prime Minister became aware of that information, he sacked him.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Epstein files suggest that Lord Mandelson was prepared to lobby in the United States in 2009 for a policy position in contradiction to that of Her Majesty’s Government, in which he was then serving as Business Secretary. Will this revelation encourage the Government to find out whether Lord Mandelson lobbied against his Government while serving last year as British ambassador to the United States? Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister find out whether this lobbying against British Government policy is revealed in US policy towards the UK?
Darren Jones
As I have informed the House today, the Cabinet Secretary is reviewing all documentation relating to Peter Mandelson’s time as a Minister in the last Labour Government to see what information is available today, and we will comply with any investigations that take place as a consequence. The hon. Member is right that any Minister acting against the collective decisions of Cabinet and against the Government is in breach of the rules. It is unacceptable behaviour, and if any Minister were to do that today, they would be quickly dismissed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is disturbing to read of Peter Mandelson’s role when holding high office in government. I just remind the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister that Mr Mandelson was also the EU trade commissioner for five years. I believe that needs investigating, too, because how far does this go? It is my understanding that the latest releases may have made public the names of victims that had not previously been released. Can the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister please assure the House that any British victims who have been made public will have support and help to make their way through what could be a retraumatising experience, with press invasion and interference?
Darren Jones
I was not aware of that issue, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to my attention. If there are any British victims affected by the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, whether in relation to the latest publication of documents or otherwise, Government services stand ready to be of support to those victims and to ensure that they can seek justice.
Points of Order
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Wednesday 21 January, before my contribution to the debate on the Northern Ireland remedial order, I omitted to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. That was an oversight, as it includes a declaration of a major contribution from Sir Michael Gooley in support of the campaign to protect military veterans from lawfare, for which I am the custodian. That was a mistake on my part, for which I obviously apologise to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. He has now drawn the House’s attention to his relevant declaration in the register.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last month the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor paid a visit to my constituency without giving notice to me as the local Member. I would be grateful if you could provide me with advice on preventing such discourtesy and disrespect from taking place in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of that point of order. As the leaflet on courtesies makes clear, Members should inform colleagues in advance if they intend to visit another Member’s constituency. It is deeply discourteous to fail to do so.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened to the last debate carefully, and I wondered whether you could help me with a procedural question. Would it be orderly for the Government to bring forward legislation, as soon as they wished to do so, to relieve Peter Mandelson of his peerage?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. The introduction of legislation is a matter for the Government.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill: Programme (No. 2)
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.
After Clause 9
Power to make regulations: Scotland and Northern Ireland
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 12.
Seema Malhotra
I am delighted that the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill has returned to this House for the consideration of Lords amendments. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and for the constructive and collaborative approach throughout the Bill’s passage. I also place on the record my thanks to Baroness Chapman of Darlington for leading the Bill expertly through the other place. In today’s debate, we will seek to address the amendments made by the Government there, and I thank all those in that House who have been involved in debates on this Bill.
Before I speak to the Lords amendments, I remind the House that the passage of this Bill is a vital part of delivering the UK’s international obligations under the BBNJ agreement. It will strengthen the global framework for protecting biodiversity in areas of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction, improve how we manage environmental impacts in those areas and help to ensure that the benefits arising from marine genetic resources are shared fairly.
I am pleased to inform the House that the BBNJ agreement entered into force on 17 January. Following Royal Assent, and subsequent secondary legislation to be passed in the coming months, the UK will ratify the agreement. We intend to play a leading role at the first conference of the parties, which will take place at some point before 16 January 2027.
Turning to the Lords amendments, the House is being asked to consider a package of 12, all of which were put forward by the Government. They relate to devolution and are designed to support effective implementation of the BBNJ agreement across the whole United Kingdom, while respecting the devolution settlements and ensuring that devolved Ministers are appropriately engaged, where devolved competence is affected.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Part 2 of the Bill contains a specific exception for fishing, and the new regulations do not apply to the use of a UK craft for fishing if it is done under a valid licence under the Fisheries Act 2020. I have been contacted by some of the organisations back home in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister not agree that it is essential that the devolved Administrations enshrine this legislation and acknowledge that the fishing industry is reliant on the ability to continue to fish in all current areas? In other words, it is important that the Administrations, and the Northern Ireland Assembly in particular, do what this Bill says. If the Assembly does not do that, Northern Ireland fishing organisations will find themselves at a disadvantage.
Seema Malhotra
It is indeed important that all our devolved Administrations, as well as the UK Government, abide by the agreement. I thank the hon. Member for his interest and his engagement in this important Bill.
I am grateful to all those we have been engaging with throughout the passage of this Bill. Working closely with Ministers and officials in the devolved Governments, we agreed at the Bill’s introduction that the legislative consent motion process is engaged for Scotland and Northern Ireland to varying extents by parts 2, 3 and 4. The Government have been in sustained discussions with both those devolved Governments to seek consent for the Bill, and I can confirm to the House that motions on consent have been passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Lords amendments 1 and 4 provide Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with concurrent powers to make regulations within devolved competence corresponding to the powers to make provision granted to the Secretary of State under clauses 9 and 11 of the Bill. Lords amendments 2 and 5 provide the procedure for those powers.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
As I understand it, the BBNJ deals primarily with matters in international waters, and of course the devolved institutions have no say in those matters. So as to broaden our understanding of the Bill, will the Minister tell me what type of regulations she anticipates the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—the local Stormont Department—will be making in consequence of the Bill?
Seema Malhotra
Following ratification of the agreement, we will be participating in future discussions relating to its implementation. There will continue to be further conversations. The important point is that the work we have been doing with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland reflects how our UK Government officials and devolved officials are already working together effectively in practice, including in relation to consultation and effective delivery, and I know that those conversations will continue.
Lords amendments 3 and 6 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland before exercising powers in clauses 9 and 11 where regulations engage devolved matters. This duty does not apply where the Secretary of State considers that regulations need to be made urgently for the purposes of implementing emergency measures adopted under article 24.1 of the BBNJ agreement. This approach ensures that the devolved Governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made, enables them to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so, and reflects their responsibilities while supporting timely and effective implementation of the agreement.
Jim Shannon
I am asking these questions because they have been put to me by fishing organisations back home and I want to put them on record. The Bill enables the creation of internationally agreed marine protected areas in the high seas. If a Northern Ireland vessel were to operate in those international waters, it could face new restrictions on where it could fish, in order to protect vulnerable habitats and species such as sharks and whales. Does the Minister not agree that we need to ensure that MPAs are not created without input from the fishing industry—the sector itself, the fishing organisations and the fish producers—that its opinions carry weight and that this is not simply a tick-box exercise?
Seema Malhotra
The hon. Member continues to put on record his concerns. He will know that, as we move forward following ratification, we will continue to have detailed conversations. It is important that the rules and regulations are clear for all to operate by.
I was just referring to how we have been moving forward on the Bill to ensure that the devolved Governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made and are able to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so. We continue to work closely together to support the timely and effective implementation of the agreement.
Lords amendment 7 inserts a new clause, after clause 17, that makes changes to the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 to ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to Scottish marine licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The UK Government will be amending their own environmental impact assessment regulations, and Scottish Government officials have worked closely with UK counterparts to draft corresponding provisions. Accordingly, Lords amendments 8 and 9 also limit the power in clause 18 to implementing only article 38 standards or guidelines, as a wider power is no longer required in the light of other changes that will be made directly through the Bill.
Lords amendments 10 and 11 ensure that clause 22, which sets out procedures for the making of regulations under the Act, does not apply to regulations made under clauses introduced by Lords amendments 1 and 4. Instead, the procedures set out in Government amendments 2 and 5 respectively will apply.
Finally, Lords Amendment 12 amends clause 25 so that the clause introduced by amendment 7 comes into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations, rather than upon Royal Assent. This change ensures a consistent approach across the Bill with regard to the environmental impact assessment regulations that are being amended.
The Government’s objective is to implement the BBNJ agreement effectively across the whole of the United Kingdom, and to do so in a way that respects the devolution settlement and supports continued constructive collaboration with the devolved Governments. I therefore commend these 12 Lords amendments to the House, and I urge Members to support them.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Opposition recognise the importance of this Bill and the shared international ambition to protect the world’s oceans and marine ecosystems. We support the principle of effective global co-operation in this area and we want this legislation to succeed. However, it is precisely because of the Bill’s significance, its reach across the devolved Administrations and its potential financial and regulatory consequences that it demands the highest standards of scrutiny and clarity. It is in that constructive spirit that I wish to raise a number of questions for the Minister today. I hope that, in that same constructive spirit, she seeks to answer them fully.
We know that the Government tabled quite a number of amendments to the Bill on Report in the House of Lords. Those amendments are before us today. It is rather disappointing that the Government needed to do this at such a late stage in the Bill’s passage. As my noble Friend Lord Callanan said in the other place, tabling amendments at such a late stage was not conducive to the best Lords scrutiny. Does the Minister accept that the work with the devolved Administrations that led to the tabling of these amendments should have taken place earlier? Are lessons going to be learned for future legislation?
On the new clauses on consultation with Scotland and Northern Ireland to be inserted after clauses 9 and 12, can the Minister confirm that this definitely does not stray into legislative consent territory? Can she also set out what would happen if Scottish or Northern Irish Ministers did not approve of measures during the consultation process? Regarding the new clause to be inserted after clause 12 relating to the new regulation-making power, what would happen if, say, the Scottish Government decided to take a divergent path or set up a system that put themselves at odds with the UK Government’s position? Is there a risk to the operability of the system there?
The Government’s own impact assessment found that this Bill would generate compliance costs for those involved in the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources and related digital sequence information. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those costs are not prohibitive to the very research we are hoping to promote through the Bill? While there are still many unanswered questions about enforcement, it is hard to see how the compliance, licensing and enforcement will be cheap. What level of resource is going to be put into enforcing the regime? A Ways and Means resolution is required for this Bill precisely because it will lead to costs to the public purse, so what assessment have the Government made of the value for money in this respect, and what is the cost-benefit ratio?
The final-stage impact assessment also refers to potential future costs if emergency legislation is needed to respond to any further decisions made by the convention on biological diversity. Can the Minister clarify the parameters? What are the Government anticipating, how much money do they assess might be involved, and are they planning to ensure that the risk of unintended consequences is mitigated?
It would be impossible not to mention the tension between the Government’s ambitions with regard to this Bill and their surrender of the Chagos islands, which may well see the dismantling of an exemplar marine protected area. Can the Minister tell us exactly what undertaking Mauritius has given to the MPA? Will she identify any red lines that the Government have clearly set out, and will she tell us precisely what continuing role Britain will play in MPA management in respect of the terms of the treaty? For example, have the Government had any discussions about preventing damaging Chinese trawler boats from accessing the MPA?
We all share the objective of protecting our oceans and safeguarding biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction —indeed, that is why it was a Conservative Government who first signed up to the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement—but good intentions on their own are not enough. The House is entitled to clear answers on scrutiny, devolution, operability, cost, enforcement and value for money, as well as honesty about how the Bill sits alongside the Government’s wider actions on marine protection in the British overseas territories. Until Ministers can provide that clarity and reassurance, there remains a real risk that a Bill designed to lead internationally will instead create uncertainty at home. I urge the Minister to respond fully to the questions raised today, so that the House can be confident that this legislation is workable, proportionate and worthy of the ambitions that the Government have for it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Bill, whose introduction last year involved a happy coincidence in fulfilling one of the Government’s commitments and satisfying one of the Committee’s recommendations at the same time. This landmark legislation will lay the groundwork for protecting the marine environment and the wildlife that inhabits it, which lie beyond the control of individual nations. As the Government’s “Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss”, published last week, set out in stark terms, natural ecosystems such as the ocean and the Amazon rainforest are at risk of collapsing, and the resulting crop failures, intensified natural disasters, and conflict and political instability are highly likely to threaten UK national security and prosperity. It is vital for the UK to take leadership on the international stage to tackle global biodiversity loss and climate change.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to multilateral co-operation on ocean governance and I look forward to the Bill receiving Royal Assent, which will enable the UK to ratify the BBNJ agreement. It is true to say that the initial indication of Government support for the agreement came from the last Government, although it was disappointing that over the 18 months or so that followed that commitment we never got the legislation back here. I am therefore pleased that the present Government have proceeded with this important measure.
The UK also makes an important contribution to global efforts to halt environmental decline through its international funding for climate finance, a third of which is earmarked for nature-based solutions to climate change. To date, however, there has been limited indication of the Government’s next steps regarding the five-year international climate finance budget that is due to commence in April. They have also failed so far to invest in the tropical forests forever facility and to leverage further private finance into that innovative fund, thus protecting forests in perpetuity.
Although the Minister has rightly championed our contribution to this impressive act of international co-operation, does she agree that we have more to do to ensure that we retain the UK’s hard- earned reputation as a global leader in the field of international climate action? Can she confirm that the UK will continue to contribute to protecting and restoring global ecosystems by maintaining its international funding for climate, including funds for nature projects, in the next funding round?
I welcome this important Bill. This Government have acted where previous Governments merely talked about such action, and I look forward to them continuing in the same positive direction in respect of the other matters to which I have referred.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats strongly welcome the Bill, and it is wonderful to hear support for it on both sides of the House.
The global ocean treaty is one of the most significant environmental agreements of our time. It is currently the world’s only viable pathway towards meeting the global 30 by 30 target of protecting at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. The scale of the challenge is monumental. Right now, less than 1% of the high seas is fully protected—less than one penny in the pound of the global ocean. That is the gap that the treaty begins to close.
The ocean underpins everything. It feeds billions of people, absorbs about a quarter of global carbon emissions, regulates our weather and supports livelihoods across the world. However, it is under extraordinary and growing pressure from overfishing, plastic pollution and climate change. I have seen those pressures at first hand. Rowing solo across three oceans, I saw both the beauty of the high seas and the damage that we are doing to them. Out there, beyond national borders, the ocean can also feel beyond human laws. The treaty is about bringing rules, responsibility and stewardship to those waters. It also discharges one of the commitments made to me by the Government during discussions about my private Member’s Bill, the Climate and Nature Bill, and for that I thank them.
While we Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, we regret the delay. The UK helped to negotiate this agreement, and it would have been fitting had we been among the first to ratify it rather than trailing behind. I thank the campaigners who have kept up the pressure, and the colleagues throughout my party who have long championed ocean protection. They include my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who has consistently made the case for stronger high seas governance, as has my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings).
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Like my hon. Friend, I have spent a fair amount of time on the ocean —not rowing but sailing. When sailing across oceans in a small boat, one cannot help but see the seas of plastic, whether left by fishermen or simply thrown overboard, that are carried on currents. Does my hon. Friend think the treaty goes far enough to tackle the scourge of plastic pollution in our oceans?
Dr Savage
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. The treaty does not yet go far enough on plastic pollution, and I hope that the countries of the world will bring their best endeavours to achieving an international agreement in that regard. So far, sadly, those negotiations have not succeeded.
I also want to recognise the serious, constructive work of our Liberal Democrat peers. They chose not to delay ratification, but they worked hard to strengthen the Bill. Lord Teverson pressed Ministers on enforcement gaps, flags of convenience, illegal fishing and human rights at sea, reminding us that the high seas cannot be a legal vacuum for either nature or people, and Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer pushed strongly on plastic pollution, especially the plastic pellets that now turn up throughout the marine food chain. Those issues have not gone away, and they now form the implementation agenda.
As Lord Teverson observed during the debates in the other place, this may be one of the last major environmental agreements that we see from the United Nations for some time, given this era in which respect for international law appears to be under strain in a way that we have not seen for many decades. That makes the treaty not just important but precious. We are under a moral and existential obligation to make it work. This ratification must be the start, not the finish. If the UK wants to lead, the Government should aim to arrive at the first Conference of the Parties with a clear plan for implementation, and I suggest that the plan should include the publication of a proper implementation road map including timelines, responsibilities and funding, so that delivery does not drift.
We should back our world-leading scientific institutions, such as the National Oceanography Centre, the British Antarctic Survey and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science. They should be fully supported to provide the evidence, training and technology transfers on which this treaty depends. We should strengthen enforcement using our satellite-monitoring capability and our experience in monitoring vast protected areas in the overseas territories. As a priority, we should get our own maritime house in order. We cannot in good conscience call for protection overseas while allowing destructive practices like bottom-trawling in our own MPAs. Credibility must start at home.
At a time when multilateral co-operation often feels fragile, this treaty shows what is still possible when countries work together to protect the global commons. The Liberal Democrats will support this Bill, but future generations will not judge us on whether we ratified the treaty; they will judge us on whether the oceans are healthier because we did something. Let us match warm words with hard action, and show that Britain still leads when it matters, not just by signing agreements but by protecting the blue parts of our planet, which give us food to eat and oxygen to breathe. To quote Sir David Attenborough, who turns 100 this coming May:
“If we save the sea, we save our world.”
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the ocean, I am delighted to see the Bill’s swift passage through Parliament, and I look forward to its full ratification, but I have some specific questions for the Minister. Can she outline the timeline for the next steps to ensure ratification? Specifically, will it happen ahead of the first ocean COP, expected later this year? If the Minister is unable to give that detail today, would she be willing to meet the APPG for the ocean to discuss the timeline, particularly given that we are now five years away from our 30 by 30 commitment?
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, tabled an amendment in the other place that would have ensured that the “polluter pays” and precautionary principles, alongside other principles in the Environment Act 2021, must be applied by UK authorities when they exercised powers or duties under this Bill relating to the high seas. As that amendment was not passed, there are concerns across the ocean sector that there is no statutory requirement in the Bill to extend those environmental principles beyond the UK’s territorial or domestic jurisdiction. Can the Minister comment on that? Will she also offer assurances that, when representatives of the Government or public authorities act under the Bill in relation to the high seas, they will apply the UK’s existing environmental principles so that we do have that coverage?
Seema Malhotra
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will make a couple of comments about the timing of amendments in the other place. There have been ongoing discussions with the devolved Governments. It is important to recognise this Government’s respect for the devolution settlements and our adherence to the principles underpinning the Sewel convention; we aim for them to be our core considerations and to inform how we work. We have been working closely with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to get agreement on moving forward with this legislation together, and that was part of the reason for the delays.
Seema Malhotra
I will make some progress.
I acknowledge the importance of moving ahead quickly with the Bill to ensure that we have a seat at the table for discussions with other parties to the agreement, including on MPAs. We wanted to ensure that the Bill’s provisions in devolved areas were watertight, which is why we had constructive conversations with the devolved Governments.
Part 2 obligations do not apply to fishing. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) has left his place, but he can be reassured that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have concurrent powers to implement provisions in areas of devolved competence. Under part 3 of the Bill, the UK will be involved in MPA decisions and will carefully consider the impacts on fishing.
In relation to the comments raised regarding multilateral co-operation, I want to mention some ways in which we continue to work with other states to support ratification. We continue to be proactive in preparing for implementation of the BBNJ agreement, and we are committed to partnering with others, including the global south, to ratify and implement it. Indeed, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has worked with the Commonwealth Secretariat to support smaller member countries with their implementation work. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also published research that developed a shortlist of potential area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, that could be proposed once the agreement is in force.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) asked about the process of the Bill. Following the passage of the Bill, we will be laying two statutory instruments, one of which will define digital sequence information for the purposes of the BBNJ legislation. The other, along with an associated Scottish Government SI, will amend the marine licensing regime, where needed, to implement part 4 of the BBNJ agreement on environmental impact assessments. Those will be progressed as soon as the BBNJ Bill has received Royal Assent. Once the SIs have been passed, we will be able to ratify the agreement by laying the instrument of ratification formally at the United Nations in New York. We are keen to see that happen as quickly as possible, as I know my hon. Friend is.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), asked about legislative consent motions. While foreign affairs and treaty making are reserved matters, implementing international obligations in domestic law is not reserved where those obligations concern devolved areas. Several provisions in the Bill, particularly in parts 2, 3 and 4, relate to matters such as environmental protection and scientific research, which fall within devolved competencies for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Consequently, the legislative consent motion process is engaged to varying degrees. The assessment of whether legislative consent motions are required for this Bill has been agreed across the relevant UK Government Departments, including the Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales Offices, and in consultation with the devolved Governments.
The shadow Minister also asked whether there is a risk that requirements in Scotland for an environmental impact assessment for marine activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction might be different from those in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is the case that Scotland could choose to implement the requirements slightly differently. We will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that differences are kept to a minimum and that the United Kingdom as a whole takes a consistent approach. That is very much in the spirit in which we have been working, collaboratively, to respect devolution settlements while recognising the importance of this agreement to both the Scottish and UK Governments. That has been an important part of how we have progressed.
Mr Snowden
I thank the Minister for answering my question on the potential for the Scottish Government to take a different approach to implementing the Bill. If ongoing conversations are under way, will the Minister tell us whether an indication has been given by the Scottish Government that they want to implement the Bill in a different way?
Seema Malhotra
We are at the start of the process. The spirit in which we have been working, and the way in which we have reached agreement on how to work alongside the Scottish Government, are important to how we will continue to work going forward. In the light of those conversations, I believe that a collaborative approach will continue, because it is in all our interests.
Let me make some further comments in response to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. I know that it is important to Members on both sides of the House that there is a separate process under way to agree a global plastic pollution treaty. Plastic pollution is a transboundary issue with its source on land, and it is appropriate for it to be addressed by a bespoke treaty for the full life cycle of plastics, including the phasing out of problematic products, improving waste management and reducing leakage. The BBNJ agreement focuses on conservation and sustainable use of resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and is therefore not best suited to addressing plastic pollution across the life cycle. However, the hon. Lady makes an important point, and it is a matter of concern across the House.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Government’s showing commitment to global leadership on protecting the oceans by bringing this Bill through Parliament so quickly. Last week I joined Greenpeace on board its vessel Witness, which was docked nearby in London, and I heard about the devastation that bottom trawling can wreak on marine ecosystems. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to regulate, or preferably ban, this destructive fishing practice in our marine protected zones and elsewhere? It is a particular area of concern for my residents in Exeter.
Seema Malhotra
That is indeed a matter of concern, and it has been raised in debates by Members from across the House. Although my hon. Friend will know that bottom trawling is not within the scope of the agreement, he will also be aware that we are consulting on restricting bottom trawling in more vulnerable marine habitats. It is important that the consultation and that work continue.
This is a landmark piece of legislation. It ensures that the UK can ratify the important BBNJ agreement and take full part in the conference of the parties. It contains measures that will not only safeguard marine ecosystems, but deliver real benefits for the UK’s research and innovation community. In January, I was pleased to visit the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, to which the hon. Member for South Cotswolds referred. It is a world-leading institution, and it highlighted the value of this agreement in improving the visibility and transparency of UK-led marine research, as well as in strengthening international research collaborations. I want to put on record my thanks to the centre for its work and leadership.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the health of our oceans is inseparable from the health of our planet. Although we may not often see these ecosystems with our own eyes, the responsibility to protect them falls on all of us and on the wider international community. The BBN J Bill is the UK’s opportunity to rise to that responsibility, to safeguard fragile ecosystems, to support sustainable development, and to ensure that the benefits of ocean science are shared fairly and responsibly. The United Kingdom has always played a leading role in advancing global ocean governance. With this Bill, we have the chance to continue that leadership. The ocean cannot wait, and nor should we.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 12 agreed to.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the motions in the name of Secretary Heidi Alexander relating to (i) High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill: Carry-over and (ii) High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill: Select Committee shall be brought to a conclusion no later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; the Speaker shall then put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on those motions; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on those motions may be entered upon and may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill if proceedings on the Bill have not been completed before the end of this Session or any subsequent Session of this Parliament (each a “qualifying Session”).
Suspension at end of qualifying Session
1. Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which the qualifying Session in question ends until the Session that follows it (“the new Session”).
2. If a Bill is presented in the new Session in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the qualifying Session in question—
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the new Session;
(c) any resolution relating to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 that is passed by the House in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in the new Session;
(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—
(i) paragraph 3, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;
(ii) paragraph 4, if the Bill has been reported from the Select Committee but proceedings on the Bill in Public Bill Committee were not begun when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;
(iii) paragraph 5, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended (and see also paragraph 9);
(iv) paragraph 6, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended;
(v) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended;
(vi) paragraph 8, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.
3. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the qualifying Session;
(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the new Session;
(c) all petitions submitted in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the qualifying Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in the new Session in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;
(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;
(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the new Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in the new Session shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;
(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;
(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;
(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;
(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;
(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.
4. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.
5. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee in respect of those clauses and Schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in the qualifying Session.
6. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.
7. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.
8. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.
Other
9. If proceedings in Public Bill Committee are begun but not completed before the end of a qualifying Session, the chair of the Committee shall report the Bill to the House as so far amended and the Bill and any evidence received by the Committee shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
10. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 above, each of the following is a relevant earlier Session—
(a) Session 2021-22;
(b) Session 2022-23;
(c) Session 2023-24;
(d) except where the qualifying Session is this Session, each Session of this Parliament before the qualifying Session;
(e) where the new Session is the first Session of the next Parliament, each qualifying Session
11. In paragraph 1 above, the reference to further proceedings does not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).
12. In paragraph 3 above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion on the Select Committee:
That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stands committed by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over):
1. The Committee is to have five members.
2. The members of the Committee are—
(a) those who are members of the Committee by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over), and
(b) two other members who are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
3. Any alteration to the membership of the Committee shall be on the nomination of the Committee of Selection.
4. In carrying out its functions under paragraphs 2(b) and 3, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the principle that—
(a) three members of the Select Committee are to be Members from the party represented in His Majesty’s Government, and
(b) two are to be Members from opposition parties.
Heidi Alexander
The motions we have before us today are vital for the delivery of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill. It is important that I am clear at the outset about what these motions do and what they do not do. This is categorically not about reinstating HS2 north of the west midlands, and neither are these motions about addressing the longer-term capacity constraints of the west coast main line between Manchester and Birmingham. Instead, the motions are simply focused on ensuring that the Government follow the speediest and most logical consenting route to progressing plans for a new rail line between Liverpool and Manchester—a line that will also call at Warrington and Manchester airport. This new line, which will connect two great cities in the north of England, is part of the second phase of Northern Powerhouse Rail, which this Government committed to last month.
Before turning to why it is important to maintain the Bill’s momentum via today’s motions, it may be helpful if I set out a brief history of the Bill’s passage. Hon. Members will recall that in His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech, this Government announced our commitment to carrying over this Bill from the previous Parliament. The Government recognise the importance of rail infrastructure in driving economic growth, enhancing productivity and unlocking opportunity in all parts of the country. The Bill itself is the mechanism by which planning consent for the eastern part of the new route between Liverpool and Manchester can be granted. Given our ambitions for the north of England, it is important that we crack on and get it done.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The classification of Northern Powerhouse Rail as an England-Wales project is short-changing Wales of up to £1.5 billion. Plaid Cymru is clear that we need an immediate devolution of rail to end this funding scandal, and even the Labour First Minister of Wales has claimed that she wants rail to be devolved. Will the Secretary of State tell me how many official requests the Welsh Government have made for the devolution of rail in Wales?
Heidi Alexander
I constantly speak to my counterpart in the Welsh Government, Ken Skates, and we have a very good collaborative working relationship. I simply remind the hon. Lady that this Government committed £445 million to Welsh rail in last year’s spending review. That is a very significant investment, which is going to result in improved stations and in more reliable and more frequent services for the people of Wales. It addresses the historical lack of investment seen in Wales.
I was explaining why it is so important that we agree to these motions and maintain momentum in gaining planning consent for a new rail route between Liverpool and Manchester. We need to reconstitute the hybrid Bill Select Committee, with its membership determined in the usual way, and we need to provide for the carry-over of the Bill between Sessions.
This Bill was first introduced in Parliament in January 2022. Since then, its purpose has been refined. It was initially intended to provide powers for both HS2 from Crewe to Manchester and for the section of the NPR route that would deliver east-west connectivity. The previous Government’s Network North announcement in October 2023 cancelled high-speed rail north of the west midlands, so the HS2 element of the Bill was no longer required. With the support of local leaders, in May 2024—just before the last general election—this House passed an instruction that the Bill should be adapted to focus on delivering the section of Northern Powerhouse Rail into Manchester. That is the Bill now before us.
All elements of the Bill that pertain to sections of the route south of Millington will be removed. It is the Government’s intention to table an amendment to remove these powers formally during the Select Committee’s proceedings. The Bill will, however, have the necessary powers to deliver the section of Northern Powerhouse Rail into Manchester via Manchester airport, including new stations at Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester airport itself. We are now seeking to progress the Bill to make the best use of the significant progress it has already made.
This Government are investing up to £45 billion to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, transforming inter-city rail in the north and driving economic growth. Northern Powerhouse Rail will ensure that the people of the north no longer have to tolerate second-rate rail infrastructure. We are delivering a turn-up-and-go railway on which missing one train no longer means waiting an hour for the next. That means more frequent and reliable commuter services will be the norm. This will help more people access good jobs, lead to more housing and offer greater opportunities for businesses to expand.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I welcome the Government setting out the plan, the Bill’s purpose and the economic boost it will bring, which nobody here is going to say is wrong, but I am concerned about the acquisition of land. Both the National Farmers Union and farmers and landowners through the Country Land and Business Association have concerns about the acquisition of land to enable this project to go ahead. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association, which represent a great many people and whose members’ land may have to be used for this purpose, are consulted and given the right money for the land they are giving up for this railway, and that everything is in order for them?
Heidi Alexander
I will ensure that the organisations the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are appropriately consulted throughout this process. We as a Government are determined to work in partnership with all stakeholders —landowners, businesses and individuals—who are affected. The hybrid Bill Select Committee is of course a quasi-judicial process, but on behalf of my Department I undertake to make sure that all appropriate conversations are happening.
Alongside this Bill, we are undertaking development work for the connection to Liverpool via Warrington Bank Quay. We will work in partnership with local stakeholders throughout the development process, and the detailed route from Millington to Liverpool will be subject to future consultation. We will determine the consenting route for this part of the line in due course. We will ensure that work on both the eastern and western section of the new Liverpool to Manchester line is fully integrated, and that we do everything we can to ensure that the new line is open for use as soon as possible once phase 1 of Northern Powerhouse Rail in Yorkshire is completed.
Before I close, I would like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for their valuable work to date on the hybrid Bill Select Committee in the previous Parliament.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I echo the Secretary of State’s thanks for what must have seemed a very thankless task in the Select Committee.
This is a slightly odd legislative vehicle, but the motion is a practical mechanism used by the last Government to allow for continued progress on railway improvements to create Northern Powerhouse Rail, and it was moved across three Sessions of Parliament. The Conservative Government of the day decided to carry over this Bill to use it as a wrapper to support Northern Powerhouse Rail. The project was championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) during his Administration, so it is no surprise to me that the Government have followed his lead in their proposal to carry it over again.
Back in May 2024, Parliament reduced the scope of a much wider Bill to focus solely on NPR, so the issue now before this House is in fact a very narrow one: whether there is a collective will to progress development of a roughly 15-mile stretch of track as part of this Government’s plans to progress Northern Powerhouse Rail.
The House is also being asked to agree to the establishment of a new Select Committee. That obviously matters because the Bill is a hybrid Bill, and it is through the Select Committee process that outstanding petitions from those directly affected will be considered. It is also the structure through which any additional provisions brought forward by the Government to reshape the Bill will be scrutinised, and those newly affected, if there are any, by any proposal will be given the opportunity to be heard. If this Bill is to be properly repurposed, it clearly makes sense that the work of the associated Select Committee carries on.
The Opposition accept the rationale for allowing the current process to survive the end of this parliamentary Session to give the Government further time to continue their work. However, while we agree that they should continue with the Bill, it is with increasing concern that I look at the lack of progress they are actually making. We are a year and a half into the Labour Administration, and all we got a couple of weeks ago was a fanfare announcement that Labour would commission consultants’ reports on how Northern Powerhouse Rail could be built. There are not just a few reports, but £275 million of reports every year of this Parliament—£1.1 billion of them—but no sign of any significant building works.
Real progress has been kicked down the road, perhaps because the Secretary of State knows that she does not have the money to do what she has promised. His Majesty’s Treasury has capped Northern Powerhouse Rail at £45 billion, yet that was the claimed cost back in 2019. That was before covid, since when, as we all know, costs have soared. She knows that she does not have the money, so she distracts her Back Benchers with castle-in-the-air planning, with the taxpayer picking up the bill. I asked the Secretary of State a fortnight ago for clarity, transparency and even an indication of how the funds were to be reconciled, and she huffed and she puffed, and said she would not be lectured, but she did not answer the question. We are none the wiser as to how the Government expect to fill the gap. What cuts will she be forced to make, and are they to the high-speed section? Perhaps she could tell the House today.
It would have been better for the public to have had such clarity nearly three weeks ago than the spectacle of the Secretary of State signing bits of paper on her rail tour of northern cities. We want to see these schemes come in on budget and in a timely manner, and addressing local concerns so that communities are not just spoken to, but listened to. To get the best possible result for taxpayers, the Government need to avoid overly onerous environmental mitigations that impose huge costs for minimal benefit. They talk of deregulation to speed up the process, but where is the action to deregulate?
We need to see the Government choosing supply chains based on cost and performance, with value for money for the taxpayer right at the heart of their decision-making process, bringing costs down while speeding up construction. However, the Government are not doing this hard work, and we need a Government with sufficient backbone to be honest about what they can afford to achieve. There is no sign of that. It is on actual delivery that this Government will be judged—not just by me and by the Opposition, but by the public, who, right now, are being let down.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in what I believe is a really important debate. I am delighted to support the Government’s motions, as we continue to invest in and transform our rail network after decades of hollow promises and mismanagement under the Conservatives.
The Bill will allow the Government the powers necessary to deliver on Northern Powerhouse Rail, therefore supporting our economy, creating better jobs, delivering new and much-needed opportunities right across the north-west of England. As a frequent user of rail services in the north of England, it is important to me and my constituents that the Government continue to focus on building capacity, reliability and resilience on one of the busiest rail corridors in the country. The importance of our rail network and infrastructure cannot be overstated. Indeed, its success will have a direct impact on economic growth and productivity.
I take the point about the need for or desirability of cross-party consensus, particularly when looking at such large infrastructure projects. On 14 January, the Government announced that Northern Powerhouse Rail represented the biggest investment in rail connectivity in the north for a generation—some £45 billion. More generally, I am pleased that the Government are looking at the three-phase approach. Its sequencing will ensure that our communities benefit as soon as possible. I note that in phase 1—beyond the scope of the Committee—in my own region in the north-east, work on the business case for the Leamside line is to be taken forward. This is a vital project for connectivity, creating new transport links and promoting wider access to the wider regional and national rail network. I also welcome the proposed upgrades to the lines east of the Pennines, focusing on electrification, an issue that was of great interest and importance during my time as a member of the Transport Committee.
I am pleased by the Government’s overall scale of ambition and real focus on regional rail services. The Bill represents an opportunity for new rail investment and infrastructure, delivering new stations and routes as well as major regeneration projects, leveraging private sector investment and creating better links across the north-west—not only north-south, but east-west.
After many years of raised hopes, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assure the House that the Bill is the most effective means of delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail without any unnecessary delay? This is just a thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have been here a little while now and I have served on a number of Joint Committees, mostly pre-legislative Committees, with Members of the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised valid concerns about representations from the National Farmers Union and others in respect of the route. However, my experience, having served for a number of years on the previous Bill Committee, is that a hybrid Bill Committee, which this Parliament has adopted not just for HS2 but previously, is a very, very onerous and time-consuming method. It makes vast fortunes for the bureaucracy, the lawyers and the lobbyists. Then the whole process has to be repeated in the House of Lords. I just wonder—it is beyond my pay grade, Madam Deputy Speaker—whether someone further up the tree might give that some thought.
A couple of years ago, Members of the Transport Committee had the opportunity to go to Japan for five days. We saw the Shinkansen, the high-speed bullet train. The Bill for that was passed in the Japanese Parliament, the National Diet, in 1959, and was constructed by 1964, in time for the Tokyo Olympics. We cannot say that Japan is not a democracy, or that the country does not have problems of topography, earthquakes and so on, because it is and it does. There is a method that does not take 10 or 15 years.
We are approaching a period of transformational change in public transport, on the railways in particular. Increased capacity and an improved role for freight in taking heavy goods vehicles off our road network is really important. I fully support today’s motions to carry the Bill beyond the end of this parliamentary Session and to establish the Bill’s Select Committee, so we can get Northern Powerhouse Rail charging full steam ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for clarity on what the this is and what it is not. It is welcome that it is about Northern Powerhouse Rail and its Manchester to Liverpool core—a scheme that the Liberal Democrats continue to support. We hope this time that the dreams for Northern Powerhouse Rail will become a reality, given the very slow journey they have been on since 2014, when first proposed.
I understand what the Secretary of State said about this not being about Birmingham to Manchester, but I hope she agrees that we will eventually need to find an effective solution for transport between the west midlands and the north-west, given the very congested rail network and the M6 being something covered by Chris Rea in one of his songs. I appreciate that that is a debate for another time, but perhaps I can tempt the Secretary of State to reveal when the Government intend to bring forward proposals for Birmingham to Manchester improvements.
I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and thank him for his work. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has a concern that the Bill advocates a similar legislative approach as the rest of HS2 to consent, planning the route, mitigations and so on. I wonder what lessons have been or will be learnt to ensure that the existential despair that is HS2 will not be repeated when attempting to use this procedure to advance Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I rise to object to the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill carry-over and Select Committee motions.
Why is there any need to carry over the Bill? To paraphrase Monty Python, this project is no more: it has ceased to be, it has expired and gone to meet its maker. It is a stiff, bereft of life, so why won’t everyone accept this project is dead, finito, finished? By continuing with this charade, the Government are giving false hope to those who want it to happen, just like they did with the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women, and are causing needless anxiety to those in my constituency who do not want it to happen. Rather than faffing about with carry-over motions—acting more “Carry On”, than carry over—why do the Government not just announce this project is dead and buried, and put it out of its misery once and for all?
The Government need to dispose of the properties they have bought and are holding on to, and take them out of safeguarding. It seems the Government are only proceeding with this carry-over motion to try to appease the windbag of the north, Andy Burnham. If they think this futile gesture will ensure he plays nicely and supports the Prime Minister, they are sadly deluded. This is another example of the Government making the wrong decision for the wrong reasons. They should have learned by now that such a tactic will always backfire.
My constituents were extremely grateful to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) for cancelling this white elephant project. This Government would do well to follow his lead.
Heidi Alexander
This has been a good debate and I am very grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. As I said in my introductory remarks, I believe that these motions represent an important step forward in delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said, these plans will deliver faster, more frequent rail connections between fast-growing city regions in the north, which will enable more jobs, new homes and a greater number of opportunities for businesses to invest and expand.
I would like to pick up on some of the remarks that have been made tonight. I welcome the recognition by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), that this is a practical mechanism for taking forward work on Northern Powerhouse Rail in the north-west of England. I have to say, however, that I fundamentally disagree with his characterisation of this Government’s commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail. I would say gently to him that it is a bit rich for someone from a party that first talked about Northern Powerhouse Rail in 2014 to criticise this Government for investing more than £1 billion in this spending review, which is significantly more than the hon. Gentleman’s Government ever did in the years since 2014. It was his party that was guilty of dither and delay when it came to improving rail infrastructure in the north of England.
The shadow Minister claims that the Government are going to be spending significant money on consultants, but the money we allocated in the spending review is to acquire land and do preparatory works on the Yorkshire schemes—those three corridors improving links into Leeds from Bradford, York and Sheffield—as well as to plan properly. To pick up the point made by the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), we will not be making the same mistakes as the previous Government—we will not be letting contracts when we have not defined the scope of works. If the shadow Minister wants to understand why billions of pounds-worth of taxpayers’ money has been wasted on HS2, he needs to ask some of his colleagues some serious questions as to why his Government gave the go-ahead to HS2 when they did not know what they were asking the contractors to build.
Jerome Mayhew
I am the first to accept that there are serious lessons to be learned from the delivery of HS2. However, the Secretary of State has so far failed to mention how she proposes to deliver all that she has promised within a financial cap of £45 billion, given that the estimate for the works back in 2019 was, I think, £46 billion—from memory. What is she not going to do in order to stay within the Treasury’s £45 billion cap?
Heidi Alexander
As I thought I made clear when I gave my statement on Northern Powerhouse Rail to the House a couple of weeks ago—the shadow Minister made some sarcastic comments about my visit to each of the directly elected mayors along the northern growth corridor—we have agreed that those mayors and areas will be making local contributions to this scheme. We are ambitious with our plans for a “turn up and go” railway in the north of England, and we are going to get on with it—unlike his Government, who never did.
The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) gave us some colourful descriptions of what she thinks this rail scheme is all about, but she could not be more wrong. As I said, we have worked closely with leaders in the north of England and have a sequenced, credible, phased investment plan for how we will improve those rail services so that people are not stood on platforms when they miss a train, worrying that the next one is going to take an hour to arrive.
Esther McVey
According to the Secretary of State’s announcement, the money being put forward was, I think, £1.1 billion out of a £45 billion cost, which was to be delivered in decades to come, when the Secretary of State and her Government will no longer be around—hence, it is a charade to keep the mayors of the north happy at the local elections.
Heidi Alexander
We have been clear that we expect work to start on the Yorkshire package of improvements in this Parliament. We have also said that we expect work to start on the link between Manchester and Liverpool in the 2030s. The right hon. Lady will recall that Crossrail in London was granted consent back in 2007 and the line was opened in 2022—I make that 15 years. Railways are not built overnight.
To conclude, the Bill will provide the necessary powers to deliver the section of Northern Powerhouse Rail into Manchester. Progressing the Bill today is the most efficient approach as it makes use of the work that has already taken place. Today’s motions will allow the Bill to continue its passage through Parliament and will allow the invaluable work of the hybrid Bill Select Committee to recommence. This is a vital step in the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Question put.
A Division was called.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Division off.
Question agreed to.
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill if proceedings on the Bill have not been completed before the end of this Session or any subsequent Session of this Parliament (each a “qualifying Session”).
Suspension at end of qualifying Session
1. Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which the qualifying Session in question ends until the Session that follows it (“the new Session”).
2. If a Bill is presented in the new Session in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the qualifying Session in question—
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the new Session;
(c) any resolution relating to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 that is passed by the House in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be deemed to have been passed by the House in the new Session;
(d) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—
(i) paragraph 3, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;
(ii) paragraph 4, if the Bill has been reported from the Select Committee but proceedings on the Bill in Public Bill Committee were not begun when proceedings on the Bill were suspended;
(iii) paragraph 5, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended (and see also paragraph 9);
(iv) paragraph 6, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended;
(v) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended;
(vi) paragraph 8, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.
3. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the qualifying Session;
(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the new Session;
(c) all petitions submitted in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the qualifying Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in the new Session in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;
(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the qualifying Session or a relevant earlier Session shall stand referred to the Committee in the new Session;
(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the new Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in the new Session shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;
(g) the Committee shall require any hearing in relation to a petition mentioned in sub-paragraph (f) above to take place in person, unless exceptional circumstances apply;
(h) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;
(i) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;
(j) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;
(k) three shall be the quorum of the Committee.
4. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.
5. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee in respect of those clauses and Schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in the qualifying Session.
6. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.
7. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.
8. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.
Other
9. If proceedings in Public Bill Committee are begun but not completed before the end of a qualifying Session, the chair of the Committee shall report the Bill to the House as so far amended and the Bill and any evidence received by the Committee shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
10. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 above, each of the following is a relevant earlier Session—
(a) Session 2021-22;
(b) Session 2022-23;
(c) Session 2023-24;
(d) except where the qualifying Session is this Session, each Session of this Parliament before the qualifying Session;
(e) where the new Session is the first Session of the next Parliament, each qualifying Session
11. In paragraph 1 above, the reference to further proceedings does not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).
12. In paragraph 3 above, references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill: Select Committee
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill stands committed by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over):
1. The Committee is to have five members.
2. The members of the Committee are—
(a) those who are members of the Committee by virtue of paragraph (10)(a) of the Order of 20 June 2022 (carry-over), and
(b) two other members who are to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
3. Any alteration to the membership of the Committee shall be on the nomination of the Committee of Selection.
4. In carrying out its functions under paragraphs 2(b) and 3, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the principle that—
(a) three members of the Select Committee are to be Members from the party represented in His Majesty’s Government, and
(b) two are to be Members from opposition parties.—(Heidi Alexander.)
Business without Debate
Tolled Crossings and Regional Connectivity
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to have secured a debate on this issue, which I have campaigned on consistently since becoming the Member of Parliament for South East Cornwall, and which has existed for many years before my time in this House. It is an issue that I hear about daily because of its impact on almost every aspect of local life. I want to thank local residents, community groups—including the Tamar Toll action group and Safe38—previous MPs, local councillors and Tamar Crossings for their efforts to improve our local transport connectivity.
South East Cornwall is a place that bridges the old and the new. Our communities continue to bring life to historic fishing villages and welcome thousands of tourists annually, while also looking to the future, with advanced defence capabilities, artificial intelligence and digital industries, and world-leading regenerative agriculture. To fully play our part in the next decade of national renewal, we must bridge the gap, both physically and metaphorically, between Cornwall and the rest of the country. That includes the seamless integration of my communities with the new Plymouth defence deal in order to unlock opportunity in one of the poorest areas in western Europe and ensure that South East Cornwall is fully connected to the growth, security and prosperity that the deal will bring.
At its heart, this issue is about how we connect to places and services, how communities function, and how nationally significant infrastructure is sustained. It raises a fundamental question about whether our current connectivity policies reflect the lived reality in rural and coastal areas like mine and whether historical funding models still work in a modern economy.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that a real devolution deal, similar to those enjoyed by our Celtic cousins, must include a roads budget that is equivalent to the Cornish proportion of the strategic road network? Equating to around £95 million a year, it could easily make the Tamar toll free, at around £15 million a year, and leave further funds for urgent upgrades such as the A38 in her constituency, a Camelford relief road and—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Interventions must be brief, but as it is so long before 10 pm, Members could make a speech if they so wish.
Anna Gelderd
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will come to that point later in my speech.
There is a clear and well-established link between transport and inequality. Research undertaken in 2019 for the Department for Transport shows that transport shapes life chances through three factors: where people live and their socioeconomic position; where opportunities such as jobs and education are located; and how accessible the transport system is in terms of cost, reliability, geography and journey time. The research also shows that transport does not affect everyone equally; experience changes due to income, location and personal circumstance. In rural and coastal areas such as South East Cornwall, transport that is affordable and reliable could expand our opportunities.
Cost is consistently identified as one of the most significant barriers to opportunity. Policies that reduce transport costs help people to access and sustain employment, particularly those on lower incomes. However, that same Department for Transport research makes clear that transport policy works best when embedded in a place-based approach that is linked to the skills, housing, employment and economic opportunities on offer locally.
South East Cornwall is shaped by rivers and coastline that define our landscape and our communities. Our connectivity depends on a number of strategic crossings that function as everyday routes to employment, education, healthcare and social connection. Those are not optional journeys; they are essential links within a tightly connected economic and social region.
What makes South East Cornwall unusual is the concentration of tolled crossings that residents rely on daily. The Tamar bridge, Torpoint ferry, Cremyll ferry, Polruan ferry and Bodinnick ferry are part of daily life. For many local residents and businesses, one or more of those crossings are used routinely, sometimes multiple times a day. The total cost is significant, and that is simply to participate in ordinary life. This has shaped my constituency for decades. It affects where people can work, which services they can realistically access and how businesses operate. Despite the scale and impact of the crossings, we still have not found a workable long-term solution.
Travel from towns and villages in South East Cornwall to Plymouth—our nearest city—often takes far longer than distance alone suggests. Short journeys on a map can become long, expensive and uncertain in practice. The Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry are the only viable crossings linking South East Cornwall with Plymouth and up-country. Around 16 million vehicle crossings take place each year, with thousands of residents relying on them daily to reach work. There is no practical alternative direct route, meaning that the crossings function as essential infrastructure to local people.
The Tamar bridge is publicly owned and jointly operated by Cornwall council and Plymouth city council. In the 1950s, both authorities sought national funding for a fixed crossing. When that funding was not forthcoming, they proceeded with a locally financed scheme funded through tolls. Parliamentary powers were granted through the Tamar Bridge Act 1957, which established the joint committee that continues to operate both the bridge and the ferry as a single business unit, with all operations, maintenance and improvements funded entirely through toll income.
The Torpoint ferry is the busiest vehicle crossing of any estuary in the United Kingdom, carrying nearly 2 million vehicles each year, including mine many times. The TamarTag has helped some regular users, including myself, but minimum top-ups, usability issues and recent proposed increases in admin fees have undermined its purpose. The infrastructure must be maintained, but affordability, transparency and trust are also essential.
Research in 2019 for the Department for Transport examined the relationship between transport access and life opportunities, and the findings were stark. Access to a personal car makes someone nearly four times more likely to be in employment than not in employment. Access to services follows a similar pattern: those who have access to their own car are twice as likely to reach essential services.
Transport also shapes social participation. Car access makes people more likely to maintain social connections, particularly those with mobility impairments and those living in rural areas. Transport therefore affects isolation, wellbeing and quality of life. Geography amplifies those pressures. Water boundaries fragment travel patterns and isolate communities. Where tolls apply, they add a financial barrier on top of the physical separation. For many households, the costs are unavoidable.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there would also be an environmental cost to not using the crossings, because vehicles have to travel longer distances, since usually the crossings present the straight and most direct route?
Anna Gelderd
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the environmental impacts, which I will come to later. Geography amplifies the pressures, and the water boundaries bring a particular problem.
For a standard car journey, it costs £3 to leave Cornwall on both the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry. The Cremyll ferry charges £3 per adult for a single journey, and other crossings in that area charge a similar amount. Some local resident concessions exist, but recent proposed increases in admin costs triggered significant concern, because the total amount is unaffordable for many people.
The Tamar Toll Action Group, along with myself and other MPs, called for a rethink, and there was an extraordinary meeting of local authorities. Some may argue that the prices are not extreme, but they add up quickly. I was glad that the meeting happened and that changes were considered. Average incomes in South East Cornwall are around 20% below the national median, and residents cross have to use the crossing frequently, so the costs do add up for those in the local communities.
There is clear evidence of isolation across parts of South East Cornwall and wider Cornwall. Some communities fall within recognised measures of poor accessibility in both travel time and services. Digital connectivity adds to the pressure, as broadband and mobile coverage remain inconsistent, which limits remote working, access to online services and business development. That reinforces physical isolation rather than easing it.
Digital connectivity is increasingly important alongside physical transport. Research by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport highlights the negative impacts of poor broadband on farmers, including reduced productivity, compliance challenges, and limited market access, which is really important for South East Cornwall. High-speed broadband supports economic growth, productivity and educational outcomes.
We have the foundations for a modern, flexible economy in South East Cornwall. People want to live there, work there and build businesses there. The well-known “surf and code” model seen in places such as California and Portugal reflects a real opportunity to combine the quality of life in the coastal and rural areas of Devon and Cornwall with work, but that depends on sustained investment in physical connectivity and other types of connectivity, including digital.
Currently our public transport does not bridge the gap. Bus services are often infrequent, and ferry services are essential but shaped by the costs that I have mentioned. When disruption occurs, the system offers little flexibility. Bus services in South East Cornwall fell by around 50% between 2010 and 2023. The Conservatives stripped those in our rural and coastal communities of the ability to get around, and then systematically dismantled our public services too. Those pressures have gone on for far too long and communities like mine need support.
Cornwall’s rail connectivity depends on a single line through Dawlish. Recent storm damage again highlights the fragility of that route, following the collapse of the sea wall in 2014. Climate change is accelerating faster than our adaptation, and resilience must be built into long-term infrastructure planning. Phase 6 of the Dawlish resilience work and the reopening of the Tavistock line remain shared aspirations for Cornwall and Devon. What comes next must be credible, long-term and capable of carrying the confidence of south-west communities. Existing Department for Transport investment should be leveraged alongside local and regional funding to improve resilience and open new routes.
Anyone who has visited Cornwall will know and understand that our road network remains a challenge. Country lanes are often narrow, overgrown and dangerous. The A38, which remains the main route in South East Cornwall, has claimed too many lives—the recent safety upgrades are welcome, and I pay tribute to all involved in making them possible for our area. The transport constraints we face carry economic consequences. Businesses face higher operating costs and reduced labour pools. Tradespeople absorb toll charges that competitors elsewhere simply do not face.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) on securing this debate. We have a slightly similar issue in Northern Ireland with the connectivity between Northern Ireland and the Republic. If those crossing the border to go to work come to a toll, they have to pay that toll—it is the only way to get there. If people want to go to the airport or on a tourist trip, they have to pay the toll. Does she agree that information and an easy payment system must be in place to ensure that people from all areas, especially tourists, can access these roads without undue charges? We cannot control the charges, but we have to pay them.
Anna Gelderd
I agree with the hon. Member that the impacts on communities are difficult.
The situation is not a new one, and we continue to use historical funding models that reflect the priorities of their time. Over the years, there have been reviews, consultations and partial reforms, but no holistic restructure. Residents and businesses have continued to pay year after year while the underlying system remains unchanged. Elsewhere in the UK, similar situations have been resolved. Tolled crossings have been reduced, capped or removed. South East Cornwall now has a clear opportunity to act, firmly aligned with the national interest for growth across the UK.
The Tamar crossings are critical to our local economy and national defence. His Majesty’s Naval Base Devonport and supporting sites rely on a large mobile workforce and complex supply chains crossing the Tamar daily. Long-term Ministry of Defence investment depends on reliable connectivity between Cornwall, Plymouth and the wider region. Cornwall has deep ties to the armed forces. South East Cornwall has a high number of veterans and serving personnel, with almost 14% of the residents of Torpoint having served. Communities that contribute so directly to our national defence should not face barriers to their daily life. Local residents and businesses effectively support significant infrastructure, and Cornish waters are used for Navy testing and training. Twenty-three per cent of Babcock’s Devonport workforce live in South East Cornwall. As we look to the future, this connectivity must also be considered.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes the important point that regional connectivity, including tolled crossings—especially between her constituency of South East Cornwall and mine in Plymouth —is integral to our nation’s defence and our ability to carry out its taskings. Does she agree that this type of regional connectivity needs to be looked at across Departments, especially by the Ministry of Defence?
Anna Gelderd
I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. This interaction between defence, regional connectivity, transport and what we are looking to achieve down in the south-west really needs cross-governmental consideration.
This goes beyond defence, with Cornwall reviving its mining heritage through the development of critical minerals, recognised through Labour’s Kernow industrial growth fund, supporting cleaner energy supplies and economic independence, and backing British business. Cornwall also has major international cultural and tourism value, from our historic landscapes and mythical legends to world-leading attractions, such as the Eden Project. Our food culture, from cream teas to Cornish pasties, has global appeal—something I have seen at first hand.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on Cornwall’s economic potential and particularly the role of critical minerals. Does she agree that in an ideal but not unimaginable world, we would have electric ferries, ideally powered by Cornish lithium batteries, which would reduce the operating costs of those ferries and therefore the subsidy effectively paid by Tamar bridge users to support that service?
Anna Gelderd
My hon. Friend’s intervention goes to the heart of this question: how do we move communities like ours into the future, taking advantage of cleaner, greener and cheaper sources of energy, and bringing down costs for local residents?
The Plymouth defence deal presents a real opportunity. The tolled crossings are enabling infrastructure and backing resilience. Addressing them alongside defence investment aligns local fairness with our national priorities. Such strengths deserve an infrastructure that enables growth, rather than one that holds it back.
Cornwall is modernising, our economy is evolving and our ambitions are forward-looking. That brings me to my first three points, which are focused on improving fairness and future-proofing the Tamar crossings. First, we need to devolve the necessary powers. Current legislation limits the ability of local authorities to reform tolling structures in line with modern use. Devolving those powers would enable local decisions aligned with our national objectives. Secondly, we need grant funding to support long-term reform. Removing or reducing tolls without replacement revenue risks shifting the burden on to local authorities and council tax payers. Grant funding would recognise the national benefit and avoid unintended consequences. Thirdly, we need debt relief linked to historical financing. Existing debt structures drive continued reliance on toll income and restrict future options. Addressing this legacy debt would allow the crossings to come into the 21st century.
On the wider picture of unlocking our potential, my fourth point is on safety and resilience of the A38. This is the main road through South East Cornwall. With continued action and investment following recent safety upgrades, we can ensure that the route is even more resilient. Fifthly, we must strengthen rail resilience and access through Dawlish. Cornwall’s rail connectivity depends on that single, climate-vulnerable line. To ensure regional growth, we need a strategic rail plan and phase 6 of the Dawlish resilience programme. Finally, we must improve digital connectivity across South East Cornwall. Reliable, high-quality broadband and mobile coverage are needed throughout the area.
Together, the measures I suggest provide a credible route towards resolving a long-standing issue. I urge the Minister to engage with myself and with neighbouring colleagues, many of whom are here today, to recognise the role that the Tamar crossings play in regional connectivity in terms of national defence, food production and regional economic growth, and to work with local partners to deliver fair and modern reform. With those powers held locally, fair funding and a long-term vision, we can move at pace to fulfil the potential that we see through the infrastructure that we, on both sides of the Tamar, rely on day by day.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I take up your kind invitation to make a short speech, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) for making an excellent speech and raising this important issue.
I want to make a few brief points, particularly while we have the Roads Minister here. The national focus in recent times has been on train connectivity in the north, so I am pleased to see Cornwall, Devon and the wider south-west getting a proper share of the debate this evening. One point I want to make while the Minister is here is that National Highways does not currently contribute any maintenance moneys to the Tamar bridge, despite the fact that the bridge is a critical part of its roads network. I understand that it recently cost as much as £6 million to resurface the bridge, because the method used is complex, but not a penny spent was from National Highways; it used the tolls generated.
Noah Law
The hon. Member makes an important point about the lack of National Highways funding for the bridge, but does he share my delight at the £220 million investment coming into Cornwall’s roads from national Government? We are seeing record-breaking investment in our roads, but that is not to detract from the point he makes about the lack of funding for the Tamar bridge.
Ben Maguire
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and hopefully he and I can make the argument to the Minister and her colleagues that some of that money should go to the Tamar bridge.
There are certainly other road projects across Cornwall. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall spoke passionately about the A38, which my constituents frequently raise with me, and hopefully that is another project that can be funded from the large amount of money we are hearing is coming to Cornwall’s road network. There are also much-needed safety upgrades at Plusha in my constituency. I have met the Minister on numerous occasions, so I know she is aware of the upgrades to the Camelford relief road, which have been promised for many years.
As I have mentioned, I really hope that a devolution deal will now be forthcoming in which we see the equivalent of the Cornish proportion of the strategic road network, which is around £96 million a year. This evening, we have talked about making the Tamar toll crossing cheaper for local residents, or potentially removing the toll altogether at a cost of around £15 million a year. In their devolution deals, our Celtic cousins enjoy a budget equivalent to the amount of the road network they have in their nations, and that would leave plenty of money left over for the A30 upgrade that the hon. Member for South East Cornwall mentioned, and for lots of other upgrades across Cornwall.
Anna Gelderd
I thank the hon. Member for making that point. It is important to recognise that the future costs of these projects in Cornwall include maintenance, electrification and lots of other elements. That means we must work together with concrete resources to make sure that cheaper tolls are delivered for local people.
Ben Maguire
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.
Finally, my Launceston constituents in North Cornwall frequently use the Tamar bridge crossing, on which they rely to access healthcare at Derriford hospital in Plymouth, so they absolutely have to make that journey. It is not a shopping trip or a leisure trip; they really need to make that journey. It takes around two hours by public transport to get to the hospital, and it takes almost one hour to get there by car, which is still quite staggering. On top of the fuel costs and the costs of running a car, they have to pay this £3 charge, and that is before we get to the extortionate cost of the hospital car park once they arrive. I urge the Minister to factor that into the Department’s thinking, because this is not just about leisure trips. We are talking about vital healthcare.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I want to make a few short points to expand on a couple of things that have been mentioned. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) for securing this important debate.
As I have said to several Members, particularly from this part of the world, we are currently closer to Middlesbrough than to my constituency in Camborne. Indeed, when people in this country think about the south-west, they think of Bristol, which is closer to Manchester than to my constituency. That gives an idea of the scale of where we are.
When it comes to the important question of regional connectivity, I gently say to the Minister that, over the last 18 months, the Government have invested over £100 million in Cornish metals, Cornish lithium and, as we have heard, the Kernow industrial growth fund. To maximise the potential of that investment, it is essential that we have the transport infrastructure to support it, including in the Tamar crossing.
Perran Moon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Tamar bridge should form part of our needed package of transport support, including mainline rail, upgrades to the A30 and, importantly, a complete review of the funding model for our one regional airport at Newquay, which needs to be considered in the round.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall spoke about car ownership in Cornwall. One of the gross distortions of the Westminster funding modelling is that we look at car ownership as an indicator of affluence. In Cornwall, it is quite the opposite. Our public transport systems are so poor that we have one of the highest car ownership rates in the country per capita. The reason is that many people in large swathes of Cornwall—particularly young people who need to get to college, or who need to develop the skills to work in some of the organisations I have mentioned—are completely housebound and isolated if they do not own a car. As my hon. Friend mentioned, it also contributes to the real problems of loneliness and lack of access to social groups, which is important for people’s mental health.
There are wide-ranging issues with the lack of connectivity across Cornwall. That is why it is so important, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) mentioned, that our devolution arrangement considers the implications of our remote coastal geography for business development, for young people and the skills they need, and for the social aspect as our population ages and more young people sadly leave Cornwall because they cannot find work, particularly driven by our acute housing crisis. We need a holistic strategy for the whole of Cornwall, and a very important part of that is the Tamar crossing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) on securing this debate, and on speaking so enthusiastically and eloquently about regional transport connectivity, inequality and the cost of toll journeys such as those on the Tamar bridge and the Torpoint ferry in her constituency. She is a powerful advocate for the people she represents.
I recognise the importance of high-quality transport links and infrastructure, and the challenges people face with the cost of travel, especially those living in coastal and rural areas such as South East Cornwall. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these key topics with Members today, including many from the south-west—the far south-west—of England, such as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) and my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and, of course, for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). It is good to have the opportunity to explain the Government’s position and ongoing approach.
Improving transport connectivity is a top priority for this Government. For too long, people living in rural areas like Cornwall have felt isolated and cut off from essential services and facilities, and we are determined to take steps to change that. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for North Cornwall, but I am no longer the Roads Minister. However, I certainly agree that roads matter, and I am delighted that in the spending review we have provided £24 billion of capital funding for 2026-27 to 2029-30 to maintain and improve roads across England.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) on her great speech and on securing this debate. On the Government’s spend on transport infrastructure, those present and the Minister may know that I remain a very strong supporter of the lower Thames crossing project, which will, when built, hugely reduce congestion at the Dartford crossing and make the quality of life and the air quality for my constituents in Dartford massively better. I thank the Minister and her team for the progress made on that project. We expect spades to be in the ground this year, which is wonderful. Does the Minister agree, however, that when the lower Thames crossing is built, and we have it and the Dartford crossing over the Thames east of London, it will be particularly important that the tolls for both crossings are equalised so that there is no financial incentive to use one rather than the other, and traffic can flow freely through both across the Thames?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will make a diversion to the south-east of England to say that the Government are committed to delivering the lower Thames crossing, which is the most significant road-building scheme in a generation. It will provide access to more than 400,000 jobs within an hour’s commute of local communities, and of course it will ease congestion at the Dartford crossing. Although the charging regime for the lower Thames crossing has not been set, like other crossings in England, such as the Dartford crossing, it will have a charge applied in order to cover the cost of providing the infrastructure, and the development consent order made clear that it is our intention that both tolls will be equal when the lower Thames crossing opens.
Turning back to the south-west, a question was raised about the role of National Highways. The A38 on either side of the Tamar bridge is the responsibility of National Highways as part of the strategic road network, but the bridge itself is not. However, while the Tamar crossings themselves are not the responsibility of National Highways, it does make an operational contribution each year towards the Saltash tunnel tidal flow system, which is monitored by the board that manages the bridge and the ferry.
We saw the completion of the essential major road network scheme in Cornwall linking St Austell to the A30 last July and look forward to progression of the Manadon interchange scheme in Plymouth, which will benefit so many people using the road network. The Government are committed to supporting local authorities in maintaining and renewing the local highway network, which is why by 2029-30 we will commit over £2 billion annually for local authorities to repair and renew their roads and fix potholes, doubling the funding since we came into office.
Ben Maguire
I humbly ask the Minister to write to the Cornish MPs so we can see what proportion of that £2 billion—I think she said by 2030—might come to our region. Perhaps then we can see how it might contribute to reducing, or maybe even removing, the tolls on the bridge.
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that Cornwall will benefit from up to £221 million of that £2 billion over the next four years, alongside over £24 million of local transport grant capital for maintenance and enhancements.
Of course we do not just need better roads; better links through high-quality public transport are also essential. People have a right to expect cohesive, reliable bus networks, enabling them to travel easily and comfortably to get to work, to school, to social clubs, to shops, and to see friends and family, and of course to visit hospitals and other health facilities, as a number of colleagues have mentioned.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said, under the previous Government many thousands of bus services were lost, leaving communities cut off and reducing people’s opportunities for travel and all that that means. That is why, despite the challenging financial position this Government inherited, we are investing over £3 billion for the rest of the spending review period to support local leaders and bus operators across the country to improve bus services for millions of passengers, including those living in rural areas. This is additional funding to the more than £1 billion we are already providing this financial year. We are also giving the certainty that local authorities and bus operators need to build their networks longer term through multi-year allocations under the local authority bus grant, totalling nearly £700 million per year. That puts an end to the previous short-term approach to bus funding, enabling councils to plan their spending more strategically, ensuring that outcomes for passengers are always the top priority.
Cornwall council will receive over £30 million of this funding from 2026-27 to 2028-29, in addition to the £10.6 million it is receiving this financial year. On top of that, we continue to see the benefits yielded by our decision to extend the £3 national bus fare cap until March 2027, making bus journeys consistently more affordable for passengers. As my hon. Friend has said, in many of these areas people have low incomes, and that is why it is so important that we are cutting the cost of bus travel.
Additionally, we are funding bus franchising pilots to test the viability of different franchising models so that we can understand how these can deliver better bus services, including in rural locations. That includes a pilot in Cornwall, and I await the results with interest.
Active travel infrastructure to improve walking, wheeling and cycling routes remains essential. Following on from almost £300 million that the Government provided for active travel schemes up to 2026, we announced an additional £626 million for such infrastructure in a four-year settlement to help local authorities further improve active travel facilities and support network planning. Cornwall council will benefit from over £4.5 million of this funding.
Connectivity through reliable rail services is equally important, and I acknowledge hon. Members’ concerns about resilience on the rail line in Cornwall and Devon, particularly given the recent adverse weather. Network Rail is responsible for maintaining the railway network and has established processes in place for ensuring that it is safe to use when incidents happen. It continues to work closely with rail operators to help affected passengers and restore services as quickly as possible.
We announced in the November Budget that for regulated fares rail, passengers will not be faced with the increased cost in rail journeys that they have become accustomed to year on year. We are freezing regulated rail fares until March 2027 for the first time in 30 years. Meanwhile, 26 class 175 trains are being introduced on to Great Western Railway routes in Devon and Cornwall during this year. They will replace older diesel units, improve capacity and reliability, and free up rolling stock for wider use across the south-west, providing resilience across the network. The introduction of these trains on the Newquay branch line is part of mid Cornwall metro, doubling the frequency of trains on this branch and connecting rural communities to employment and education in Truro and Falmouth. As part of our commitment to improving digital technology for passengers, we secured funding to fit all mainline trains with low-earth orbit satellite technology to upgrade on train wi-fi.
My hon. Friend rightly brought to my attention in recent correspondence road safety issues—in particular, the need to reduce speeding in rural areas. The Government recently released the first road safety strategy in more than a decade, setting out our vision for a safer future on our roads for all. This strategy sets an ambitious target to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on British roads by 65% by 2035, with measures to protect vulnerable road users, updated vehicle safety technologies and a review of motoring offences. I know that these are particular concerns in rural areas, which are disproportionately places where fatal collisions occur.
In overarching support for delivering everything I have mentioned today, and to gain and maintain momentum in driving forward better transport for everyone, our forthcoming integrated national transport strategy has been informed by extensive engagement with the public and our stakeholders. It will set out this Government’s vision of putting people at the heart of everything we do, better connecting places and working in partnership with local leaders and experts to deliver. It will help drive improvements in the experience for all users of the transport system and empower local leaders to deliver good transport that is right for their communities—place is at the heart of our strategies.
I would like to turn now to tolls and, in particular, the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry, which I will refer to as the Tamar crossings, as these are tied together under the Tamar Bridge Act 1957. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall for continuing to support local people who have understandably expressed concerns about increasing toll charges and network congestion, as many of them pay these charges to access essential services, which can be a financial burden. I recognise that the Tamar crossings are a very important issue for her, her constituents and the constituents of my other hon. Friends here this evening.
As we have already heard, the Tamar crossings are jointly owned and operated by Cornwall council and Plymouth city council, and between them they carry 16 million vehicles on the bridge and 2 million on the ferries each year. The crossings are operated together as a joint service and funded by users through toll income. No funding is received from the owners of the crossings, and there is no specific central Government funding stream for the upkeep of tolled crossings such as Tamar. In fact, over 20 road and ferry crossings in England have tolls or charges, and it remains Government policy that river and estuarial crossings normally be funded by tolls, recognising the extra cost of their construction and maintenance, as well as the benefits for users in connecting places that would otherwise require lengthy journeys.
Although increases in toll charges are understandably disappointing for the public, they remain essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of the crossings’ operation, which itself is essential to secure strong regional connectivity. The Tamar crossings are not alone in this; tolls and charges have increased or been introduced in many places over the past 12 months, including across the Humber, Mersey, Thames and Tyne.
Raising tolls is not done lightly. Rigorous processes are in place for assessing proposed toll increases. Applications can be made by asset owners to the Secretary of State not less than 12 months from the date of the previous increase, or a refusal to approve an increase, and the proposed change must be advertised in the local media before public consultation. Where objections are received but not resolved, a public inquiry is arranged, after which the inspector in attendance submits their recommendation to the DFT for a decision.
Issues relating to the crossings, including the tolls, are determined locally by the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry joint committee, established by the 1957 Act. The joint committee’s view is that, owing to inflation and other issues, there is a need for additional income via the toll. Given the cost of living pressures for so many people, I recognise that this is challenging, but it is vital to the future of the crossings. My fellow Ministers and I welcome any suggestions from the joint committee for improving the operation of the bridge and ferry services, and I commend its ongoing work in developing and delivering the Tamar 2050 plan, which aims to provide users of the crossings with a more stable and certain future.
I know that the Tamar crossings will become even more essential following the announcement last September that Plymouth had been named as one of five key national defence growth areas in the UK defence industrial strategy. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall and for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), in particular, welcome the fact that DFT officials are working collaboratively with the councils of Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall, alongside National Highways, Network Rail, Peninsula Transport—the sub-national transport body—and many others, to ensure that transport challenges in the south-west, including those concerning the Tamar crossings, are identified and addressed over the coming years through a joined-up approach, which I support and welcome enormously. I am sure that colleagues will have heard the call for more cross-Government working on these issues, and I hope that my remarks today will assure them that it is happening.
I will close by sincerely thanking my hon. Friend for securing this debate and allowing me to address the House on such important issues for communities in South East Cornwall and, indeed, across the country more widely. I wish to reassure the House that this Government are providing record levels of investment in roads, rail, buses and active travel projects across the country to connect people to jobs, education and opportunities. We will continue to drive forward improvements in transport, demonstrated by our multi-year investment to help support economic growth and our wider plan for change. I look forward to working closely with my hon. Friends in delivering our integrated national transport strategy, and to continuing to make transport provision better for everyone, right across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2026
Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026.
Dan Tomlinson
The regulations prescribe the circumstances in which the new retail, hospitality and leisure and high value business rates multipliers will apply.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—[Hon. Members: “No!”] No? Oh, that is totally wrong; who have we got in the Chair? [Hon. Members: “Mr Mundell.”] Mr Mundell—that’s right. Forgive me for my sins; I know not what I do. Members will be glad to know that I do not plan on speaking for 15 minutes today, as I did in the Chamber the other day.
The regulations give effect to the new business rates multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure and high-value properties. This is the first step to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. At the Budget we announced a comprehensive set of reforms to business rates. We have created a new, fairer system with permanently lower multipliers for RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000. The scope of these new multipliers is broadly the same as that of the current RHL relief. These new multipliers will be 5p below their national equivalents, but when combined with the outcomes of the revaluation, the tax rate that RHL properties on the small business multiplier pay next year will fall by nearly 12p and the rate for RHL properties on the standards multiplier by 12.5p.
It is important that we make support for the high street sustainable, so we are funding these new multipliers through higher rates on the top 1% of properties—those with rateable values of £500,000 and above. The higher multiplier will be only 2.8% above the national standard multiplier, meaning that properties in its scope will pay a reasonable tax rate too. These new rates will be worth almost £1 billion a year and will benefit more than 750,000 RHL properties. They will mean that from April, the most valuable properties, such as large distribution warehouses occupied by online giants, will pay a tax rate 33% higher than that for small high street properties.
The new business rates multipliers being brought into force by these statutory instruments are the first step to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. I commend them to the Committee—and forgive me, Mr Mundell.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell.
The two sets of regulations together set out the new tiered business rates system for the 2026 financial year. In plain English, the first set of regulations defines who gets which business rates multiplier under the new system, and the second sets out how much large premises will pay.
Of course, ahead of the election the now Prime Minister said that there would be a new regime of “permanently lower business rates”. Indeed, the Chancellor said at the Budget, referring to these measures, that these business rates were at their lowest level since 1991. The reality is proving somewhat different. Businesses are facing major increases, and claims to the contrary are false. Their bills are going up. That is why I, along with the shadow Housing Secretary and shadow Business Secretary, have written to the Office for Statistics Regulation, as it is statistically misleading to make the claim of record low taxes on the basis of the multipliers, as those are not the tax rates. I was pleased to have confirmation on Friday that the Office for Statistics Regulation is looking into this matter as we speak.
I will now turn to the regulations. In their first Budget, the Labour Government chose to cut back retail, hospitality and leisure rate relief introduced by the last Conservative Government from 75% to 40%. That was a tax raise of £1.1 billion a year. Through these measures, they have axed that relief in its entirety, which means higher bills. The Government have also locked in automatic inflation-linked rises every single year. What will the result of that be? The Office for Budget Responsibility expects business rate receipts to increase by £3.5 billion next year, a 10% increase in a single year. For small and medium-sized businesses, that is incredibly challenging. The bill of the average independent pub will rocket from £4,000 in 2024-25 to nearly £10,000 by 2028-29, a rise of 144%. The position of shops, hotels and restaurants is even worse than that.
At this point, it is usual for Ministers—indeed, for this Minister—to claim that the last Conservative Government would simply have abolished the relief overnight. Of course, that is utter nonsense, and I welcome the opportunity to get that on the record. It is simply a desperate attempt to deflect from what we can see are the bad political choices that the Chancellor and her Ministers have made. As the Conservative Party manifesto said, we would:
“Continue to ease the burden of business rates for high street, leisure and hospitality businesses”,
and our record is one of supporting the sector and the people creating jobs across the country.
Under the new system set out in these regulations, combined with the revaluation, businesses across retail, leisure and hospitality face much higher bills, and fewer will benefit compared with the 40% relief, because under that scheme, as is set out in the explanatory notes, local authorities had more discretion over which premises benefited from the relief. Will the Minister tell us what the Government’s estimate—the Valuation Office Agency will undoubtedly have provided one to the Treasury— of the number of businesses that will not get the relief under the discretionary powers that were there in the first place?
The rates of the small and standard multipliers are set in separate regulations, so I will not dwell on those, but two months on from the Budget, we have already seen a partial reversal of the plans the Chancellor set out, despite the promises of lower multipliers and lower bills. Ministers may point to their pubs and live music relief as if it solves the problem, but it does not: it is a sticking plaster when there is a major wound that the Chancellor has caused. It covers just 38,000 out of 750,000 hospitality and leisure businesses—barely one in 20—and it excludes restaurants, cafes, shops, hotels, theatres and all the venues that will have been in touch with members of the Committee. One in four pubs will still pay more overall, even after that relief, and guess what? That relief is only temporary—indeed, a sticking plaster. The Minister previously said there would be no further support for the wider sector. We all hope that he has to come back to the House with that package soon enough, or perhaps the Chancellor will actually do it herself when she delivers her spring update.
The draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026 set the rate for the new high value multiplier. The standard multiplier will be 48p, and the high value multiplier will be 50.8p—an extra 2.8p in the pound.
Big online warehouses, with a rateable value of at least £500,000, are supposedly the target, but twice as many retail sites, often acting as anchors for our high streets, will now face this higher rate. That is not what Labour promised before the election. It said it would replace the business rates system, raising the same revenue in a fairer way and levelling the playing field between high streets and online giants. Will the Minister explain why the Government are targeting anchor retail stores that are so important to our wider high streets? Of course, these higher rates come on top of higher employment costs, increased alcohol duties and the new tourist tax on hotels and bed and breakfasts, which UKHospitality warns could cost consumers £518 million, if the mayors take up the powers given to them by the Government.
We would take a very different approach. We would deliver permanent 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses of up to £110,000, helping around 250,000 small businesses, and we would pay for it by controlling the welfare budget. We believe in backing those taking a risk, employing people and investing.
Dan Tomlinson
In response to the points raised by the shadow Minister, it is worth emphasising that the decision to introduce new tax rates to the system means that, for the first time, a typical high street business now has a lower multiplier—a lower tax rate—than the online giants and the larger properties. The tax rate on larger properties is 33% higher than the rate paid by a smaller property on the high street. That significant difference is the first step in the reforms that we have implemented to business rates.
I will not make the point that the previous Government would have removed the reliefs overnight, but I will say that if they were planning on keeping them, I do not understand why that information was not in the documents that the OBR published in advance of the general election. If the shadow Minister will not concede that his Government would have got rid of the reliefs overnight, he seems to be suggesting that there was a multibillion-pound unfunded tax cut that they did not tell us about before the election. I am not sure which he would prefer.
In advance of the Budget, we considered the inclusion of large retail stores within the high-value multiplier. It is really encouraging that Sainsbury’s, the Co-op, Iceland and other large retailers have welcomed our getting the balance right in the business rates system and setting the multiplier at a rate that has allowed some shops to reduce prices, or at least hold down price increases for consumers, because of the changes that we made and the proportionate way in which we went about making them.
We are committed to going further to reform the business rates system. At the Budget, we published a call for evidence on how to remove further barriers to investment. Transforming business rates is a multi-year process. The Government remain firmly committed to collaborating with stakeholders and with businesses small and large to achieve further meaningful change in the business rates system.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Safety of the A525 near Meadows Primary School
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Indefinite Leave to Remain
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 727372 and e-petition 746363 relating to indefinite leave to remain.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I open this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I am grateful to the 330,000 people who have signed these two petitions. Evidently, they have generated a lot of interest, given the high number of hon. Members in attendance.
The Government are currently consulting on changing the rules around whether, how and after how long somebody who is legally here is entitled to permanent residence in the UK, which is known as indefinite leave to remain or ILR. The first petition was started by Laurence Bansil, who is sitting in the Gallery, and it calls on the Government to protect legal migrants and scrap the proposed 10-year settlement route. The second petition was started by Pulasthi Weerasinghe, and it calls on the Government to keep the five-year route to ILR, but to restrict access to benefits to protect the public purse.
My mother once had ILR. She came from the Philippines in the 1970s on a work visa. She worked in London hospitals, got ILR and then got British citizenship. She built a life here and cared for generations of patients right to the end of their lives. One of those patients was a former member of the House of Lords and a senior judge, and I remember my mother recounting her many conversations with him about his distinguished career, as well as about my own legal studies and aspirations, which he showed a keen interest in.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for leading this very important debate. Many of my Slough constituents, especially healthcare workers, have signed these petitions about indefinite leave to remain. Many feel that the goalposts are being moved and that this policy will have a hugely detrimental impact on their lives. Does he agree that there should be no retrospective implementation of the change? That would be truly unfair on them and on the rest of us.
Tony Vaughan
I do agree, and that is the exact point I was going to make.
Returning to the example I was just recounting, my mother attended this patient’s funeral, as she did for many. That shows that roles like hers are not just work; they provide a real service to the public. Her profession is extremely important during critical, vulnerable times in people’s lives. It is hard work, but vital work. However, the sector has been plagued by labour shortages for many years. After Brexit shut off the social care worker recruitment pipeline from the EU, and with a pre-existing recruitment crisis in that sector, a large vacancy problem had emerged by 2021, which led to the Home Office putting social care on the shortage occupation list. Those who came here to work have moved their entire lives here; they brought their families here as they were entitled to do. They did so when the rules said that, after five years, they could apply for settlement in the UK—that was the deal.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a compelling case. The position is particularly acute in island communities, where we need to bring people in to be part of our community. Their role is welcomed, as we cannot just ship workers in from another town or village 10, 15 or 20 miles down the road. This extended period of ILR will make it less likely that people will want to settle in communities like mine, because they will not want that extended period of uncertainty in their lives.
Tony Vaughan
The situation in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is similar to that in my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe, where there has been a long-term recruitment and retention crisis. As a coastal area, workers can only go one way. There are massive problems and, as he said, they will be worsened by this proposal.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
My hon. and learned Friend is making a fantastic speech, and I thank him for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. According to the Royal College of Nursing, 60% of internationally educated staff without ILR have said that it is very likely that extending this qualifying period will affect their decision to remain in the UK. That equates to 46,000 nursing staff at risk of leaving the UK. Does he agree that this policy would worsen the retention crisis? Also, does he agree that the Government ought to produce an NHS-specific impact assessment for this policy?
Tony Vaughan
I completely agree, and will go on to make those very points.
That was the deal. The Government are now considering doubling the wait for settlement from five years to 10, and up to 15 years for care workers. One of the most contentious elements of the consultation is that that will apply to people who are already here. I fundamentally oppose that rule change. Migrants entered this country on a contract, and the deal was simple: if they came to work in the sectors where we needed them, obeyed the law and paid their taxes, they could stay. Changing the terms of that contract after people have spent years building a life here is not just bad policy but a breach of trust. It makes Britain look unpredictable and like a country that does not keep its word. We cannot talk about earning settlement if we keep moving the goalposts after the game has started. In my view, retrospectivity is un-British and undermines our sense of fair play. The position of the two petitioners who sit in the Public Gallery is that it should be abandoned, and I wholeheartedly agree with them.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend’s mother is very proud of him. My constituents, a same-sex couple with a child, fled from Russia because of fear of persecution. They work here, they pay tax and their child is in a local school. They are fully integrated into the community, but have written to me to say that they are 10 months away from gaining ILR and feel that changing the rules retrospectively does not honour the commitments that were made to them when they were granted refugee status. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is very shameful for our country to row back on what was promised to my constituents when they first arrived here?
Tony Vaughan
I completely agree. It is the moving of the goalposts that most colleagues in the Chamber find really problematic.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree, as a fellow lawyer, that it is rather unusual to bring retrospective legislation into effect? There have been previous cases where legislation has been made retrospective, but that has been to punish crime. We are talking about ordinary, decent people who have come to this country to better not only their own lives but our lives and those of the rest of the community. Does he agree that it is absolutely wrong to have the law applied retrospectively, and that it puts the legal system to shame?
Tony Vaughan
I completely agree. The common law sets its face against retrospectivity, and that principle should preclude this change.
I want to address other elements of the consultation. The Government suggest a system of credits, for things including “social contribution”, to shorten the 10-year wait. On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but its proposed definition is dangerously narrow. It includes the police and the NHS but inexplicably, in my view, excludes care workers in the private sector. Why are we proposing a bureaucratic minefield of “volunteering credits”, which could be very difficult to verify, while ignoring the immense social value that care workers give during a 12-hour shift looking after our elderly? Their job is their contribution, and that should be the credit.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The hon. and learned Member is making a really important case. In my constituency, the care sector is one of the largest employers, but local providers tell me that the proposed changes could drive 10% to 20% of people out of it. Does he agree that, before proceeding with these changes, the Government must do a proper impact assessment on the care sector and address the fact that, if the NHS has different criteria for allowing settlement routes, that could punish the care sector, which is particularly struggling already?
Tony Vaughan
Those are exactly the points made by the first petitioner, who works in the care sector and is sitting in the Public Gallery.
I am also concerned about the proposal to place lower earners, including most care workers, on the 15-year route to settlement. We have heard about the problems of recruitment, and that will certainly make the position worse. During that limbo, people cannot progress. As one of the petitioners, Mr Weerasinghe, told me, he must complete the entire qualifying period on the same job code, meaning he has to stay, essentially, in the same job. He cannot progress and move beyond the job that he originally came here for so, at the end of the 10 years, ultimately he pays less tax. That is not in the interest of the public, and it makes no sense. If we tell a care worker they must wait 15 years for security, while Australia offers it in three and Canada in five, they will simply vote with their feet. We risk becoming a training ground for economic competitors: recruiting talent, training them up and then watching them leave for jurisdictions that offer them a stable future.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for leading this very important debate. I apologise if I frightened people with my very loud voice—[Laughter.]—but I wanted to be heard.
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the proposal is both unfair and dehumanising? The Government need to halt it immediately. More than 1,000 of my constituents signed the petition. I have met care workers in my constituency and here in Parliament and they are very frightened for their livelihoods and their futures. Does he agree that the proposal needs to be halted?
Tony Vaughan
I do agree. The people already in the system who do not have stability, who do not know what will happen and who made a huge investment fear for their future, which is at stake. I want to address very briefly—
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Many Members want to speak in this debate. We will try to get them all in, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has to realise that every time he takes an intervention, there is less time for speeches.
Tony Vaughan
I will press on quickly to the end. I just want to address very quickly public funds and integration. Mr Weerasinghe’s petition does advocate for restricting benefits for new ILR holders, but in my view that is a political choice, not an economic inevitability. If we raise core care worker pay by around £4,000 a year, that is a step towards the sector-wide fair pay agreement that Unison is calling for. Then we could bring a single care worker up to the level where they are a net contributor in tax, reducing churn in the sector and finally rewarding people who hold our health and care system together.
Under the no recourse to public funds system, many migrant families are just one crisis away from disaster. Depriving migrant families of benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled contradicts the Government’s own child poverty strategy. If we want sound public finances, we need integration. Integrated families are stable—they are renters, homeowners and taxpayers. We do not build stability by keeping people on the edge of destitution for over a decade.
I do not deny that the Government’s consultation is based on the potentially legitimate aim of ensuring that the path to settlement for non-nationals is fair and serves the public interest. But on the key consultation points, I would say abandon retrospectivity, integrate those who are already here and honour the contract. Secondly, I understand the fear of so-called leakage, where care workers get ILR after five years and then immediately quit for better pay in other sectors, but a 15-year trap is not the answer—it is a charter for exploitation and modern-day slavery. Instead, let us look at time-limited, sector-specific conditions, possibly requiring people to remain in a sector for a period of time. Thirdly, we must recognise care work as a valid social contribution, and fourthly, not overcomplicate the penalty system. We already have robust good character rules; we just need to apply the rules we already have.
I urge the Minister to listen to the voices we have heard in the petition and today in this debate. Let us drop the retrospective measures and rethink the 15-year wait. Let us be a country that has sustainable economic migration rules, but remain one that always honours its debts—not just its financial ones, but its moral ones, too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. Many Members wish to speak. We will try to get you all in, but I have to impose an immediate three-minute time limit. Every intervention means that somebody at the back of the queue might not get in at all, so do bear that in mind, but we will try and get everybody in, starting with Cameron Thomas.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Let me begin by thanking my constituent, Pulasthi, whose petition has led in part to this important debate. I believe that when we make a deal with somebody, we honour it. We are honour-bound to keep it.
Ayana does not understand politics, nor should she have to. She began her education at nursery here in the UK, where she began to learn how to interact and play with others, and she made her first friends in that nursery. Almost four years since her father made a deal with the UK to uplift his family and come here to work, Ayana now has many friends at school, where English is one of her strongest subjects. Everything that Ayana has come to learn about the world, she learnt here in the UK. She has no meaningful connection anywhere else. Like any other child, she imagines growing up together with her friends and completing her GCSEs. When she grows up, she wants to be a dancer or a lawyer, as is the nature of childhood.
Almost five years ago, Ayana’s father made a deal with the UK: the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain gave him enough certainty to justify bringing his family here, plan their futures and guarantee stability in Ayana’s formative years. I am glad that she is yet unburdened by the instability that her father now feels. The changes to indefinite leave to remain announced by the Home Secretary in November 2025 have caused unnecessary stress to many who have already lived here for several years, and who have paid visa fees, the immigration health surcharge, income tax and national insurance.
On 2 September 2025, I invited the Government to demonstrate true leadership over the issue of immigration, rather than follow the Conservative party and Reform UK into the abyss. If the Government have the moral courage to navigate this sensitive issue with compassion, they must honour the deal they made with families such as Ayana’s before the goalposts were moved. Regardless of whatever else changes, will the Government honour the timeline to indefinite leave to remain, as was promised to those who are already here?
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
There are few people who are opposed to a robust and fair immigration system, but sadly these plans are not that. They would rip up the promise on which people built their lives. For workers who were asked to come here to fill skills gaps in our public services and industries, the route to settlement would double from five years to 10. Lower-paid public service workers could be forced to wait 15 years, longer than the new standard, while those earning six-figure salaries are offered a fast track of three years. It is contribution measured by wages, rather than care given, lives saved or children taught.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I am sorry, but I want everybody to have time to speak.
Worse still, the changes would apply retrospectively. Nurses, social care staff and council workers who came here under one set of rules would suddenly find the goalposts moved or, worse, find they could be deported due to harsher income thresholds, with their public sector employers unable to meet the increased salary requirements and their colleagues left behind, stressed and overworked.
Even after gaining indefinite leave to remain, people would have no recourse to public funds—settled in name, but excluded in reality. For women fleeing domestic abuse, disabled people, and the LGBT communities, the impact will be cruel and profound.
The problems reach beyond skilled worker routes. Charities and clinicians in the asylum system warn that prolonged insecurity deepens trauma and drives people into destitution. Earlier access to work, settlement and citizenship improves outcomes for individuals and the communities they join. A humane asylum system, with safe routes and timely decisions, is not an act of charity, but an investment in social cohesion.
Another community unfairly affected is the British national overseas visa holders from Hong Kong. For them, the five-year path to settlement must be protected and made permanent. Retrospective rule changes or excessive salary thresholds and language barriers would simply betray the commitment that this country made to people seeking safety and freedom. Children born here should have automatic and secure status, not years of uncertainty.
I urge the Minister to stand for dignity, fairness and humanity. Retain the five-year route to settlement, end retrospective changes, protect refugees and BNO families, reform skilled worker visas so that they prevent exploitation rather than enable it, and above all, recognise the simple truth that those who care for Britain are part of Britain.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Last week I held a meeting with the Nigerian community in my constituency. Around 30 workers were present, many of whom work intolerably long hours performing vital tasks for scandalously low pay in the healthcare and social care sectors. These people are scared: they are scared that the state will arbitrarily deprive them of their security and their ability to plan for the future with any certainty.
One of those individuals—her name is Uzoamaka—wrote to me outlining her concerns. Uzoamaka came to our country in 2022, and works in the NHS. She wrote:
“I am an immigrant, a taxpayer, a worker, and a human being. But the new immigration white paper strips me and others like me of dignity, stability, and belonging”,
She goes on to say that proposals to extend indefinite leave to remain
“to make someone live in limbo for ten years, despite working hard and paying taxes, is cruelty in slow motion. Ten years of exclusion, from a future. This is not about integration. It is about humiliation.”
How can a Labour Administration who profess to care about social justice participate in such performative barbarity against immigrants—a group already vilified in the media and subject to acute marginalisation in wider society? As Uzoamaka writes:
“this entire system treats immigrants as disposable tools. We are good enough to pay into the NHS, but not to benefit from it. We are needed but never welcomed.”
Similarly, a proposal that workers could still qualify after five years if they earn over £50,000 is
“a gatekeeping tool. Most healthcare assistants, carers, cleaners, and laboratory technicians will never meet this bar. Yet we clap for them, we depend on them, we call them key workers. Now we discard them.”
Carla Denyer
On that point, last week more than 45 migrant rights groups described the earned settlement proposals as “fundamentally racist and classist.” Does the hon. Member share my deep concerns that the proposals will hit the most vulnerable the hardest, and create a discriminatory, two-tier system in which wealth and certain jobs or nationalities are prioritised over others?
Iqbal Mohamed
I wholeheartedly agree. We must have equal compassion for all in our society, whether they were born here or came here to build a life for themselves and support our country and the prosperity that we all share in.
Uzoamaka concluded her letter by asserting that
“we do not want favours. We want fairness. We do not seek sympathy. We demand justice.”
If Labour politicians did not go into politics to give a voice to the otherwise powerless, such as Uzoamaka, and to fight for a humane state, why are they here? That is why Labour Members must vehemently oppose any changes that would extend indefinite leave to remain or unjustly penalise those on low incomes.
I urge the Minister to examine the Home Secretary’s proposals, which would marginalise even further the lowest earners and the most marginalised in our society, who make a key contribution to our society. They will destroy the fabric of our country, our NHS, the care sector and many other industries that rely on people from outside Britain to keep our country running.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing the debate.
Legislation should be clear, and the people to whom it applies should know where they stand. Retrospectivity and arbitrary or subjective criteria make for bad law, precisely because they destroy clarity and certainty. Many of my constituents in Brent West are deeply concerned by the Government’s consultation.
I welcome the Government’s saying that they will not change the status of those who already have settled status here. To do so, they admit, would be unfair. They say:
“These are people who have been in our country for years, or even decades. They have families here…and have been contributing to our society…. Fairness is the most fundamental of British values. We made a promise when we gave those people settlement, and we do not break our promises.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 891.]
Ah, but we do break our deals, it would seem. Take the family in my constituency who came lawfully to the UK 16 years ago. They did not meet the requirements for other settlement routes, but after 10 years, they have put down roots: they have had two children, and were earning just enough to apply for the 10-year path to settlement under the long residency rule.
So far, this family have paid a further leave to remain application fee of £1,321 per person, plus an immigration health surcharge of £2,587.50 per adult, reduced to £1,940 for their children. That is a total of £14,363—paid not once, but twice, because the fee is due every 30 months. Can the Minister tell me whether next year, when the third payment is due, and having scrimped to save the £28,726 they have already paid, this family should double down and pay the third instalment of £14,363 so that they can go on to make the final ILR fee payment of £12,126? Or will they suddenly find that their pathway has been blocked by a new requirement that one of them cannot fulfil, and that the £43,089 they have already spent is lost, or that the process has been extended so that they continue to pay for another five years under what looks like indentured service?
These people, too, have been in our country for years, even decades; they have families here and have contributed to our society. We held out a promise to them, too—that of a 10-year pathway, which now looks more like a road to nowhere except penury.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I represent a constituency that is proud of its diversity, and I see at first hand how welcoming talented, hard-working people from around the world enriches our society. That is why the Government’s proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain hit so close to home and threaten to up-end the lives of many in my area.
Few in this Chamber will truly understand the insecurity that comes with moving to another country—of building a life while your future, family plans and financial stability rest on political decisions that are beyond your control. It is no surprise that so many who contribute enormously to our communities and economy feel frustrated as the goalposts are moved yet again.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
One of my constituents is incredibly distressed: they are a dependant of a local business owner and they contacted me about the European Community association agreement route. They are concerned that the proposed earned settlement skilled worker metrics cannot be applied to ECAA entrepreneurs, who must demonstrate a genuine business rather than meet salary thresholds. Does the hon. Member agree that any changes to indefinite leave to remain must properly consider those on the ECAA route, and any other specific routes?
Ayoub Khan
I totally agree. These changes are simply unfair—not just unfair, but economically short-sighted. They risk driving away the very people our country depends on—highly skilled professionals who make up a small group of fewer than 70 specialist occupations, yet who are critical to productivity, innovation and competitiveness. Employers already struggle to recruit domestically, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Raising the salary threshold to £50,000 ignores the labour market reality and places further strain on businesses that are already paying visa fees, skills charges and the immigration health surcharge. The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) mentioned how much people pay, but there is an added cost: that of legal fees, which can run into thousands of pounds.
These workers are not burdens on the state: they pay tax, national insurance and over £1,000 per adult each year through the health surcharge. Many have partners who are also highly skilled and work full-time, yet whose contributions are simply overlooked. Most concerning of all is the proposal to extend the settlement route from five years to 10, potentially applied retrospectively. People—doctors, carers, engineers and teachers—came here in good faith, having been recruited during shortages and given a clear promise of settlement after five years. Changing that promise years later breaks that trust and undermines confidence in an already punitive system. If the Government truly want a controlled and effective system, they must value contribution over political expediency. I urge Ministers to rethink this proposal, protect existing routes and ensure that the UK remains a country that keeps its word.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on his expert advocacy on this issue.
As a former lawyer who worked in immigration before being elected to this House, I can say with confidence that the changes announced last year, and expected to emerge from the consultation, represent some of the most complex and far-reaching reforms in decades. We are told that this is a moral mission to restore order and control and create a system that is fair and firm. If that is the aim, why are we proposing changes that strip away certainty for people who are already here—people who believed that ILR was a transitional route to stability, and not a moving target?
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
So many families in Reading, including my own parents, decided to accept positions in the UK and bring their children over on the promise of a stable educational future. We know how transformational education can be for children’s ability to contribute to the economy in future. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that stability for those who are already here?
Abtisam Mohamed
I agree entirely. Many people uprooted their lives, accepted jobs, bought homes, enrolled their children in schools and planned their futures in good faith, on the understanding that settlement after five years was the agreed pathway. They are now being told, midway through that journey, that the rules have changed. Retrospective application of this policy would be not only deeply unfair, but entirely unjustified.
At the same time, the uncoupling of joint routes to settlement would leave families separated for longer periods. Consider a family where the primary breadwinner is fast-tracked to settlement, while their spouse—the primary caregiver, perhaps working part time—is left on a longer and more precarious route. Where are the impact assessments for those on maternity leave, part-time workers, carers or people with disabilities? We cannot announce a two-dimensional approach to migration and work out the consequences later—not when it concerns some of the most life-altering decisions that people will ever make.
I know that the proposals are under consultation, but we must be clear about the direction of travel. They risk recreating the very conditions that defined the hostile environment: long-term uncertainty, barriers to stability, and communities living with the constant fear that the rules could change again. When my constituents hear migration described as a destabilising event and migrants framed as a burden to be managed, and see policies recycled from failures of the past, they know that this is not reform, but a road to insecurity and division.
The congregations of St Mark’s and St Mary’s in my constituency have also presented me with a petition that urges the Government to show compassion and make suitable transitional arrangements for those who are already here, building their lives and contributing to our communities in Sheffield. They, like many of my constituents, know that the proposals lack humanity. They know that they will impose extraordinary hardship on friends, neighbours and the wider community. And they know that a country that truly believes in sanctuary does not make belonging something that has to be earned again and again, over a lifetime. I urge the Minister to end any retrospective changes, and to retain the five-year route for people who are already here.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
Of all the grotesque and grim things that have been conducted by the Labour and Conservative parties in the race to the bottom with Reform, this is by the far the grimmest and most grotesque. In my constituency, I have met countless families who will be on the wrong side of this—families who do not deserve any of it, and have done everything asked of them. They work, they study, their children speak with a Scottish accent, and Scotland is the only home that many of them have ever known. They are cherished members of our community, yet many of them still wake up every morning unsure whether the life they are building for themselves and their family will be taken away. That is why indefinite leave to remain matters: it is the difference between planning for the future and simply enduring the present.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I will quickly add the voices of the Hong Kong BNOs in my constituency who feel just like that. One said:
“We have built our lives—our careers, finances, childcare and caring responsibilities”
on the rules that were promised by this Government. Does the hon. Member agree that this limbo and instability is a disgrace?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. When people are given security, it takes away that limbo. I do not know whether many people around this room can imagine that type of uncertain status, but that is what people have to live with every single day of their lives.
Because of the proposed changes, people will remain for longer in the immigration system, where they face repeated applications, fees, health charges and often legal costs. Illness, injury or redundancy can throw everything into question, and it might even be penalised. What is most unforgiveable, though, is that the Government have left open the possibility that the changes could apply retrospectively to people who have already started their journey towards citizenship in the UK, and who are building their lives under the current rules. This is a profound betrayal of those who trusted the system and have made the UK their home.
I have a large Sri Lankan community in my constituency. They are partly—almost exclusively—responsible for keeping our social care service together. I met them a couple of weeks ago, and they told me they are going home, just because of the threat of this. They have had enough. They do not want to be treated like this any more. They are refusing to go along with this, and I have to say I do not blame them, but I worry: where we will get the staff to replace them in a Scotland that is in the early stages of depopulation and has some of the most challenging demographics in the whole of western Europe? They are irreplaceable.
Migrant families are already in survival mode, working long hours in low-wage jobs, saving for Home Office fees and living in insecure housing. Some risk destitution simply to keep up with the cost of maintaining lawful status. These pressures leave them with little time or energy to contribute to the volunteer initiatives that will be required of them. They have grown up here, and they have no home but this.
It is so encouraging to see so many Labour Members here today. I say to them: “Get down to the PLP this evening and put your case forward. Let’s make sure that they know the voice of the Labour Members of this House—and please, for goodness’ sake, get another one of those famous U-turns.”
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Through you, Sir Edward, may I address the Minister? Just read the room. The only other times it has been as packed as this when I have been here in recent times have been for debates on the two-child limit and on welfare benefits. I do not want to see our Government make another embarrassing U-turn like that.
The reason we are here is that every one of us has a case that, if the proposed change goes through, will be absolutely tragic. Families have settled, sold their accommodation and everything in their home, worked hard and delivered everything asked of them, and we are going to deny them and their children the right to the future that they hope for. If this goes ahead, every one of us will report social care collapsing in our constituencies.
I remind people that it was many of these workers, with their experience, who delivered us through covid. Some of them sacrificed their lives. This is just unjust, and the Minister needs to recognise that, take the message back to those who are developing our strategy as a Government and say, “This isn’t the route to go down.”
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
John McDonnell
I would rather not, because other people need to come in.
Let me just make a point about parliamentary process. If this is to be done not through primary legislation that we can debate and amend, but via a statutory instrument, it needs to be done under the double affirmative process, so that we can have a debate and the opportunity for amendments. Otherwise, I think the Government are going to run into opposition of a scale that they have seen on other issues, frighten people and undermine our support, completely unnecessarily. If there are issues around immigration that we have to deal with—if people can remember, we did it with the bogus colleges—we should do it through proper legal process and prosecution. If there are abuses in the system, let us address the abuses, but do not harm people in this way as a result.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this important debate.
This morning I met a constituent, Petra, who has been in the country for three and a half years. She works in the care sector. She works extremely long hours, which are not in her control; sometimes she is loaded with work six days straight from 7 o’clock in the morning to 10 o’clock at night, and sometimes she gets no work at all. When she talks to her employers, they say, “Well, you and the rest of your team are on visas, and if you report us and we go out of business then you’re all going to be leaving the UK.” We are creating this enormous class of indentured servitude.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Those were exactly the words of my constituent Arshad Khan when he came to see me at my constituency surgery this weekend; he made that point about indentured servitude and visa licences, and how these employers operate. I just want to add to the hon. Gentleman’s argument, because this is a serious point. People are living with the power of their employer over their head. Sometimes, they are held on poor rates of pay and poor shift patterns, and they cannot challenge it because their employer has all the power in the relationship.
Charlie Maynard
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention.
The situation I described is obviously cruel, and this moving of the goalposts will make it miles crueller. To the point made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I really hope that the Minister is reading the room, because the country is up in arms about the proposed change, and we should not allow it to be made. I ask him to reconsider.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.
Controlling our borders is a basic function of the state. The Government inherited open borders and are now undertaking the serious work required to fix them, so I welcome the Minister’s efforts. However, I think there are some tweaks we could make. I have spoken on this issue several times, in particular in respect of Hong Kong BNO visa holders, and I am grateful that the Government have committed to keeping the five-year route for that group. Today, though, I am going to focus on how the proposed changes will affect families, especially those I have been speaking with in the Morley Indian community.
Around 30% of the families I have spoken with are due to receive their ILR within the next six months, so they are understandably very anxious about what the changes will mean for them. The vast majority are high earners or work in key sectors. Many of the people I have spoken to earn well over £50,000, do not claim benefits, and contribute significantly to our economy and our public services through their taxes.
Because at least one member of those families is earning a high salary, their spouse or partner has been able to move into part-time work, often so that they can help raise and care for the children. They are very worried that, as a result, they will not meet the new criteria at the same time as their partners. They came to this country under one set of rules, which allowed dependants to move to the UK with them, and now they are very concerned at the prospect of being unable to qualify together and being broken up entirely.
Have the Government considered putting in place strong transitional arrangements that do not punish families who are already here and contributing far more to the UK than they take out? Alternatively, would the Government consider allowing a family to qualify for ILR together where the family—not an individual—meets the salary threshold?
Many of the Morley Indian families I have spoken with came over here knowing that they would pay international university fees while they were waiting for ILR. They accepted that those were the rules. However, under the proposed changes, they might wait a lot longer —and, worse still, if they went back to India, they would find that they are no longer considered home students for fees purposes there. They would find themselves trapped in a situation where they cannot pay the fees here and they cannot pay the fees back at home.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the speech he is making. Does he agree that although the Government seek through their proposals to increase integration, by limiting ILR to those who stay beyond 10 years we are actually going to reduce integration in exactly the sort of instance that he has outlined? That risks undermining the integration that I see in workplaces, churches and community groups in Sunderland.
Mark Sewards
I completely understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. The people I was speaking about just before he intervened will find themselves trapped, and effectively shut out from university education altogether, even though they are already integrated into this country.
I urge the Government to consider the full impact of the implementation of the proposed changes for people who are already here, working and contributing more than they ever take out, who came in good faith, and who have followed every rule we have set for them.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I have much to say in this debate, hence it is very difficult for me to know where to begin. However, I will begin by thanking the petitioners.
For this MP—indeed, this is also the case for many of the MPs in this room, and for Cabinet Ministers and shadow Ministers, and even for a Prime Minister—I am what I am because of the manner in which this country treated me when I came here. I had two parents who could not speak a word of English, yet the support that we received means that now we have a dynasty of academics, entrepreneurs, professionals and even a parliamentarian—although I know, for some people, that might be enough to create a policy to make sure that it never happens again. [Laughter.]
We have a sense of belonging to this land, even though we are far away from our ancestral land. That does not happen by chance. It happens by design, and it can only happen in a country that promotes integration based on the values of decency, respect and contribution, rather than contempt, impatience and transactional values. It works when a society respects values that should be woven into its fabric—when we value our care workers, our frontline health workers, our teachers and our transport workers, not because of how much money they earn but because they are the foundation of our society.
Iqbal Mohamed
A lot of people who have come here have been branded “the Boris wave”, but one of my Nigerian constituents told me they came here under “the covid wave”, to care for people in this country.
Shockat Adam
I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Having a policy like the current one also flies in the face of the Prime Minister’s pre-election pledge. It is a betrayal of his sixth pledge, which we were told was:
“an immigration system rooted in compassion and dignity.”
I, and I am sure many others, feel the betrayal most sharply when it comes from an Asian Home Secretary—someone whose own journey reflects the promise of migration, but who now advances policies that punish people who are just like her own family and mine once were.
Apart from the policy being morally bankrupt, it also flies in the face of fiscal responsibility. We are told that this issue is all about cost, and that migration is a burden. Yet those claims collapse under scrutiny. The widely cited £234 billion “ILR emergency figure” has been discredited even by its own authors. Correct the errors and migration delivers a net fiscal gain of £100 billion.
Shockat Adam
I am sorry, but I cannot do so, in the interest of time.
Security results in integration. Insecurity results in chaos, not to mention the serious possibility of exploitation of people by employers; colleagues have already made the point about indentured labour.
When did modern Britain become such a transactional country? If we truly want an integrated Britain, the last thing we want is longer waiting times, uncertainty and a broken promise. What we need is certainty—five years’ maximum for the process, with fast decisions—and a real acknowledgement that migration, when it is organised with respect and fairness, strengthens a country rather than weakening it.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The proposed changes to ILR and the consultation on earned settlement have far-reaching consequences, so it is essential that they are delivered with fairness and compassion. I support the Government’s mission to restore control of and confidence in the immigration system, including the clear objective of reducing net migration and ensuring that the rules are properly enforced. Public trust depends on a system that is coherent, that is consistent, and that works, but it is worth remembering that the people who have come to the UK have come through legitimate means, and they have come to fill the Brexit work gap, to support our public services, and to contribute well to our society.
I must reflect the real anxiety that I am hearing in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes from people who are already here, already working and already paying tax, and who entered the system in good faith under the existing framework. They have built their lives around these rules—our rules—and it would be wrong if the goalposts were moved halfway through the match.
I want to add to this debate the voice of one of my constituents, Victor Olubumoye, a care worker who has described living under what he called “visa fear”. He told me that every day he went to work fearful that a single mistake could cost him not just his job but his immigration status, and that managers repeatedly reminded him that his visa depended upon them; we have already heard about that situation from other Members. In Victor’s own words:
“You cannot give what you do not have. People who are treated without dignity struggle to give dignity.”
That testimony matters, because it goes to the heart of what fairness looks like in practice. If we want a system that commands confidence, we must not create incentives for silence, exploitation and instability in our essential services. Making changes for future arrivals can probably just about be explained, but making retrospective changes for those who are already here, and who often work in our essential public services, risks undermining workforce stability and basic fairness.
In my constituency, the issue of immigration is a topic of interest, to say the least, and there is no point in pretending it is not, but that interest is not about those who came on a proper visa, through a proper scheme from the Government. Concerns about the over-reliance of employers on overseas labour are not the fault of those individuals; they are here because we asked them to come and help. As the consultation progresses, I ask for the careful consideration of transitional protections or differentiated arrangements for existing workers, so that their contribution is properly recognised, their integration is supported and their concerns are reflected in the final policy.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. On Saturday, I met with 200 members of the Paddock Wood Hong Kong community. You are probably wondering, Sir Edward, why 200 people would give up their early Saturday evening to see me. They did so because they were worried, for themselves and for their families. They came to voice their fear that their pathway to settlement had narrowed, and they came because the conditions under which they uprooted their lives in Hong Kong and came to Britain are being changed. I am deeply disappointed that the promise made by the British Government on which they came here is now potentially being rewritten.
Let us go into some detail. I am grateful that the Hong Kong BNO route will continue to allow settlement after five years, but there have been two changes: one on language requirements, and one on earnings thresholds. On language, many BNO families came here as three-generational units, in which there of course are quite elderly people. Obviously, it is more difficult for those people to achieve a much higher standard of English proficiency—any hon. Member who has learned a language in their life will know that it is easier to do at 20 than at 80—so what are they to do? If a person is 80 and fails a higher language requirement, would they get sent back to Hong Kong while the rest of their family remained? The Government need to look at that in more detail.
On income requirements, three-generational family units have come, as I said. Some 70% of BNO visa holders are degree educated, and they are working in jobs that are significantly below their professional level and standing.
Mike Martin
I will not take any interventions, as so many hon. Members are seeking to get in. The combination of highly skilled individuals and three-generational families means that, quite rightly, not everyone in a family goes to work, so what about the carers, part-time workers, the elderly and students? If a person is studying at university and is not earning, do they need to meet the income threshold? There is a complete lack of clarity.
When I attended the Chinese new year celebrations in Paddock Wood last year, which were held jointly with the congregation of St Andrew’s church, I saw at first hand just how deeply the Hong Kong community enriches our community, and how the native Paddock Wood community reciprocates that. The British Government have made a promise, and they should stick to their promises. I urge them to reconsider.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
St Mark’s gospel says:
“Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
With the political discourse of today largely focusing on blaming immigration for the societal ills our country faces, that commandment is sadly not in fashion.
The Government’s proposal for pathways to settlement introduces a new 10-year baseline for people, including those granted refugee status, with time added or taken away for circumstances seen as favourable or unfavourable to the Home Secretary of the day. If someone was to arrive via illegal routes, that adds 20 years to the baseline, meaning it would be 30 years before they could apply for citizenship. Bear in mind that arriving by an irregular route is almost unavoidable due to the virtual nonexistence of safe and legal routes. It must be acknowledged that claiming asylum is a human right; it is not an abuse of any system. Proposals that differentiate between regular and irregular arrivals are unequal at their very core. Differentiating would create an inferior class of people, whose need for protection might well be internationally recognised, but whose long-term status is kept deliberately precarious.
In a Scottish context, the Scottish Refugee Council has said that in Glasgow last year there were over 2,000 children from refugee families in temporary accommodation. Scottish local authorities are already at breaking point, with over a decade of underfunding—equating to over £1 billion these last 10 years from the SNP Scottish Government. We all know that children growing up in poverty has a huge long-term impact on life chances, health outcomes, our local and national economies, and the condition and functionality of our public services.
I say to the Minister: Labour must do better than copying the right-wing parties and demonising immigrants and asylum seekers. This country does not want or need us to be some diluted version of Reform. Whether we are talking about immigration, welfare, education, the environment, industry, or all the rest, ultimately, the question is always the same: what kind of society do we want to live in? Do we want to live in one that looks after the most disadvantaged, vulnerable and destitute, or one that looks to scapegoat and point the finger at these people for the political decisions that have led to growing poverty and inequality? As a socialist, and someone who believes in the commandment of love thy neighbour, I know what I want my Government to do.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing this important matter to Parliament, and to the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for leading the debate.
The Government are right to say that settlement should be earned through contribution—few would dispute that principle. The consultation documents point to a system that contradicts those stated goals. I am sure the Minister will say that no final decisions have been made, but the direction of travel is clear. A 10-year baseline for most routes—15 years for care workers, as many Members have mentioned—with complex reductions based largely on salary, fundamentally misunderstands what settlement is for.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend makes a good point about salaries and how income levels are not necessarily a good predictor of usefulness to society and economic contribution. We have heard that point made clearly about social workers, but does he agree that in high-tech sectors such as space, biotech and robotics, we need global talent and that only by pooling that talent will we succeed, which is why we should not be putting in place these barriers to indefinite leave to remain?
Ian Sollom
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and will shortly cite an example of that from my constituency. The key distinction to make is between selection and settlement. Our visa system is the selection mechanism; we judge whether someone has the skills we need, meets the thresholds, and fills a genuine vacancy. Settlement is about whether people can actually plan a future here and commit to staying. Five years of working, paying taxes, learning English and staying out of trouble is earning it. Extending it to 10 or 15 years does not raise standards; it just makes Britain unattractive to exactly the people our visa system should be welcoming.
I will give a concrete example. I have a constituent who came in on the high potential individual visa, which is a route explicitly designed to attract the world’s best talent. He is a skilled engineer; he chose the UK based on the clear five-year pathway. He tells me that had a 10-year route been the policy, he would never have come. That is the reality when we are competing for talent.
The Government also claim that the changes will improve integration, but uncertainty is the enemy of integration. Someone who knows they can settle after five years will invest fully in their future here; someone facing 10 to 15 years of uncertainty will keep their options open elsewhere. Another constituent who has been in touch is an orthopaedic surgeon, a professional serving our NHS. He has three children in British schools. He tells me that if the rules change, he cannot wait for another six years. He will leave, and our NHS and our country will lose him and his talent.
The moral stakes are clearest when I hear from Hongkongers in my constituency. While they may be exempted from the extension to 10 years, the consultation leaves unclear what “earned settlement” actually means for them—higher English requirements, income thresholds, whether any exemption is permanent. That is for people who fled political persecution based on our word to them. When we create uncertainty for people who follow the rules and contribute, it damages trust in British commitments.
By all means, use the visa system for selection—we can have many separate debates on that—but settlement terms should enable the people we decided to welcome to commit to staying. The current direction undermines both our economic interests and our reputation for fairness, and I urge the Government to change course.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to raise my concerns about plans to require skilled workers, health and social care staff and those fleeing persecution to wait 10 or even 15 years, instead of the current five, to secure indefinite leave to remain. I echo the concerns of many in the Hong Kong community in Harrow, who are concerned about their status and their route to indefinite leave to remain.
As they stand, the changes will make it more difficult to attract to the UK the key staff and talent to help grow our economy and run vital public services. Of course, we need to do more to help those born and bred in the UK to access the jobs market and to prevent abuse of the existing immigration system, but to ask those in the UK who are already here to have to wait another five years or longer would be the height of unfairness.
Multiple constituents of mine in senior roles in engineering, the tech sector and other professional services have written to me with their stories, which underline their personal commitment to the UK and the expectation that Britain—of all countries, with our respect for the rule of law—would honour the implicit promise that we would hold true to that five-year commitment. At the very least, there must be transitional protections for those on the current ILR pathway.
I am concerned that too often we shy away from recognising the economic and cultural contribution that those from outside our country make to our communities. They make the UK home. It is not Britain being exploited; we gain from the talent, imagination and hard work that migrants bring to our country.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
My constituent Aminbhai is a pharmacy dispenser—a skilled worker from India whose work is essential to our community. He raised concerns about recruitment and retention in health and social care roles. Alongside our investment in home-grown talent, does my hon. Friend agree that changes to ILR qualifying periods must not risk impacting sectors where we currently rely heavily on the talents of dedicated international workers?
Gareth Thomas
I very much agree, and I add that surely we have a responsibility to stand with refugees fleeing appalling conflict, including those from Ukraine, and those fleeing increasingly authoritarian regimes such as those from Hong Kong.
Gareth Thomas
Forgive me; I have taken one intervention already.
Overwhelmingly, migrants from Pakistan, the Caribbean, India, Sri Lanka and across Europe—wherever they are from—have benefited my constituency. Are we sure we want to lose those vital workers from crucial public services, such as the NHS or social care?
International students make a positive contribution to our economy and our country, too. I am certainly proud of the many Indian students who were attracted to the UK and who live in my constituency, and I do worry for our universities. The fees of international students helps to fund research. Cutting-edge universities in Britain need to attract international students, so we should not demonise those students who come here, and drive them towards other countries’ universities. I recognise that the choices before my hon. Friends in the Home Office are not easy, but I urge them none the less to recognise the particular responsibility we have to those who are already here and are already on the ILR pathway.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Last week, I met 30 or so members of the Hong Kong community in Horsham. These people are professionals: they are teachers, students, engineers, doctors, business owners and directors. They are in work, paying tax, buying homes, raising families and contributing to local life. They came here legally. They came because the British Government made them a promise.
In talking to them, what struck me most was not anger but fear—fear that the basis on which they uprooted their lives is now shifting beneath them. Given the strength of feeling, the numbers affected and Hong Kong’s unique historical context as a former colony, I trust that the Government recognise that the recent proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain will have unintended consequences, and that they will want to address this matter urgently.
In Horsham, nearly 90% of BNO households are homeowners. Clearly, they are not a drain on public resources, and are financially stable, yet some will nevertheless struggle to meet the new income threshold. Some family groups include older applicants, carers or non-working spouses, just as we would expect in any household. Many cannot simply earn more to bridge the gap, and others will take time to move into higher-paid work and transfer their skills and qualifications. Will the Government consider taking account of assets and long-term stability, not earned income alone, when assessing ILR applications for Hong Kong BNOs? My constituents are also deeply concerned about the English language requirement: four in five of them say that they are worried about passing the exam, and they are people who seemed quite fluent when I spoke to them. Obviously this affects older applicants in particular.
These families moved across the world on a promise from the British Government, and there is now a genuine risk that that promise will be broken. In all honesty, I do not think that this new law was ever intended to affect them at all. My asks from the Minister are straightforward: exempt Hong Kong BNOs from the new earned settlement criteria, provide transitional protections for those already on the five-year settlement pathway, and assess household income, not individual income, to keep families together.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.
I place on record my firm opposition to proposals to dramatically extend the timeline for the route to settlement, and in particular to the deeply unfair plan to apply the changes retroactively. To now withdraw that promise is, as the Work Rights Centre has rightly said, an
“extraordinary betrayal of migrant communities”.
The proposals risk fuelling exploitation, deepening poverty, destabilising already fragile sectors and doing real harm to the wider economy. Under the new system, so-called medium-skilled or lower-paid workers, including nursing, healthcare and social care staff, could face a staggering 15-year wait before being eligible for settlement. That is not a pathway; it is a prolonged period of insecurity.
Last Thursday, I met a group of local Unison members —all migrant care workers. Their dedication to our community is unmistakeable. One told me that he regularly completes a long shift at Newtown hospital, volunteers at Newtown Food Surplus afterwards, sleeps for four or five hours, and then begins his next shift. I cannot think of a clearer example of someone who gives wholeheartedly to their community.
At a time when our care sector is already facing critical workforce shortages, the proposals will drive people away. Research from the Royal College of Nursing indicates that up to 46,000 nursing staff could leave the UK in response to the measures. That would be catastrophic. What assessment has been made of the impact on staffing levels in our public services, particularly health and social care? Does the Minister recognise that forcing care workers into 15 years of temporary, precarious status risks destabilising the workforce even further, increasing delayed hospital discharges and placing yet more pressure on unpaid family carers?
We must retain the five-year route to ILR, halt the retrospective application of these changes and honour the terms that workers originally signed up to. We must invest properly in social care, advance the fair pay agreement and protect the rights and status of existing international recruits. It is not migrants who have weakened our public services; it is successive Governments who have done so through underfunding and privatisation. Our migrant workers keep our health and social care system afloat. Punishing them with prolonged insecurity will only deepen the recruitment crisis and harm families and communities across the country.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I congratulate the petitioners on bringing forward this important debate. The Government’s immigration White Paper has caused no end of confusion, anxiety and distress since its publication last year. To me, and to countless constituents who have contacted me because they are worried for their livelihoods, it is profoundly and inexcusably unfair. Some people do not know whether they should prepare to leave or continue with plans to invest in a new house, a job or marriage. Others are seriously worried about the status of spouses and dependants under the new rules. They are facing the reality of being entirely displaced and forced to abandon careers, personal lives, colleagues, friends and homes.
I have written to the Home Office about the fear and distress of my constituents and to urge it to at the very least offer some certainty on indefinite leave to remain. Yet, time and again, I receive the same formulaic lines from the Minister, who refuses to provide the assurance that changes to ILR will not be applied retrospectively to those who arrived under the five-year rule. Instead, my constituents are told that they must now earn their right to settle by attaining a minimum income level and proving their worth through volunteering.
Numerous individuals have been in touch to tell me how, upon their arrival in the UK, they spent time to complete degrees, including master’s degrees, and on-the-job training to secure their places in valuable sectors such as science, innovation and our NHS. Now, they are unsure if they can stay or if they can trust that even an extended ILR term will ultimately ensure their settlement. Others with jobs in areas such as adult social care putting in long, unsociable hours doing invaluable work in to ensure that they are on track to settled status do not have the time to further prove themselves by volunteering.
Women are particularly disadvantaged—a fact the Government are yet to acknowledge. Whether it is due to limited access to skills, the gender pay gap, greater caring responsibilities or taking maternity leave, they too fear that they will not meet the Government’s standards to earn their settlement.
The Government’s planned changes to the immigration and settlement system are wrong, and treat with contempt the countless people who came to this country fairly and planned their lives around the rules at the time. At the very least, I urge the Government to treat those people with the respect they deserve. Will the Minister now rule out, once and for all, any retrospective application of changes to ILR and the addition of any new requirements to those already on the path to settled status?
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. The proposals to retroactively extend the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain create considerable insecurity and disruption for migrants living in the UK. Contrary to what many believe, the process of getting ILR is difficult and costly, so there is no need to make it even more difficult by increasing the eligibility period. We are not talking about new arrivals. These changes will impact those who have lived in the UK and contributed to our economy for at least half a decade. They are nurses, doctors, train drivers, construction workers, cleaners, carers and others who keep our economy working. Thousands of migrant workers in these sectors are now being told that we do not value their contribution. We risk losing those skilled workers, which would undermine our public services and our economy.
I declare my interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthcare workers. The NHS and social care sector employ thousands of people on work visas to cover workforce shortages, including one of my constituents, who is a healthcare assistant living in limbo due to these proposals, with a salary just £60 a year under the arbitrary threshold. Although we do not have robust data in that area, conservative estimates suggest that about 25,000 doctors and 50,000 nurses will be impacted. As others have asked today, will the Minister confirm what data modelling or impact assessment has been conducted to assess how these changes will affect the health and social care sectors?
After many years of failing to provide enough medical school places, apprenticeships or other appropriate career training, we face labour shortages in many industries across the country. We rely on immigration to fill those gaps. These changes make the UK a far less desirable and fair place to live and work. To those who have made their home here, these changes say, “You’re not welcome.” Let us show those who have built their lives among us that they are supported, they are valued and they are truly welcome in the country they also call home.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the 344 and 511 signatories from Taunton and Wellington who signed the petitions, including Adekunle, who is in the Public Gallery today.
Everyone recognises that the immigration system needs to be controlled and workable, but this debate is not about the immigration system. It is not about people who may come here or are thinking of coming here; it is about people who are here, who have answered our call to come and work in our health services and in our country. They have settled here, and they are already providing that vital work.
These changes—extending ILR requirements from five years to 10—would remove from my constituency the care workers and potentially the care services that people need and rely on. I do not know who the Government think will vote for the removal of care and care workers from their constituencies. It cannot be right to change the rules after people have made that big decision to uproot themselves and invest their lives halfway around the world to be here.
It is absolutely correct to say that we have had a period of chaos in immigration. The Conservatives lost control, post Brexit. Net migration jumped from 300,000 to 1 million in 2023. They loosened controls. They made promises about settlement, and now they—and, apparently, the Government—want to break promises made by the Government to those workers who responded to Britain’s invitation to be here, to move their lives here and to build their families and their futures in this country.
Faith must be restored to the immigration system after that period of chaos, but the Government cannot restore faith in a system by breaking the promises on which it was built. They cannot restore faith by casting people out. To do so would be a breach of promise and a breach of trust.
Patience is a care worker in my constituency. Her family of three chose to be here, and were thrilled by a new life. Since the announcement, she says their family “have turned quiet” and their two-year-old son is constantly asking what is wrong. Adekunle has two toddlers, who were born here and know no other country. They have no recourse to public funds. He now even feels unable to raise concerns about the people he cares for and the quality of care they receive, because of the risk of exacerbating the indentured servitude we have heard about.
[Emma Lewell in the Chair]
Effectively sending people away and breaking that promise would have massive impacts on older and vulnerable people in Taunton and Wellington. If 50 care workers are expected to leave, 100 people could lose vital care. The Government should instead honour the promise made, and not move the goalposts after the game has begun. They must maintain the rules, including for Hongkongers based in the UK, and build on the success the workers have brought us.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I stand here as a proud daughter of immigrants, proud to represent a constituency where we celebrate and cherish the contributions of migrants from all walks of life from all around the world, including many frontline workers and carers, and reject the hatred, division and intolerance of the far right who continue to target our area.
In debates and discussions about the proposed measures, the Government continue to point to the public consultation, which is closing on 12 February. However, on behalf of my constituents who have been in touch with me, I must take the opportunity today to ask the Minister the following questions. When will the impact assessments be published? Given the potentially wide-ranging impacts on all our communities and the economy, including on local authorities and voluntary service providers, how does the Home Office reconcile the potential impacts of the proposals on migrant families with the Government’s wider commitments to reduce child poverty and homelessness in particular, as laid out in their respective strategies published last year?
How can the Home Office justify retrospective applications of the changes to more than 1 million people who came to the UK on the understanding that they would be able to settle after five years? For the educators in my constituency, many of whom contacted me over the weekend, I ask: will the changes apply to all staff in the education sector? As we know, professional services staff in the education sector play an essential role, but their salaries make alternative settlement routes inaccessible.
Like many of my constituents, I am alarmed by the harm that the changes will inflict on our population. They will undermine integrity, integration, workforce stability, efforts on child poverty and our ambitions to tackle violence against women and girls. In the short time that I have today, I urge the Government to pause immediately the implementation of any changes. The number of Members in this room, the petitioners in the Gallery and the queues outside this Chamber today should send a loud and clear signal to the Government to pause and to ensure that they support transitional protections so that people in the UK are not retrospectively moved on to longer routes.
I also urge the Government to undertake an independent assessment, ideally by the Migration Advisory Committee, covering areas such as exploitation, domestic abuse, child poverty, workforce retention and local authority costs. Finally, I insist on a wider parliamentary debate and a vote, rather than major reform through immigration rules.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the Petitions Committee for securing this important debate. I speak today because Ilford South ranks second in the country in terms of the number of residents who signed the petition calling for the five-year ILR route to be maintained. In short, I say: “Don’t change the rules—don’t move the goalposts mid-game.”
When I was seven, my parents left the life they knew in the Punjab so that their children might have a better future. Life here was tough. We had to work hard. The values of sacrifice, hard work and contribution are still alive in families across Britain today: families who have come here lawfully and fill vital skills shortages, who give up stability, work hard, pay their taxes and contribute fully to British life. Let us not let them down.
I accept the Government’s diagnosis that our immigration system is no longer fit for purpose. It was allowed to fail under a Conservative Government that lost control of the system, left people waiting in limbo and offended our sense of fairness. Now, in government, we must restore order—but restoring order must never mean abandoning fairness. British fairness is clear: when people play by the rules, we honour our side of the bargain.
Changing the five-year ILR route retrospectively for those already on that pathway breaks that principle and is wrong. Since the White Paper’s publication I have had countless constituents asking for just one thing: that we do not change the rules for those who have already complied with them. That was the framework they relied on when they uprooted their lives, and changing it after the fact plunges families into uncertainty.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Does he agree that the change to this rule could also have an impact on children? We have to make sure that, whatever the changes are, they take into account those children who are growing up in this country and could be adversely impacted if we do not look at the proposal carefully.
Jas Athwal
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point and I absolutely agree with what she has said. We cannot overlook the fact that children will be adversely affected.
Nearly 3,000 residents in Ilford South signed the petitions. They are not asking for special treatment; many have never claimed benefits and do not intend to. They are simply asking that the rules they came under are upheld.
A constituent of mine called Amandeep, an engineer, told me that his employer will not sponsor him for 10 years. He has a young baby and—a point one of my hon. Friends made—forcing him to leave would destabilise his family. Pranav, aged 19, has an offer from the University of Oxford but, because he and his mother fall months short of the five years, they now face waiting another five years for settlement. He planned his future around the existing rules; now that future is in doubt. Those are the human consequences of shifting the goalposts mid-game. My constituents are asking not for leniency, but fairness.
Britain succeeds when it rewards contribution, values fairness and keeps its word. It is true that we must control our immigration system, but control must never come at the cost of fairness, because a country that changes the rules after people have kept to them is not restoring trust, but breaking it.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Let me start by saying something I suspect most Members across the House will agree on: our immigration system requires reforming. It needs to be fair and clear and it needs to command public confidence. That includes securing borders, proper enforcement and rules that people can understand, but we have to be honest about what today’s debate is about; it is about people who came here through legal processes that Parliament set.
These people have made life-changing decisions based on the rules as they stood at the time. They came here to work and are working, doing jobs our communities rely on every single day. They are contributing—paying taxes and raising families—and their contributions really matter.
I want to focus particularly on care workers. The care sector is under immense pressure. Many of the people affected by the change are doing demanding, often lower paid, but essential work: caring for our parents, grandparents and some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Removing certainty from that workforce risks deepening existing shortages and undermining continuity of care.
This debate has been prompted by petitions, including one started by a constituent of mine. It is, in part, because of him that this debate is happening, and I thank him for that. Laurence Bansil is a care manager with 15 years’ experience across health and social care. He came to the UK from the Philippines, with a nursing background, and later became a British citizen through the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain.
He has spoken of his deep gratitude for the opportunities that this country has given him to build a great life, to lead in care and to support vulnerable people. He is also crystal clear about what is at stake in terms of the workforce. Speaking about care workers on health and care worker visas, Laurence says,
“This is not simply an immigration issue.”
In his words, it is
“one of stability, dignity, and the ability to continue caring for people who rely on them every day”.
He told me that the workforce “remains fragile,” and he is clear about the risk of extending settlement timelines:
“losing experienced staff…disrupting continuity of care”,
and
“ultimately harming the vulnerable people the system exists to protect.”
Laurence is here today with the Hesley Group, alongside its chief executive officer Virginia Perkins. He says it is time to
“cement stability in social care”,
and urges the Government to
“ensure full impact assessments are completed”.
There is, though, a wider point here about fairness and trust in Government. My ask for the Minister today is modest and straightforward. It is about clarity and reassurance, so for the sake of those affected I ask the Minister to provide clear guidance for people with an open application pending in the very near future. People who are waiting to be told imminently about their right to remain should not be left in limbo, unsure whether they will be swept into a new regime partway through a process that they entered into in good faith.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. This debate is necessary because it goes to the heart of fundamental fairness. The petitions before us reflect the deep sense of betrayal felt by the people who came to this country legally, followed the rules, contributed to their communities and are now being told that the goalposts are to be moved.
The Government’s proposal to double from five years to 10 years the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain is not just a technical policy change. It represents a broken promise to people who did exactly what was asked of them. We are talking about people who have come here and chosen to make our country their home. Indeed, they have been asked to come here by successive Governments to support our public services. In the city of Durham, these are our neighbours, our teachers and the care workers and NHS staff who keep vital services running, day in, day out.
Last summer, I attended a Unison migrant workers event at which care workers spoke to me directly about the uncertainty caused by the proposed changes. Migrant workers, particularly in social care, are too often trapped by sponsorship rules that tie their legal status to their employer.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I was at the same conference. There is a real issue with certificates of sponsorship because of abuse and exploitation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the certificates of sponsorship should be decoupled from employers, to avoid any exploitation by bad employers?
Mary Kelly Foy
Yes. The meeting that my hon. Friend and I went to was fantastically informative, and I could not agree more with his intervention.
In practice, sponsorship rules mean that migrant workers and particularly care workers are living under conditions that resemble indentured labour. When settlement is pushed further away, that vulnerability is prolonged. By extending the route from five to 10 years, we are effectively handing a bad boss 10 years of leverage instead of five.
I heard directly from John, who is in the Public Gallery today. John is a care worker who lives in my constituency. For three years, he has cared for vulnerable residents in understaffed care homes, working long hours without complaint. Even when he was treated badly by his sponsor or placed in an emotionally demanding situation caring for people with advanced dementia, he carried on because he believed that there was a fair end point. John has described the shock that he felt when he learned that the route to settlement could be extended to 10 years. The change affects not just his immigration status, but his child’s stability, his family’s wellbeing and whether he actually feels wanted in the country he serves.
The Government argue that settlement is a privilege. I argue that it is a common-sense investment in a stable society. When people feel secure, they invest in their homes, put down roots, integrate and contribute more fully to their communities. I urge the Government to think again, protect the five-year route and ensure that the UK remains a country where, if someone works hard and follows the rules, they are met with fairness and compassion.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. My word is my bond, and when we break our word we break our bond—not just with those people who have trusted our country, given up their lives and come to serve us, but across society as a whole. It is a particular challenge at this time, so we have to build trust. That starts with how we respond to this White Paper.
The problem at the heart of the White Paper is the wrong diagnosis and the wrong prescription. Prescribing the wrong medicine makes a patient sicker, and that is exactly what will happen. We have a serious skill shortage across our country. Our health and care systems are creaking. We cannot get the right care in the right place at the right time. For our children, we need teaching in our schools, we need a generation’s worth of houses built and we need infrastructure across the country. If we put skills at risk and create insecurity, our economy will not function, our public services will continue to crumble and our society will be worse off, causing more pain across those communities that desperately look to Labour to find solutions.
I therefore say to the Government that the only place where this policy belongs is in the bin. It has completely misread what the country is saying. Having gone through the detail—I will be putting in a submission to the consultation—around the earned settlement, I have to say that it is gendered. It is built on a premise that we know to be biased against women. It is built on the patriarchal belief that someone with higher pay or status is worth more. Instead, we should be thinking about justice and fairness for everyone, no matter how much someone earns or what language they speak—of course, the report does not once mention our second English language, British Sign Language. It should not matter what contribution someone makes. For some disabled people who come here, just being is being part of our communities. Of course, the paper then gets into the prejudicial rhetoric around recourse to public funds. We must be a country that shows our standards, compassion and morals, and this paper certainly fails on each of those criteria.
In response to this paper, I say to my constituents that my word is my bond. If these proposals progress, I will vote against the Government and ensure that many of my colleagues join me in the Lobby, because this is not a Labour policy.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this important debate.
In my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, there is profound anxiety about the changes to indefinite leave to remain. The Minister knows that, because I have written to him on the subject already. The Government’s May 2025 White Paper sets out proposals to increase the standard qualifying period for settlement from five to 10 years, with some groups potentially eligible earlier, depending on criteria that have yet to be developed.
I support a consultation on tighter restrictions on indefinite leave to remain for people who have not yet arrived in the UK, but I am deeply uncomfortable with the principle of changing the rules for people already in the UK who have so often experienced huge upheaval to settle in the UK. They described to me having made decisions about work, housing, education and family life based on the existing five-year pathway. Many have shared the emotional toll of the uncertainty that they are now experiencing. Are they working hard and paying their taxes in the UK, only for the goalposts to move and for the terms under which they came to the UK to change? I am afraid that that is not right. It is not keeping our word. It is not fair play. Dare I say it, it is not British.
Many of the people I have talked to in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle—like the people in Folkestone and Hythe and in the highlands who have been mentioned—work in the NHS, social care and hospitality. In Cornwall, we already have chronic shortages of those types of worker. As the Cornish population ages and birth rates fall, it seems counterintuitive to present barriers before the very people we need more of. What we really need is a frank, honest discussion about immigration. While Reform—and, I dare say, what is left of the Conservatives —will always use this issue to promote their dog-whistle dogma, it is simply a fact that the UK needs immigrants to fill our skills gaps and increase UK productivity and innovation, or we will not achieve our economic goals and targets.
Concerns relating to spiralling welfare costs and wage undercutting can and should be addressed directly, as separate issues. For people already in the UK, we need to honour the terms under which they came and end the pain and anxiety that they are suffering.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my constituent Favour Deedam and her colleagues in Unison’s migrant worker network for sharing their experiences, views and concerns about the proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain. I am grateful to the many constituents in Glasgow West who have shared their histories and their concerns, and of course I am also grateful to the petitioners.
One of the most important but too often undervalued roles in our society is that of the care workers—the people who look after our elderly family members and the most vulnerable people in our communities. Many of those carers are skilled, and they are often studying and achieving national vocational qualifications to equip them to do their job to the very best of their ability. In spite of their qualifications and dedication, they are just not well paid. As 31% of those employed in the health and care sector are now from overseas, it is clear that our NHS and the care sector could not function without them.
As we have heard, the Government’s proposals would mean that for lower-paid workers in the public sector, the waiting period for indefinite leave to remain will increase to 15 years. I suggest that a person’s value to our country should not be measured just in terms of their salary; it should reflect their value to our society. People working in the health and care sectors should be judged on their contribution to our society. Let us remember that the people we are talking about pay taxes, pay national insurance and are often very constructive members of our communities too.
Research by Unison indicates that, of the more than 3,000 people who have come to the UK recently to work in the care sector, 15% paid money to an employer for the privilege; 31% had problems with their pay not being given to them on time; and some were not paid for travel times between care visits or were penalised when they were ill. Many reported racial abuse, including verbal and physical abuse.
I suggest to the Minister that a reform that we could usefully put in place for these people would be to establish a better way of granting visas to such staff. Too many have visas linked to their employment but arrive to find that there is not actually a job for them, or else the company holding their visa fails and staff find themselves in financial hardship. Often, the threat of a visa being revoked or of a worker being returned to their home country is used to stop people speaking up about poor conditions. As Unison argues, a sector-wide sponsorship scheme, run by a public sector body, would take away those fears and reduce the costs incurred when a worker moves jobs. Looking at the Government’s proposals—
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I want to keep this simple: the issue today is whether or not the Government should change the settlement rules for people who are already here. I wish to add my voice to the chorus who are saying that they should not. The Government can change the system for the future—that is fine; Governments do that all the time—but they should not change the rules for people who have already come here under one set of conditions and are now being told, part way through, that the deal has changed.
A lot of the people affected are doing the jobs that this country relies on. Rhey are in hospitals. They are in care homes. They are in kitchens and warehouses. They came here legally. They were told that if they worked for five years, paid the taxes and followed the rules, they could apply to settle, so they made decisions on that basis. Now they are being told that it will not be five years after all. It might be 10; it might be 15. That is a whole extra chunk of someone’s life left in limbo.
In the interests of time, I will cut my speech short. None of this has to be this way. If the Government want a 10-year route for people coming to the UK in future, I am fine with that. That is one thing. People can make the choice to come to this country knowing that those are the rules, but the people who have already come here on a five-year deal should have that deal honoured. I am asking the Government to draw a clear line on this issue. New rules for new arrivals are fine, but do not move the goalposts for the people who are already here doing their bit for this country.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I find myself declaring an interest, because I am an immigrant myself. I was born in east Africa. My parents moved to this country with my two elder brothers: we came to Wolverhampton, and I am very proud to call myself a Wulfrunian and to have the privilege of representing the amazing people of Wolverhampton West, a community in which one in four people, like me, were born outside this country.
This debate is not just about politics; it is about humanity. It is about people who have fled persecution. It is about people we need in this country to work in our NHS, care homes, shops, universities and other places. They are not just seeking a better life for themselves; ultimately, they are contributing to our communities and our economy, just as my family have done. The changes that we are discussing today will have an impact on real lives. We must remember that throughout our discussions.
Over a thousand of my constituents have signed the petitions. They wonder why people who have made this country their home and who live as model citizens—earning a living, paying their taxes and giving a huge amount back to their communities—are now having the rug pulled out from underneath them. One of my constituents, Subhranshu Kumar, is a highly skilled worker who completed his master’s degree here in the UK. Just 14 months away from reaching his settled status, he now finds himself in limbo. He was planning to buy a house next year, but now feels he cannot do that. He is not asking for special treatment; all he wants is for the rules that existed when he decided to come here to remain in place.
Making the proposed immigration reforms retrospective not only undermines the basic premise that the law should be stable and understandable but destroys confidence in the entire system and betrays those who came to this country in good faith. To apply these rules to those who are already here and working towards their settled status is inherently unfair. The strength of feeling about the issue is obvious, as evidenced by the number of people in the Chamber today. On 17 December last year, more than 800 migrant members of the largest trade union in this country, Unison, attended one of the largest lobbying events in Parliament’s history, engaging with more than 100 MPs.
These people are here legally; we should be making it easier for them to become settled citizens, not more difficult. Our diversity and multiculturalism are what makes our country great. We should protect legal migrants, not only to enable them to better their lives but to better our lives, too, so that everyone who lives in this country and who calls her home can prosper.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I spoke in a previous petition debate on this topic last year. At that point, the plans had not been published, and I asked for details of how the changes might affect my constituents, many of whom were very worried and had written to me about their concerns.
In that debate, I talked primarily about doctors and medical staff, because my constituency is home to Cornwall’s only acute hospital. However, I have also been contacted by accountants, chefs, an electrical engineer working in tidal energy and academics—people who make valuable contributions to their communities and who call Cornwall home. We now know that under the consultation proposals, the changes will be applied retrospectively. Some of those people have been living and working in the UK for three to four years, and they assumed that they would soon be eligible for indefinite leave to remain. Now, however, healthcare assistants and care workers in my constituency potentially face 15 years of uncertainty.
These people came to the UK on expensive work visas with an understanding that they could apply for settled status after five years. As other Members have already said, one of my constituents described his reaction to the proposed changes as feeling like the goalposts were constantly being moved. These people have invested their hearts and their families in this country, as well as their money.
I have encouraged my constituents to respond to the consultation and to make their voices heard. I hope that if significant concerns are raised about the proposals being applied retrospectively, the Minister will look at them again.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Like many colleagues, I believe we need a migration system that is robust and fair. It must be robust because, like any sovereign state, the UK needs to be able to exert control over its borders. However, it also needs to be fair, because we are a state that defends and cherishes a rights-based order.
I wanted to speak in today’s debate because I have concerns about the unfairness of some of the proposed changes to the current settlement system. I do not dispute the fact that some changes are necessary. For example, I strongly agree that we need a complete overhaul of the way in which we issue visas to those coming to the UK to work in the health and social care sector, as many colleagues have already alluded to. Unison’s proposal for a sector-wide visa system to replace the current one in which individual employers issue individual visas is a very good one, and I am pleased to welcome Unison members from Colchester to the Public Gallery this afternoon. That change would do a great deal to safeguard the rights of all those who work in that vital sector.
However, other proposed changes to settlement routes give me and others cause for concern. The extension to the settlement qualifying period and the raising of income thresholds will impact much more heavily on the vital public sector workers who we have heard about today—workers on whom we all rely—than on others. I encourage the Minister to consider extending the exemptions to the proposals, and I also add my voice to the argument that these changes should not apply retrospectively.
The Justice Committee, on which I sit, recently had a productive exchange with the Justice Secretary on the matter of exemptions. He assured us that those who have come to the UK to work as prison officers will be exempt from the proposed income thresholds. I understand that parliamentary colleagues who previously worked in the allied health professions—in physical therapy, occupational therapy, pharmacy and social work—have also made a similar case for income threshold exemptions in those vital sectors, so I encourage a very close look at that.
As well as being robust and fair, our migration system needs to be in step with other aspects of Government policy. It needs to offer migrant workers and their families the kinds of protections that we seek to offer to citizens across the country through our Employment Rights Act 2025, child poverty strategy, violence against women and girls strategy, gender equality strategy and homelessness strategy. If I may, I will write to the Minister separately to set out my concerns about what I see as a poor alignment of the current proposal with those elements of our mission as a Government.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
You will not be surprised to hear that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Lewell. I start by thanking the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), who introduced this debate, the hundreds of my constituents who either emailed me or took part in my survey, and, above all else, the 350,000 immigrants who work in our NHS. I refer Members to my registered interest.
I am speaking today because I am concerned that these proposals will damage our ability as a country to attract and retain talent. I think that we can all agree that the UK must continue to attract and retain world-class talent in every sector of our economy. Although it is vital to support our British-born doctors and nurses into good jobs, we must also be aware of the reliance our health and social care system has on those from overseas. In 2015, I experienced that at first hand, when a doctor born overseas saved my life. His nationality was the last thing on my mind, but I do have to admit that I asked what his success rate was.
Through my work on my Rare Cancers Bill, I have also seen how vital the contributions of immigrant doctors, nurses and researchers are to cancer care in the UK. I met representatives of Cancer Research UK today, and they say that they spend just under £900,000 a year on visa costs. Would it not be fantastic if, on Wednesday—World Cancer Day—the Home Office waived those costs?
In my past life at Heriot-Watt University, I was lucky to work alongside fantastic academics from around the world, each of them contributing to research and teaching that enriched the academic experience of students at the university. In May, an old colleague wrote to me with concerns about the changes. He moved with his family to Edinburgh in 2006 to take up a lectureship at Heriot-Watt University. Since coming to the UK, he has graduated over 100 MSc students and 35 PhD students, sharing his experience with others who will go on to benefit our country. His wife also works on infrastructure projects for the NHS and Scottish Water. That couple could choose to live anywhere in the world, so of course they live in Edinburgh South West. I am proud that they do. It is really important that we continue to attract people like him and his wife. Although he is now a British citizen, he tells me that these changes lead him to question how valued he and his children are in the UK. Others in his network feel exactly the same.
I want the immigration system to work, but the first step in getting it to work is for the Government to listen to what people are saying today. Above all else, the Government should look at the consultation responses without any preconceived notions, and think about what is best for our country.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
I start by thanking the hundreds of my constituents who took the time to sign the petition, and who have spoken to me about this issue. It is essential to have a serious discussion about the positive impact on society and the economic benefits that immigration brings for the prosperity of our country. In my constituency, we see those benefits every day. Whether they are a Nigerian carer, a Spanish cleaner or an Indian doctor, they play a vital role, and they are valued. Many of them are working in sectors where we have a skills shortage, so things would quite literally not move or progress without them.
Skilled people come into our country to work in the UK and make financial contributions to the state. As workers with a form of temporary leave to remain, they will have paid thousands of pounds in fees to be in the UK, and that is before taking into account any taxes they pay. Many of my constituents who have made Edinburgh their home have been in touch with me to express the uncertainty that they now face.
The situation is unfair. That is not just my view but the view expressed in court. In its 2008 judgment on R (HSMP Forum Ltd) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, the High Court considered changes to what was then the highly skilled migrant programme. The changes would have retrospectively extended the qualifying period for any person to apply for indefinite leave to remain. In its ruling, the High Court said that applying new rules retrospectively was unfair and unlawful, and that migrants had a legitimate expectation that the rules that they were initially granted would continue to apply. If the changes proposed by the Government are enacted on a retrospective basis, it is likely that the High Court will take a similar view on applying the changes as it did in 2008.
Established practice, backed up by the High Court, has always protected those who are already in the system from the effects of any new rules. I urge the Government to uphold that principle. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that those who entered the UK under the five-year indefinite leave to remain framework will remain eligible to apply after five years of lawful residence, in line with the visa conditions that they were originally granted, and that any new policy will not be applied retrospectively.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening the debate so thoughtfully. I also thank the petitioners for enabling us to debate this issue.
Some 96% of my constituents in Cannock Chase were born in the UK, yet immigration is one of the issues most frequently raised with me. It is a topic of debate that matters to and affects people right across the country. In recent years, rhetoric around immigration has led to a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivations of many people who choose to make Britain their home. At the same time, legitimate concerns about the impact of migration on communities, particularly when that migration is rapid, have been dismissed as bigotry. That leads only to resentment, entrenchment and toxicity, so I am glad that we are having an open and respectful debate.
As always, I am keen to hear a range of views, particularly from those who will be affected by the things that we discuss in this place. Two weeks ago, I met faith leaders and members of the congregation of the Victory church in Rugeley, most of whom work in health and social care. What they shared with me was not opposition to reform but a need for clarity and reassurance. They could see why change is needed, and they support the concept of contribution—they believe that they are making a contribution in many different ways—but the proposal that people in so-called “lower-skilled roles” could face qualifying periods of up to 15 years is causing concern, particularly for those in social care.
The people I met pointed out that social care requires extensive training, safeguarding responsibilities, emotional resilience and compassion, but often is not well paid, meaning that they will not reach the income thresholds under the Government’s contribution proposals. They are not asking for special treatment. They made a constructive suggestion: could those who demonstrate a long-term commitment to care work and continued professional development have access to quicker settlement? I hope that the Minister will say something about how the contribution of social care workers, in particular, can be recognised.
The issue I heard about loudest, though, was the need for transitional arrangements. People have understandably planned their lives around the expectation of ILR after five years, so I hope that the Minister can give us some clarity on when we will know what the arrangements will be. Uncertainty is affecting families’ ability to plan. My constituent Solomon works in social care. His daughter is currently doing her GCSEs and recently won an award for academic excellence. He fears that, on the brink of getting ILR, his family could face a decade or more of uncertainty.
Josh Newbury
In the interests of time, I will not. Communities such as mine ask for a system that is fair, rewards contribution and provides a clear pathway for those who have put down roots and serve our country. I left Victory church in no doubt that the people who I met are making an immense contribution to our community; I am sure that my constituents would be proud that they want to make Rugeley their home. Although I support the Government’s objectives in reforming the settlement system, I ask the Minister to ensure that clarity, dignity and stability are baked in and spelled out as soon as possible.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
Although 116 people in my constituency have signed the petitions, the story of one constituent—I will call her Jill—stuck with me. It is a story of anxiety and uncertainty for Jill, who works in social care on a health and social care visa. She described the reality that many face: low pay, unsafe workloads and a fear that speaking up about conditions at work could put her visa at risk. She made the point that those pressures have been pushing people to breaking point across the country for years. She captured exactly why this issue matters.
People like Jill moved here in good faith. They brought their families. They got jobs in health and social care roles, filling the critical gaps that we have in the workforce. They are contributing to society and dutifully paying their tax. Now the goalposts are potentially being moved. Will the Minister commit to protecting those already on the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain from retrospective changes? For workers like Jill, settlement is not just a petition or debate; it is whether they can plan a future in the country for which they are helping to care, whether they will have to uproot their families and leave the homes where they have created connections and communities, whether they can speak up about unsafe conditions without fear and whether their financial and emotional sacrifices will ever lead to the security they were promised.
Many on this route organised their lives around the existing five-year pathway.
Kirsteen Sullivan
In the interests of time, I will not.
Those people budgeted for visa fees, planned family life and made long-term decisions on the understanding that after five years they could apply for settlement. Extending that to 10 years means five more years of uncertainty and thousands of pounds in additional costs. For families, it means children growing up with prolonged insecurity and uncertainty. For workers, it means remaining tied to temporary status for a decade, severely limiting their bargaining power at work. For our public services, it risks driving away exactly the people we can least afford to lose.
I am not arguing that immigration policy can never change; I think most people here agree that it can and must change. However, there is a fundamental issue of fairness when changes are applied to people who are already here, already contributing to local and national economies and our public services and already well along a pathway that was clearly set out to them. We should not and must not pull the rug from under them now.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
We have a health and social care system built on the commitment and skills of workers who are too often underpaid, overstretched and undervalued, yet they contribute not only to the wellbeing of our society, but to the strength of our economy. In December, I met with one of those care sector workers, who was also a Unison representative in my constituency. We discussed their campaign for fairer visa rules for migrant care workers in the UK. For transparency, I put on record my membership of Unison.
Many of those working in social care are migrants who care for some of the most vulnerable and elderly in our society. If settlement is to be earned through contribution to the UK economy and society, few have earned it more than social care and health workers. Those who came here with hopes for a better life and have spent years supporting the health and care of the nation should have that contribution recognised and valued.
Progressive reform to the system is needed. Currently, as others have mentioned, a migrant care worker’s visa is tied to their employer, which opens up the potential for abuse. It creates a situation of dependency where a bad employer can exploit their staff knowing that those staff will not risk speaking out because their visa relies on that employer. That power dynamic strips migrant care workers of their bargaining power. We need to rebalance the power dynamic between migrant care workers and their employers. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister to look seriously at the potential of a sector-wide visa that avoids the pitfalls of employment-tied sponsorship in this sector.
In any new immigration rules, those working in the social care sector should be given due status in decisions about indefinite leave to remain and citizenship. I urge the Government to ensure that care workers are treated not as insignificant temporary labour, but as skilled and valuable contributors to society and the economy. Whatever changes we make to our immigration system, we must ensure that those contributions are recognised and respected.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
As part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I recently visited some of our Army training centres and met with a few international recruits who are concerned about the future of their life in this country. Last week, as chair of the APPG on adult social care, I had the pleasure of hosting an event in Parliament to mark the launch of a new report by the Social Care Institute for Excellence. The report examines what national standards of care should look like in future national care surveys. Crucially, the report makes the point that national standards alone will not address some of the deeper challenges faced by adult social care.
One of those challenges is workforce shortages. Across adult social care, workforce shortages have a direct impact on the quality and continuity of the care that people receive. Consistency of staff is fundamental, and delivering high-quality, long-term care without a stable workforce cannot guarantee that consistency. I support the Government’s ambition to reduce long-term reliance on international recruitment. It is right that we focus on building a strong, sustainable domestic workforce, but as we do so, it is essential that we do not lose the skills of those who are already working in the sector.
It is equally important to acknowledge the invaluable contribution that overseas workers have made and continue to make. After the pandemic, the previous Government specifically encouraged overseas recruitment into social care. Many of those who came into the UK uprooted their lives and left their families. They made sacrifices to serve in a sector that holds the wellbeing of our most vulnerable citizens in its hands. As we look to encourage domestic workers to think about pursuing a rewarding career in social care, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider allowing those overseas care workers who are already in the country to complete the five-year route to indefinite leave to remain?
In its last annual report examining the healthcare and social care sectors, the Care Quality Commission stated:
“Vacancy and turnover rates in adult social care have continued to fall”.
While that is to be welcomed, it also pointed out that vacancy rates in the sector are still
“3 times higher than those in the wider job market.”
We should do everything we can to encourage both the recruitment and retention of workers. After all, retaining trained care workers is significantly cheaper and more reliable than replacing them. But if overseas workers who are already working in social care will have to wait 10 or 15 years to get indefinite leave to remain, they may be tempted to move to other countries such as Australia or Canada that offer quicker routes to similar settlement status.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I will confine my remarks to the impact of the ILR proposals on social care in my constituency in Scotland.
Around 25% of social care workers come from other countries. We need social care staff who live, work and breathe care, and, with an ageing population, we need more of them. Most of those staff have diligently, and with a smile on their face, taken care of our families. None of them have received a good deal—or one that reflects their contributions—over the last few years, with inadequate pay offers often limited to the living wage.
I held a roundtable in November on that subject with Falkirk’s care sector. I thank the fantastic local social care workers who travelled down to London to speak with me before Christmas. The concern they have is simple: employers typically only sponsor when they need to, and the recent rise in those coming on social care visas is due to the pay being unattractive to domestic-born workers. Every employer at my roundtable cited immovable difficulties in recruiting locally as the reason that they were pursuing sponsorship. That is unlikely to improve radically given the setting of successive paltry living wage levels at well shy of £15 an hour, well short of a sustainable wage for attracting domestic workers en masse reliably, and morally insufficient for anyone who contributes by working in such a valuable profession. This is a push without a pull.
As MPs, we are hearing directly from providers—and workers—that a blunt transition to 10-year to 15-year ILR timescales for social workers before further work is done to recruit a sustainable workforce risks leaving one of the most important sectors in our country exposed in terms of recruiting critical workers.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Many people in my constituency who are on the skilled worker visa programme have written to me. They are being told, if they are already on a five-year programme, that it will be changed retrospectively to a 10-year programme. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an inherent issue of fairness in retrospectively making changes, and that, at the very least, the Government should have transitional arrangements?
Euan Stainbank
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point, and am glad that he managed to get it on the record. I also reflect that there will be an economic impact on social care if we are not able to attract a sufficient domestic workforce to compensate for those who would leave the country.
Those changes would risk deterring those already in the sector from staying. Failing to be able to replace them risks worsening standards for those within the industry by extending their unbreakable tie to a sole sponsoring employer or occupation. The Government are right to pursue measures that reduce net migration, and to address the lack of public consent in the immigration system due to the scattergun rise in net migration under the previous Government, who promised the exact opposite for years. But as we seek to invest in upskilling a generation, we must invest in increasing social care pay to a competitive level, so that we can deliver for that sector, and not risk the sector by trading off the short-term welfare of those who work in it as we pursue reducing net migration.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I will speak for my constituents who did exactly what this country asked of them. They came here legally, they worked hard, they paid their taxes and they built lives on the clear understanding that after five years they could settle. Now, part-way through that journey, as we have heard time and again in this debate, the goalposts are being moved.
I have met and heard from NHS clinicians, care workers, engineers, researchers, academics, teachers and other skilled professionals, some only weeks away from being able to apply for settlement under the current rules. These are people who kept services running through covid and who pay thousands in tax, yet many are now living with anxiety and despair. Parents have asked me how they explain this to their children—children who feel British, because Britain is all they have ever known. These are households already paying more into the system than they take out.
I understand the Government’s desire to reward contribution and support integration, but my constituents are struggling with a system that feels increasingly detached from the reality of their lives. Government power comes with responsibility, especially when people have arranged their lives around our decisions. We cannot invite people in on one set of rules, benefit from their labour and commitment, and then rewrite the contract halfway through.
I recently attended a community meeting at the gurdwara in Warrington, with constituents who arrived in the UK from south Asia—members of the Sikh, Muslim and Hindu communities, all of whom came here in good faith. Every person in that room was at a different stage of the journey, and every single one would be affected by these changes. Some of the concerns that came up were about a single national income threshold that ignores regional pay differences. People working full time in vital jobs in Warrington cannot simply magic their wages up to a national figure. Many described normal career progression in highly skilled roles, with salaries starting lower and growing quickly, while others explained how visa restrictions limit their ability to move into higher-paid work.
I have spoken to couples where both parents work and pay tax, yet neither earns enough individually to qualify.
Sarah Hall
I am going to carry on because of time.
I have spoken to highly skilled public sector workers who are being told that their day job is somehow not contribution enough. I have heard from researchers and lecturers who are strengthening our universities and innovation base, yet are falling short of blunt thresholds.
To be clear about what fairness looks like, it means no retrospective changes for people already on the route to settlement, clear guaranteed transitional protections, and recognition of regional pay differences. We should manage and control migration, and our constituents rightly expect that, but they also expect fairness. They expect a system that recognises the contribution of hard-working, tax-paying people who now call Warrington their home. I ask the Government to match that same sense of fairness, protect those already on the five-year route, recognise real contribution and give families the certainty they deserve.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.
The Liberal Democrats and I are completely opposed to these sudden and retrospective changes to entitlement to indefinite leave to remain. Families who have worked hard, paid taxes and integrated into British society should not face more years of insecurity and additional costs.
Munira Wilson
As well as the uncertainty caused by the extension from five to 10 years of the qualifying period for ILR, many families in my constituency have contacted me with another concern: where, at the moment, one parent stays at home to look after the children, if they are forced to go out to work in order to meet the £12,500 minimum threshold for permanent residence, they will face massive childcare costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that they are right to be concerned?
Mr Forster
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that issue. She is a strong advocate for children and families, and she is right to highlight how the Government have not thought this policy through. It has a disproportionate impact, particularly when childcare costs are so significant. I will come on to talk about the unacceptable changes to the income thresholds.
As I said, the Liberal Democrats and I oppose the changes, which move the goalposts and change the rules of the game after we have kicked off. They go against the fundamental British value of fairness. I thank the organisers of the two petitions and all those who signed them, including and especially the 218 and 444 of my constituents in Woking.
The Government’s consultation document states that from April 2026, anyone who does not have ILR status—even if their application is going through the process—will be affected. That is subject to the final outcome of the consultation, which invites views on whether there should be transitional arrangements to exempt some people already in the UK. The Government press release suggests that such arrangements might be considered for “borderline cases”. Will the Minister expand on that, and perhaps explain, without the use of euphemism or vague language, what it means in practice for our constituents? We owe it to the people of Hong Kong, Ukraine and other war-torn parts of the world who have sought refuge in Britain to respect their wish to take part in our society and allow them peace of mind to plan for the long term.
James Naish
The hon. Gentleman mentions Ukraine. Obviously, most Ukrainians will not be eligible for ILR as we are discussing it, and this may be an area where we do need rule changes. A lot of young people who have come over from Ukraine with their families will now know nothing other than our education system and our ways of life. Does he agree that it would be good if the Minister looked carefully at the approach we take with Ukrainians?
Mr Forster
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will talk a bit more about Ukraine in a minute. I thought I would be generous to him, compared with some of his colleagues, who were a bit less keen to hear from him this evening—a little more cross-party working is in order.
I want particularly to talk about Hongkongers. Several elements of the earned settlement proposals are causing serious concern for the Hong Kong community in my constituency, in particular vulnerable BNO families and young Hong Kong pro-democracy activists who have been forced to seek asylum here. Many BNO arrivals are full-time students, retirees, stay-at-home parents—as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned—or family carers who do not meet the conventional salary thresholds. Any new sustained or measurable economic contribution test or minimum income rule risks permanently excluding those entirely legitimate residents, who are already fully integrated into our communities and contributing to British society.
Tens of thousands of BNO visa holders will reach the five-year point and be eligible for settlement in 2026. It is appalling that that is the point that the Government have chosen for the rules to come in. A sudden increase in the language requirement to B2 level without adequate notice or transition arrangements will throw many of those vulnerable individuals off balance and deny permanent status to people who have lived, worked and put down roots here for a decade. That would be yet another betrayal of Hongkongers, after the Government’s recent approval of the Chinese mega-embassy.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) mentioned Ukraine. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to take necessary steps to provide Ukrainian refugees in the UK with the stability and security they deserve by establishing a clear pathway to ILR. Later this month, it will be four years since the appalling and unwarranted invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and many Ukrainian families have built meaningful lives here, yet their futures remain precarious because of the temporary nature of their current settled status.
Reports suggest that Ukrainians are missing out on job opportunities, loans, mortgages or lease renewals because they do not have a pathway to permanent settlement. Not only does that put them at a material disadvantage, but the pressures of securing housing or financial security under the current visa system put refugees through huge anxiety. Their country is already at war, and it is deeply unfair to put our allies through further stress. The Ukrainian scheme is the only humanitarian scheme that does not include a pathway for settlement. Ukrainians in this country should not be in that position at all. Yes, we need control, but we need to have a fair and robust system, and a frank discussion about who stays and how we support our friends and allies.
The Liberal Democrats are particularly concerned that elements of Labour’s proposed changes to ILR risk adding unworkable red tape for businesses and for people who came here legally, undermining integration and damaging our economy. Britain is already becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation. The five-year global talent visa now costs £6,000—around 20 times more than in our competitor countries. Cancer Research UK alone spends almost £1 million a year on visas. I know where I want its money being invested, and it is not in visas for the Home Office. Any changes aimed at control must go hand in hand with a serious plan to boost domestic skills and get more people into the jobs that our NHS, social care system and economy desperately need.
Before I come to my asks for the Minister and a summary, I want to mention the elephant in the room—or not in the room. Where are the Reform Members? They are missing yet another debate on immigration. The Government want to change ILR requirements to look tough on immigration because they are running scared of Reform. I urge the Minister and the Government to speak up for our immigrant communities, highlight the benefits of immigration and agree that our constituents are much more likely to be seen by an immigrant in the NHS than to be behind one in the queue.
What assessment has the Minister made of the economic costs and the social costs of these changes? Does he think they will make Britain a more competitive place when it comes to securing the workforce on which our NHS and social care system are so dependent? Has he considered how they may damage community cohesion and integration? Does he agree that retrospectively extending indefinite leave to remain, without the provision of any specific transitional arrangements, will hurt the many hard-working members of our society who have played by the rules and contributed greatly to our economy and culture?
Since taking office, this Government have performed many U-turns on high-profile issues, whether because they are financially foolish, morally wrong, or impossible to deliver because of a political rebellion. Unfairly and unreasonably changing the ILR rules retrospectively would meet all three of those reasons. I urge the Minister to announce today that the changes will not be retrospective, so that immigrant constituents of mine, his and everyone else in the room who have served our communities and fled conflict can sleep soundly at night without worrying about their future. That is what the Minister can do this evening. I urge him to do it.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Lewell, for chairing the debate today.
The House has had a great many opportunities to discuss indefinite leave to remain and its impact on people, including debates in this Chamber on consequential matters such as those working in the healthcare sector and BNOs. Underpinning all these debates is the principle of what constitutes a fair migration system and what does not.
Many Members have made impassioned arguments about what they believe would make a fair system. However, Members who have participated in previous debates on this matter will be well aware that I must respectfully disagree with some of their proposals, particularly any that would create weaker criteria around indefinite leave to remain. The petitions seek either to maintain the five-year period or to provide exemptions to the rules that the Government have set out regarding potential changes to the receipt of benefits. If we were to follow the suggestions in the petitions, the Government’s proposals on settlement would be left in tatters and wholly ineffectual.
When the proposals were announced, the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), said that there was much in them that we supported—partially because much in them was familiar from the amendments we tabled during the passage of the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. Having spent many hours in the Public Bill Committee discussing that legislation nearly a year ago, I can say with absolute certainty that a 10-year route to indefinite leave to remain is something that we proposed, and it is something that we continue to support.
The right to citizenship and permanent residency should go only to those who have demonstrated a real commitment to the UK, and a 10-year period is clearly more reflective of the level of commitment that many in this country would accept as a reasonable timeframe, in terms of both contribution and time to settle. The British people want and demand tougher action on immigration. We believe that this is a perfectly reasonable alteration to the existing system that puts more robust measures in place to ensure that settlement is based on the long-standing contribution that many of us would expect.
Even though we have seen reductions in net migration, with the Office for National Statistics stating that
“decreases in work-related and study-related immigration”
continue to follow policy reforms from early 2024, the immigration figures remain historically and exceptionally high, and far greater than before the pandemic. The Government must take action to reduce immigration, and they must do so imminently, recognising that the timeframe for these changes is dictated by a significant cohort.
Between 2015 and 2020, total grants of settlement were never over 100,000. In the years either side of that, with the exception of 2010—the last year of the previous Labour Government—they were never more than 200,000.
Barry Gardiner
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that between 2022 and 2024, even though the number of spaces in the care sector was deemed to be between 6,000 and 40,000, his Government made available 616,000 visas for that?
Matt Vickers
There has been a lot of passionate debate today, and well-meaning suggestions for changes or exemptions to the Government proposals were passionately advanced. Some were related to salary, to age or to people’s grasp of the English language; some referred to people’s community contributions, to the make-up of a person’s family or to people’s role in public services. Compassion is infinite, but this country’s resources are not. We need a system that is fair for UK citizens, including those who are currently struggling to get on the housing ladder.
Matt Vickers
I will carry on.
Between 2015 and 2020, total grants of resettlement were never over 100,000. In the years either side of that—except in the last year of the previous Labour Government—they were never more than 200,000. In contrast, the Government’s own settlement consultation sets out estimates showing far greater numbers of people being granted settlement between 2026 and 2030. It projects that the peak could reach as high as 620,000 in 2028, with as many as 2.2 million receiving settlement over that period. That is simply not sustainable.
Matt Vickers
No.
I think we can all understand why people want to achieve settlement more quickly, but the policies we set must be based on what is right for our country. We should maintain our resolve, and ensure that changes are enacted without creating loopholes or alternative routes beyond what the Government have set out. The approach is wholly responsive to the current situation, and reflects the fact that we need much stronger policies that deliver a fair system for British citizens and those who have already legally settled in the UK.
I want to re-emphasise the points raised when the policy was announced, which include the point that the thresholds for earnings to demonstrate net contribution set out in the consultation must be sufficiently high to ensure that those who are granted settlement contribute to this country. Furthermore, the Government’s own work has highlighted some of the mechanisms people use to take advantage of existing immigration rules, so have the Government been developing strong rules to ensure that adjustments to the baseline for behaviour, such as volunteering, represent a significant contribution? If we do not have sufficiently strong criteria for what constitutes working in the community, I fear the proposals risk being undermined.
The British people care fundamentally about fairness. The British people demand stronger borders. Immigration has been far too high for far too long. Too many people refuse to accept that simple fact. As has been said, if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw ever more people on to a path that starts with anger and ends with hatred. We need an immigration system that is fair and proportionate and does not take taxpayers for a ride.
For too long the right to remain in the UK has been seen as an automatic entitlement. It has become a conveyor belt to citizenship, when UK citizenship should be a privilege that is earned through commitment and contribution to our country. The Conservatives believe that the UK is not a dormitory or a hotel, but our home. We must make changes to indefinite leave to remain, both to respond to the levels of immigration and so that we can have a fairer system for the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the petitioners in the Public Gallery, to my constituency neighbour, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for presenting the debate, and to every single Member who has contributed. It will be difficult to name everyone, because there have been so many speeches, but I am grateful for them.
Both petitions relate to the earned settlement proposal set out in “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement”, the Command Paper that the Home Secretary introduced to Parliament on 20 November. The proposed reforms represent the most fundamental change to the settlement system in decades and are currently subject to an ongoing public consultation that ends in 10 days, on 12 February. We recognise how important this issue is to Members—we have seen that here today—as well as to their constituents and of course to migrants across the whole country. We will listen, and are listening, to what is being said.
Kerry McCarthy
I have encouraged many of my constituents to participate in the consultation that finishes on 12 February, but I am concerned to hear that some of the changes might be introduced in April this year. I know from past experience with Government consultations that it tends to take an awful long time for the Government to consider the responses and then come up with their own response to them. How does that work in terms of the timing?
Mike Tapp
Some of the rule changes that we will introduce are firm, and that will be laid out today in my speech. Much of the proposal—for example, transitional arrangements—is very much being consulted on. Of course, that will be listened to. If there are any further questions when I finish, I ask Members to please intervene nearer the end.
Barry Gardiner
Will the Minister confirm whether the changes that are firm were also consulted on in the consultation document? If so, why were they consulted on?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for his considered intervention. I will go through my response to the debate, which will lay out exactly what changes are being made and what is going to consultation, and I am happy to talk again at the end.
We will provide further details on how the new settlement system will work in due course after the consultation closes, but I hope hon. Members will appreciate that, while the consultation is ongoing, I am somewhat restricted in what I can say. I will endeavour to be as helpful and fulsome as possible in my response.
Mike Tapp
I will not give way—I will make some progress, so that hon. Members can hear the meat of what I need to say. The Government recognise and value the long-term contribution of migrants to the UK. The proposal is not a deportation policy. Multiculturalism absolutely makes us great. However, settlement here is a privilege, not a right. It cannot be simply a measure of how long someone has been in the UK, but rather of the contribution they have made. If someone wants to settle in this country, they must contribute, integrate, follow our laws and learn our language. Those are the principles that underpin a fair immigration system that the British public could have confidence in.
Net migration ballooned under the previous Government, and we are now faced with the prospect of 2.2 million people being eligible to settle between 2026 and 2030. Around one in every 30 people in this country arrived between 2021 and 2024. Those numbers are staggering. That is not what people voted for. I am surprised that this has not been raised during the debate today.
Such numbers jeopardise our public services, our economy, the whole housing market and cohesion in local communities. Doing nothing is simply unacceptable. Around 1.34 million people are currently on our social housing waiting list—
Pete Wishart
Will the Minister confirm, very clearly, from the Dispatch Box that any changes to ILR will be voted on by the whole House, giving all his colleagues in the Chamber tonight the opportunity to express their genuine hostility to these proposals?
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his question. They are likely to be, in the case of rule changes; that decision has not been completely made, but Members can of course express their frustration at me here in this Chamber today.
As I was saying, around 1.34 million people are currently on our social housing waiting list, which has increased by 200,000 since 2020. Combining that with a potential 2.2 million people becoming eligible for settled status between 2026 and 2030 would put a massive strain on our public services. We have already set out plans to increase the standard qualifying period towards settlement from five to 10 years.
The earned settlement model will allow people to earn reductions for positive behaviour, such as working in a public service role and volunteering. We want to encourage that behaviour, which underlines the substantial contributions that many migrants make to our country.
People have spoken very well in this debate about stability within the country and the prospect of “moving the goalposts”, as some have framed it, taking that stability away, but I want to stress that people who are here waiting to settle have access to education, healthcare and rent. They can buy a house, work and travel in and out of the country, and have access to financial products.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this process is not about deporting people; it is about creating a system that is based on contribution and integration, and people who are not committing crime. That is what the public expect. However, the new model will also impose penalties on people who claim public funds or who have breached immigration laws. Those are not punitive measures; they are deterrents for those who are thinking about choosing a life of benefits when they can work, or who fund criminal gangs in order to cross the channel on small boats, endangering their own lives in the process.
This Government will not continue with the status quo, considering the huge numbers that we face. It is right that we implement a system that is fair and that rewards people who work to make this country a better place to live.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, the proposals that are not subject to consultation are five-year discounts for two groups of people. The first group is partners, parents and children of British citizens, reflecting our commitment to treating our citizens fairly and their right to be in a relationship with whoever they choose, regardless of nationality.
The second group that will receive the discount is British national overseas visa holders. We remain committed to the people of Hong Kong and the hundreds of thousands of people who have uprooted themselves and rebuilt their lives in the UK. Prior to this debate, I was at the APPG on Hong Kong discussing exactly that. There are complex questions around income, family income, and assets over income; we are currently consulting on those and, when a decision is made about them, it will be announced.
It is vital that migration enriches our economy, but it is most vital that it enriches our local communities. The measures set out in the earned settlement model promote integration by raising the level of English required and by demanding strict adherence to our laws. We will encourage integration and strengthen communities.
Barry Gardiner
One of the four pillars that the Minister has set out in the consultation document in relation to integration is volunteering. A number of hon. Members have already mentioned that there is an arbitrariness—a subjective nature—to that. Who will certify the volunteer work that is done? One can imagine a plethora of organisations being set up that will then happily sign a chit saying, “So-and-so has volunteered for so many hours a week.” How will the whole process actually operate? It seems arbitrary and subjective. What will the volunteering entail? Will it have to be for the home community or for the wider community?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for making that good point, which we in the Home Office have discussed in detail many times. Indeed, that is why the issue is under consultation. It is subjective, it is complex and right now I cannot give him a definitive answer. However, we will reach one, and announce it in due course.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I must disagree with much of what the Minister has said. Most immigrants in our country are not benefit scroungers and are not criminals; in fact, most of the immigrants who I have met in my constituency surgeries are hard-working people. Just last week, a woman, her husband and their children were at my constituency surgery in tears because of the proposed policies that the Government have put forward. They told me that both of them work full time and, when one of them is working, the other is caring. They pay into our tax system, they work most weekends, and yet they still struggle to pay their rent and to buy food. I ask the Minister: at what point will they be able to volunteer?
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is right that most migrants are not criminals. Most migrants are thoroughly decent people, and that is recognised by this Government and, of course, by the Home Office.
On the volunteering side of things, I will say again that this process is still a consultation and that we will set out more detail in due course. It pains me not to give more detail now, but that is where we are at.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Minister clarify a previous point on which there was perhaps some confusion? It is most definitely not the case that all migrants go into social housing; in fact, it is pretty much the opposite a lot of the time, and none of those who have contacted me about this issue are living in social housing—not that anyone should have any shame about living in social housing in the first place. Secondly, the Minister talked about firm elements of the Government’s proposals. Were they the exemptions that he mentioned before, or will he be covering other firm elements in the rest of his speech?
Mike Tapp
I have not in any way implied that all migrants go into social housing. My point was the increase of 2.2 million people who would have access to it, with 1.34 million already on the waiting list and our ambition to build just 1.5 million homes in that picture. That simply is not enough, and that is just on social housing.
Tony Vaughan
Does the Minister have evidence about how many people you think are going to switch from not claiming benefits to claiming benefits, or from not being in social housing to being in social housing, or is this just a political judgment?
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that when they say “you”, the convention is the same as in the main Chamber: they are referring to me.
Mike Tapp
What I am not going to do is make up facts and figures on the spot, but I do not have an absolute fact to give my hon. and learned Friend. What I can say is that around 15% of people on universal credit are not British nationals. That is a reflection on the demand that this can put on our welfare system and, of course, on housing.
Mike Tapp
I am going to make some progress.
Turning to the subject of the first petition, people who come to the UK to take up a job make an important contribution to our economy and our public services, filling essential skills and labour market gaps, but for too long sectors have become reliant on them to fill those gaps and have not invested enough in our domestic workforce. The reforms we set out in the immigration White Paper last year redress that balance. We are reversing the long-term trend of an over-reliance on recruitment from abroad, and instead increasing investment in skills and training for those in the UK.
We implemented the first of those reforms in July last year, raising the skills threshold back to RQF—regulated qualifications framework—level 6, or roughly degree-level occupations, leaving a shortlist of medium-skilled occupations deemed critical to our industrial strategy and critical infrastructure. That restored the purpose of the skilled worker route and meant a reduction of more than 100 occupations. In December, we then raised the immigration skills charge by 32%. We are currently considering the Migration Advisory Committee’s review of salary requirements before making further changes, and will consider its upcoming review of the medium-skilled temporary shortage list in the summer.
Patricia Ferguson
I am grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention. Given that we reckon that some 30% of posts in the NHS and care sector are taken up by people who have come from overseas, at what point will the reforms that he referred to just now get us to the point where we can do without that 30% of people? It strikes me that, before we do anything along these lines, he needs to do an awful lot of work with the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that the balance can be had.
Mike Tapp
My hon. Friend’s point is well made. I can assure her that that work is going on, and I will come to it shortly.
Let me address some of the questions raised by hon. Members. One was on an impact assessment. It is important that one is produced and made public, and that will come once the consultation ends and we have made all the final decisions. It is important that we match the migration market with the skills market and the jobs market. We are working hard across the Home Office to ensure that we are attracting the right workers to fill the jobs we need them to work.
Let me turn to care workers. This Government are immensely grateful to those who come to the UK with good intentions and continue to play a vital role in the adult social care sector. However, it is clear that international recruitment went too far, and the route admitted unprecedented numbers of migrants and their families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) said, around 600,000 migrants came to the country to fill just 40,000 roles in that sector.
Barry Gardiner
Does the Minister share with me a sense of irony that the former Home Secretary and the former Immigration Minister who were responsible for giving out those 616,000 have now joined Reform?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for a point well made. This place never ceases to amaze me—but that is politics.
Some Members have raised Unison’s campaign on sector-wide visas. There is a commitment in the immigration White Paper to look at how we make it easier for those workers to change employer—that is being looked at seriously within the consultation. However, we want to retain the ability to punish those dodgy employers who are dishing out visas when they clearly should not be.
The Government are committed to providing opportunities for British workers. It is only right that we reduce reliance on international workers, and last year the Health Secretary announced a £500 million investment in a fair pay agreement for adult care workers, boosting their wages across England. But we still need to act to ensure that those who arrived while the requirements were relaxed earn their settlement and demonstrate that their integration and economic contribution to the UK meets the standards that we are setting.
The petition also touches on transitional arrangements, and whether the proposals will apply to those already halfway to settlement. As we have seen in this debate, this is a hugely important issue. We have asked for views on that in the consultation, and I hope Members will understand that while I acknowledge their keen interest and the concerns of many individuals, I cannot say anything that could prejudge the outcome of the consultation. The consultation will be published when it closes.
Some strong points were made around family income, the gender pay gap, those who are more vulnerable, those who are disabled, those who have university fees, and of course those on armed forces concessions. All of that is being considered within the consultation, and there will be more detail to come. I can only apologise that I cannot give more detail on that today. I assure Members that we will listen to what people tell us in the consultation before deciding how earned settlement will work.
Turning to the second petition, we are considering whether benefits should only be available to British citizens and not, as is the case now, to those with settled status. I know Members have concerns about this issue. The Government have a responsibility to British taxpayers to ensure their money is spent in a fair and equitable way. It is therefore right that we reassess the point at which migrants can access public funds.
We know the challenges that the country faces, and that this Government have inherited. One of the most significant challenges is a serious lack of social housing. We are taking steps to tackle the challenge, but we must be realistic. I have already set out the number of people who are expected to apply to settle over the next five years under our current system. All of those people could be eligible for benefits and social housing. I am sure that many of us in the Chamber will have constituents who have spent years on the waiting list for social housing. Continuing to add to that list will not solve the problem.
Ayoub Khan
The Minister talks about what potentially might happen, but, with respect, that is almost scaremongering. Most of those people are hard-working citizens. Does the Minister not believe that that kind of language raises this spectre, which is precisely why we are having the debate? That kind of language does no justice to what is really happening in our migrant communities.
Mike Tapp
I disagree. There is nothing in my language that is raising the temperature. The hon. Member would do well to listen to my praise of migrants in my contribution. I have made it clear that I do not think that all those who seek to settle would seek to access the welfare system and housing system, but it is quite clear that some would, and we are already at capacity, with 1.3 million of our constituents on the social housing waiting list.
We would like to hear people’s views on the measure, so I encourage anyone who is interested in providing those views to do so before the consultation ends. I am conscious of time, so before I finish, I want to again express my thanks to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and to all Members who have contributed today. These are sweeping reforms, and I understand the strength of feeling toward them. I have heard the points that have been raised here, which will all feed into the important consultation. It is important that everyone who may be affected by the proposals has a fair and equal opportunity to make their voice heard.
As I have set out, the consultation is currently open to all until 12 February, and further information on how to respond and provide views can be found on the Government website. We want to ensure that any decision taken has a robust evidence base and a clear understanding of how people may be affected, and that is why this may be unclear to some of our constituents at this point.
Clearly, these are issues of great significance, not only in the context of the immigration system, but for our nation itself. I say to colleagues here and across the House that we understand the importance of our task, we are determined to get this right and, as I have set out, we are proceeding with the seriousness and care that the public and Parliament rightly expect.
Tony Vaughan
I thank the petitioners, the 330,000 signatories and all hon. Members who have attended to speak in this debate over the last three hours. I have been struck by the fact that every single Back-Bencher who has spoken opposes the retrospectivity of the measures for those who are already here, on the basis that they undermine basic British fairness. There is no basis at all to apply these rules, even to those who have pending applications, given that they are even closer to the point where they would otherwise benefit.
The differing impacts of different ILR qualification rules on members of the same family was mentioned by various Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). It was also said that the changes could lock victims into situations of domestic violence. That is absolutely right. I have worked on such situations in the past, and have seen that that is a very real threat.
Many hon. Members talked about the increasing settlement period, which would entrench exploitation by being tied to a single employer, including my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and the hon. Members for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and for Leicester South (Shockat Adam).
Members were also concerned that the proposals will damage our ability to attract and retain the skills our country needs in a whole range of sectors. They included my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). Those concerns came especially from Members from the more remote parts of the country, such as my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe; the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and others.
The Minister cited the additional numbers who could qualify for ILR, but the view that that is a burden that we need to relieve ourselves of is too short term and narrow. It assumes that migrants will switch to benefits or reliance on local authority housing, and I cannot see any evidential basis for that assertion. The Minister said that 15% of those on universal credit are non-nationals, but looking at the UK population, around 20% are foreign-born, so it seems that group is less reliant on benefits than the population as a whole.
Across the Chamber today we have heard about the damage to community cohesion and integration—those are real points that must be very seriously taken into account. It is not about reducing immigration—I think it was only the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who wrongly suggested that it is. It is about settlement and who gets to belong here after they have contributed for so long.
I want to end on a point that was raised by other hon. Members. It is really important, given the strength of feeling that we have heard today, that there is an opportunity for MPs to express their views about these measures if they are to proceed in any form. I suggest that a motion passed by negative resolution is not an apt way to do that. It is important that everybody who has spoken today feeds into the consultation so the views that the Government have reflect the views of the country as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 727372 and 746363 relating to indefinite leave to remain.
Enhanced Free Trade Agreement with Switzerland: Round 9 Negotiations
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The ninth round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement (FTA) with Switzerland took place in London between 12 and 16 January 2026.
The new deal aims to support British businesses, back British jobs, and put more money in people’s pockets.
The enhanced agreement with Switzerland demonstrates the UK Government commitment to economic growth through strengthening trade ties with our 10th biggest trading partner—a relationship worth £49.0 billion in the 12 months ending September 2025 (ONS, UK total trade, seasonally adjusted).
The FTA aims to deliver long-term certainty for UK services firms by locking in access to the Swiss market, guaranteeing the free flow of data and cementing business travel arrangements.
The trading relationship supported 130,000 services jobs across the UK in 2020, including legal, consultancy and finance sectors (OECD trade in employment database and covers all jobs directly and indirectly supported by exports from service industries to Switzerland in 2020).
The new agreement will update the current goods-focused UK-Swiss FTA, signed in 2019 and largely based on an EU-Swiss deal from 1972. This does not cover services, investment, digital or data, despite services accounting for over 60% of UK trade with Switzerland (ONS, UK total trade, seasonally adjusted).
We have already extended the services mobility agreement between the UK and Switzerland for a further four years to 2029.
The latest round saw progress in multiple areas:
Services and investment
Productive sessions took place on services and investment. Talks remain focused on market access for UK services exports.
Market distorting practices
Good progress was made during this round on a range of topics relating to state-owned enterprises and subsidies.
Digital
Progress was made on digital trade with the UK seeking commitments to guarantee the free flow of data across both countries.
Intellectual property
During this round, the UK and Switzerland discussed intellectual property rights areas. Negotiations will continue with the aim of agreeing a comprehensive framework for the protection of intellectual property.
Goods
Discussions continue to focus on goods market access and on the goods chapter text, which will help streamline the process for UK exports to Switzerland and bilateral trade in goods.
Environment and labour
Negotiators provisionally closed the trade and sustainable development chapter, which demonstrates the UK and Switzerland’s joint commitment to maintaining high standards of environmental and labour protection including through multilateral environmental agreements such as the UNFCCC and the Paris agreement.
Next steps on FTA negotiations
Immediately following the round, my colleague the Secretary of State for Business and Trade met President of the Swiss Confederation Guy Parmelin in Switzerland to take stock of the progress in the FTA.
The Government are focussed on securing outcomes in an enhanced FTA that boost economic growth for the UK and Ministers will continue to update Parliament on the progress of negotiations.
The Government will only ever sign a trade agreement which aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors, alongside protections for the national health service.
[HCWS1292]
Pandemic Agreement: Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I would like to update the House regarding the follow-up negotiations to the pandemic agreement to develop and agree a new pathogen access and benefit sharing (PABS) system in the form of an annex to the agreement.
The PABS system will be a new, voluntary system for life sciences companies to sign up to in order to gain faster access, with less red tape, to the pathogens they need to create new vaccines, treatments and diagnostics (VTDs) for in the event of a pandemic. These negotiations are currently ongoing via the World Health Organisation’s member state-led intergovernmental working group (IGWG), which was established to facilitate this process.
Since my last update to the House on 22 October 2025, the IGWG has convened in from 3 to 7 November and from 1 to 5 December and held a resumed session from 20 to 22 January. So far, technical discussions have centred around the scope of pathogen materials and sequence information covered by the PABS system; how they will be shared through laboratory networks and databases to ensure timely access; benefit sharing provisions for manufacturers who sign up to the system; the links between PABS and other international access and benefit sharing frameworks; the links between domestic access and benefit sharing legislation and the PABS system; and provisions regarding traceability and open access to data.
The most recent round of negotiations saw some progress made on issues including the use of terms for the PABS system, but differences remain on a range of issues. The UK Government remain committed to continuing work with other member states to find consensus and to deliver an effective, implementable, and equitable PABS system.
Member states have agreed to report on the outcome of negotiations by the next World Health Assembly in May 2026. Only once the negotiations on the PABS annex have concluded, and the annex has been adopted by the WHA, will the pandemic agreement, including the PABS annex, be open for signature and ratification by member states.
Two further negotiating weeks are scheduled for 9-13 February and 23-27 March and I will update the House further as negotiations continue.
[HCWS1296]
Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination: Older Adults
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I am today announcing that the year-round vaccination programme to protect older adults against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) will be extended from 1 April 2026 to also include those aged 80 years and older, and all residents in care homes for older adults, supporting the 10-year health plan ambition to shift from sickness to prevention.
RSV is a common respiratory virus that can cause severe illness, especially for young infants and older adults who are at greater risk. That is why, in September 2024, we introduced new RSV vaccination programmes in England for adults who were aged 75 to 79 years old on 1 September 2024 and those subsequently turning 75, and for pregnant women from 28 weeks gestation to protect their baby during the first months of life. The decision to offer NHS vaccinations to protect these groups against RSV was based on the latest independent expert advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) at that time. When advising the introduction of these programmes, the JCVI noted that an extension would be considered when there was more certainty about the real-world impact of the programme in 75 to 79-year-olds and the level of protection offered by vaccination in those aged 80 and over.
The JCVI has continued to review the latest evidence and advised in June 2025 that all older adults aged over 75 years should be eligible for an RSV vaccination on the NHS, as well as all residents in a care home for older adults, regardless of their age. The Committee also advised that RSV vaccines could be administered concurrently with covid-19 vaccines.
His Majesty’s Government have accepted the JCVI’s advice, and the UK Health Security Agency are working with NHS England to ensure that newly eligible individuals will be offered an RSV vaccination from 1 April 2026. This means that anyone who is eligible for both the RSV programme and the spring 2026 covid-19 campaign will be able to get both vaccines at the same appointment, which will improve convenience and help maximise uptake.
The RSV vaccination programme has already had a positive impact, leading to a 33% reduction in RSV-related hospital admissions in 75 to 79-year-olds in winter 2024/25, only months after being introduced, while uptake was still rising. A recent publication in The Lancet Infectious Diseases on a UKHSA and NHS collaboration has shown that the vaccine is over 80% effective in preventing admissions due to RSV chest infections.
I am delighted to say that nearly 2 million RSV vaccinations have now been given to older adults who are currently eligible for the programme. This extension will build on that success, by providing protection for even more people at most risk of RSV, which will save more lives and further reduce RSV-related hospital admissions during the winter months.
[HCWS1294]
Government Support for High Streets
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
High streets are the heart of our communities—they should be vibrant centres where people come together, where local businesses take root and flourish, and a source of pride in place. But too many people tell us that their high streets no longer feel like the thriving centres they once were. They see boarded-up shops, dwindling footfall, and the loss of cherished local businesses. We have listened, and are taking decisive action to reverse this trend.
I can confirm that the upcoming high streets strategy will be backed by at least £150 million of support to help turn the tide on the high streets most in need. This targeted investment will be used to tackle the challenges people care about most. It will improve neglected shopfronts, bring empty units back into use, and restore pride in local high streets. The funding will be prioritised for areas that have felt the harshest impact of high street decline.
This announcement builds on the Chancellor’s recent measures to support hospitality and celebrate the essential role of British pubs in high street life. These measures form part of our broader commitment to a new high streets strategy that will tackle the structural challenges facing retail, leisure, and hospitality businesses. People care about their local businesses, and we know these sectors are vital drivers of local economies. That is why we will work closely with industry to ensure the strategy reflects their needs and unlocks long term growth.
The new investment will complement our flagship Pride in Place programme, a transformative package of up to £5 billion that puts power and resources directly into the hands of local communities. People want more control over what happens in their town centres—and we are giving them that control. Through Pride in Place, local people are shaping regeneration projects, deciding how investment is spent and creating thriving places. Together, these initiatives represent a long-term plan to give communities control and restore pride, opportunity, and economic resilience across the country.
New funding is just one part of the picture. We are already taking steps to support vibrant high streets and respond to the problems people have told us matter most. This includes introducing new tools to repurpose and reimagine high street property including high street rental auction and community right to buy, consulting on new national planning policies to support town centre vitality, cutting red tape with licensing reform, and tackling the proliferation of betting shops, ensuring our high streets remain welcoming and diverse.
This is the beginning of a turning point for high streets across England. By combining targeted funding, stronger local powers, support for businesses, and community driven regeneration, we will breathe new life into town centres and strengthen the sense of pride people feel in the places they call home.
I will bring further updates as we develop our high streets strategy in the coming months.
[HCWS1295]
West Midlands Trains Services: Transfer into Public Ownership
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
My noble friend, the Minister of State for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) has made the following ministerial statement on 30 January 2026.
I am confirming to the House that on Sunday 1 February, West Midlands Trains, operating as London Northwestern Railway and West Midlands Railway, will become the fourth operator whose services will transfer into public ownership under the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act.
Operations will now be run by a new public sector operator —WM Trains Ltd—a subsidiary of public corporation DfT Operator Ltd (DFTO).
This now means that eight of the 14 train operators that my Department is responsible for, and which will form the backbone of passenger services under Great British Railways (GBR), are in public ownership.
Govia Thameslink Railway’s services will be the next to transfer on 31 May 2026, with the intention that Chiltern Railways and Great Western Railway’s services will follow. Expiry notices will be issued to confirm the dates of transfer for these operators once a final decision has been taken.
Public ownership is already putting passengers at the heart of the railway, but, in and of itself, is not a silver bullet. To truly fix the structural issues that have long plagued our railways, we need systemic reform.
The Railways Bill continues its passage through Parliament and will establish GBR, a new publicly owned body, that will run and manage the tracks and trains for passengers and freight use every day. The Bill will also give passengers a powerful new voice with a passenger watchdog, and an enhanced role for devolved Governments and England’s mayors to have a bigger say in how the railway is run in their regions.
GBR will take responsibility for the day-to-day operational delivery of the railways: from delivering services to setting timetables, managing access to the network and operating, maintaining and renewing infrastructure. It will also bring fares and ticketing into the 21st century, simplifying the baffling array of fares and ticketing that passengers currently endure, ensuring they get best value for money. The new GBR app and website will allow passengers to buy tickets, check train times and access a range of support all in one place.
Ahead of the establishment of GBR, the management of track and train is already being brought closer together with integrated leadership across DFTO train operating companies and Network Rail routes in defined regional areas. This will deliver improvements for passengers and freight users.
Furthermore, for the first time in 30 years, rail fares will be frozen for a year from March. This will put money back in passengers’ pockets and ease the cost of living for hard-working people, including delivering savings across over a billion journeys.
The Government continue to deliver on our plan for change, with investment and reform driving growth and rebuilding Britain. Reforming our railways is central to this and will drive improved performance, bringing more people back to rail, generating greater revenue and reducing costs.
[HCWS1293]