Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 View all Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2026 - (3 Nov 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. That shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. A reminder that the Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in that debate by bobbing. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause to speak again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote—that includes grouped new clauses and schedules—they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which the amendments appear on the amendment paper.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I apologise, but I am struggling to hear you. I am partially deaf, so I just wanted to ask that everyone speaks as clearly as possible. Thank you so much.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out lines 15 to 18, and insert—
“it is the Lower Thames Crossing.”
This amendment would restrict the application of the Bill to the Lower Thames Crossing.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, on the first day of line-by-line consideration of this important Bill. Whenever I sit on a Bill Committee, I seem to be opposite this Minister. We spent many happy weeks together on the Employment Rights Bill earlier in the Parliament. I look forward to the next few weeks.
I genuinely believe that a lot of the Bill has cross-party consensus, certainly between the Government and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. However, as we explored in some of the evidence sessions the other day and on Second Reading, there are some question marks over many aspects of the Bill. We will no doubt explore those in future debates in Committee and later in the passage of the Bill in our House and the other place. For now, however, my proposition through this amendment is that we should seize on where we have agreement in order to get progress on a project that I think all parts of the House wish to see built, namely the lower Thames crossing. The amendment therefore seeks to restrict the Bill to just the lower Thames crossing.
In other parts of the Bill, we have genuine consensus, such as on the provisions for barrier-free tolling on roads such as the M6 and the Mersey tunnel, but that could easily be brought forward in separate legislation. The real purpose of the amendment is so that the Government can get on with the lower Thames crossing, which we very much want to see happen, particularly Labour Members in the direct locality of the crossing, as well as a number of Conservative Members from Kent and Essex.
If we can do that, I think we will see speed that we do not often see in infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom. Last week, we heard evidence about the differentials between us in the United Kingdom and our nearest neighbours in France and how they get stuff built faster and cheaper. For once in this Parliament, why do we not grasp the nettle, take what we agree on and move forward with it, having the debate on the other aspects further down the line?
One of the arguments I make is something I have seen throughout my political career in this place, in local government and as an activist: the importance to trial a new model to prove that it works. This is innovation for the lower Thames crossing, so let us test it, try it and work out the gremlins before the Government, whoever that might be at that point, come forward with other projects that could be financed and secured through the RAB—regulated asset base—model and the innovations in the Bill. I will ask the Minister a few questions on that.
Given that so much of the media and debate narrative has been about the lower Thames crossing, what other projects do the Government think might come forward or could be financed through the model proposed in the Bill, other than the lower Thames crossing? If literally nothing else is on the table, why are we legislating in this place for something that no one has the first clue about what it might be for? We can all gather around the point on the lower Thames crossing, but we may have divergence on other projects, in particular if no one can name a single one of them.
The framework brought forward by the Bill is open ended. The public we serve in all our respective constituencies would expect us to have far greater clarity on precisely what any law that we pass in this place is for. My constituents and those in the constituency of every other right hon. and hon. Member can understand and get behind the lower Thames crossing; it is far more difficult to get behind an abstract, which they cannot see, touch, breathe or smell, and so on. I put it to the Minister, therefore: accept the amendment and let us get an Act on the statute book that can move forward at pace—that favourite political phrase, at the moment—to get the lower Thames crossing built.
Alison Griffiths
My hon. Friend makes such an important point. During the evidence sessions, the Minister was categorical that his intention was not for any other road to be covered by this, so I join my hon. Friend in asking the Minister why he would not agree to the amendment, since he is so adamant about no other need for the clause.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reasserting my argument. I hope that the Minister can answer the question. Some speculation has been that the Government want to avoid a hybrid Bill on the lower Thames crossing, and believe you me, Mr Dowd, I see the pitfalls of hybrid Bills in my own constituency, with 35 km of a certain railway being built through the middle of it, but I do not see a real argument why a hybrid Bill would be necessary. Why can we not talk explicitly about the lower Thames crossing in this piece of legislation?
I know the Minister to be a reasonable man, with whom we share agreement on this particular point of the lower Thames crossing, and on a determination to get on with it, so I gently ask him why we cannot have this piece of legislation on something that all parties can get behind. Later, we can have the debate on the other matters, which will take more time to get right with parliamentary scrutiny, but meanwhile we can move forwards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank hon. Members in Committee for attending. I hope that we will all learn a little as we go along. I start by recognising the desire of the shadow Minister to reach consensus wherever possible. As the Committee goes on, I am sure that he will find that he is in agreement with me 90% of the time. If not, the Committee will ensure that we are in agreement with the Government position.
The hon. Member makes a lucid argument, which I am here to address. The amendment’s intention is very clear: it would restrict the Bill’s application to the lower Thames crossing. I understand the shadow Minister’s desire to seek clarity on what other projects this legislation might be used for, and it is the case that the Bill has very much been made with a single project in mind—the lower Thames crossing. However, I think that naming the project in the Bill would undermine our attempt here to set up a framework for potential future uses.
It is clear that under the intended operating model, ownership and operations of the Dartford crossing would transfer to the new regulated private sector entity, which would be responsible for operating and maintaining both the Dartford crossing and the new lower Thames crossing, ensuring a consistent and reliable service. It is important to have both crossings covered, because that will ensure that they are operating in an integrated way. The amendment specifically refers to only the lower Thames crossing, but restricting the Bill in that way would undermine the Government’s intention. Were the legislation used only for the lower Thames crossing, that would undermine its purpose of building a framework for major road infrastructure, and we should not unnecessarily constrain future Governments where this financing approach may be appropriate.
The shadow Minister tempts me to come up with a shopping list of potential projects, but the truth of the matter is that, at the moment, the lower Thames crossing is the only suitable project. It is probably worth flagging that the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which was passed under a Conservative Government, created a power to create tolling roads and I think only one project has ever been built under that legislation. That is not to say that the same will happen here, but getting the lower Thames crossing right will give us confidence moving forward, if a suitable project arises in the future. We do not want to constrain future Governments in this way.
It is also worth bearing in mind what the shadow Minister said about the amendment having potential procedural consequences, such as the potential risk of hybridisation, which is of course a matter for the House. As the shadow Minister said, the amendment would risk hybridising the Bill, meaning that it would introduce additional parliamentary stages and considerable delay to the delivery of the lower Thames crossing. Hybrid Bills are often used for projects that do not have planning consent, and which need planning consent via Parliament, but that is not the case for the lower Thames crossing.
As we all know, the lower Thames crossing has finally got planning consent, and it already has a very long history. As we discussed on Second Reading, we know that the original work to address the capacity issues around the Thames goes back as far as 2009. Risking hybridisation of this framework Bill would put at risk the timetable for this legislation, and therefore the financing and, ultimately, the delivery of the new crossing.
The 2025 autumn Budget confirmed the importance of harnessing private investment to build the lower Thames crossing, unlocking the next stage of delivery for one of the UK’s most important infrastructure projects, but I am afraid that the amendment would risk the opposite happening. Of course, the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment on Second Reading recognised the urgency of this particular project, so I gently suggest that, were we to accept amendment 46, the progress that has been made would be put at risk of further delay. I invite the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Greg Smith
I hear and understand the points that the Minister has made, but the key word he used in his response was “risk”. Although I accept that such risk can exist, I cannot and do not accept that it cannot be mitigated or worked through. The most powerful question all of us have to ask, particularly when Members find themselves in a ministerial position and wanting to make progress on manifesto commitments or on other things the country needs—and that the Government perceive the country needs—is not one about procedure. We must ask: how? How do we make this happen without a hybrid process? How do we make this happen in the fastest possible way?
From the research I have done, though the risk exists that some would argue that a hybrid process would be the only way forward, I can see that there are pathways to doing it as more straightforward legislation, with a usual Second Reading, Bill Committee, Report and Third Reading before we get to the other place. Therefore, we will press this amendment to a vote. We want to show our commitment to building the lower Thames crossing but not write a blank cheque for other schemes.
Greg Smith
I certainly will. I am always happy to give way and have a discussion on these matters—that is fundamentally what we are here to do in line-by-line scrutiny.
Jim Dickson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. The Minister has made it clear that it is incredibly important that the mechanism we are setting up today not only works to get the lower Thames crossing constructed but integrates the work at the Dartford crossing, so that tolling is equalised and traffic is hopefully distributed properly across both crossings. The lower Thames crossing is there to take the pressure off the Dartford crossing, which is a single point of failure that leads to costs not only for the economy but for my residents in delays, air quality and all sorts of adverse life consequences. Does the hon. Member not understand that, if we limit the Bill to the lower Thames crossing, there is a possibility that we will not be able to undertake the integration between the two entities, and that the point of what we are doing in this Bill Committee will therefore be lost?
Greg Smith
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. In theory, it is in exchanges like this that we—the four of us from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the crowds from the Government side, as fits our current Parliament—can work to improve the Bill, if there is a willingness to do so. I understand his point, and I would be very open to something that connects things by limiting the scope to the lower Thames crossing and the existing Dartford crossing, which affects his constituents so considerably. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman in other debates on that point.
The wider point still stands. The Bill is writing an open-ended, unpredictable future under this model, beyond the projects that all of us can get behind and support and that our constituents will understand. No matter where they are in the country, many people wish to get down to Kent, perhaps to Dover to get on a ferry and go to France, and they will find themselves behind the wheel—worse still, with the kids in the back screaming—because of the delays getting to the Dartford crossing. Therefore, everyone can get behind the need to get this project done, but let us restrict it to this project, albeit with—I state this for the record very clearly—integration with the existing infrastructure for the Dartford crossing. The very worst thing we could create with any new project, of which the lower Thames crossing is a good example, is an unintended impact on existing road networks, crossings, tunnels and so on.
The integration has to be there, and I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point on that. However, the core principle of this amendment—it will be no surprise that we fully expect to lose the vote given the current parliamentary maths—is to put down a marker of our support for the lower Thames crossing but also our scepticism about the way this model could be applied to other unnamed schemes in the future.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, after “strategic” insert “and local”.
This amendment expands the general duty of the ORR so that it must consider and avoid adverse impacts on local roads, as well as the strategic road network.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 47, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, leave out lines 5 and 6.
This amendment would remove the ORR’s duty to have regard to contributing to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under the Act.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 48, in clause 2, page 2, line 39, leave out lines 39 and 40.
This amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s duty to have regard to contributing to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under the Act.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 68, in clause 103, page 67, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert
“after the Secretary of State has published its guidance to the ORR under section 1(5).”
This amendment prevents the Act from coming into force until the Secretary of State has published the guidance to the ORR on how it must undertake its regulatory functions under the Act.
Zöe Franklin
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Clause 1 obliges the Office of Rail and Road only to
“have regard to…avoiding adverse impacts for the strategic road network”.
That creates severe statutory asymmetry that will potentially leave council-maintained local roads completely unprotected. The amendment would correct that omission by elevating local road protection to an equal statutory footing, requiring the regulator to actively evaluate and mitigate traffic displacement, road surface wear, and congestion on local surrounding roads caused by potential toll avoidance. Surrounding A roads and B roads managed by local highways authorities face accelerated asphalt degradation when heavy commuter and freight traffic diverts from tolled highways and creates potentially massive uncompensated repair backlogs for local council tax payers. We all know the challenges that our local roads face under our local highways authorities.
Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, cautioned the Committee that drivers faced with a toll will naturally choose local, free alternatives, creating negative traffic impacts across adjacent networks. That must be taken into account. The evidence of Ralph Smyth, from the Transport Action Network, highlighted that creating private toll infrastructure without a statutory duty to protect adjacent road networks breaks the integrated transport planning and leaves local highways authorities without recourse.
Why does clause 1(3)(b) explicitly protect National Highways’ strategic network from adverse impacts while leaving local council roads to absorb the traffic gridlock and financial fallout of toll evasion and avoidance? Will the Minister accept amendment 37 to ensure that the regulator has an explicit statutory duty to protect local communities and local highways authorities from toll diversion impacts? I intend to push the amendment to a Division.
Greg Smith
In this group I wish to speak to amendments 47, 48 and 68, tabled in my name. I will also speak to amendment 37, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage.
His Majesty’s official Opposition have considerable sympathy with amendment 37. The unintended consequences that we sometimes see from infrastructure projects must not be brushed to one side; they must be taken seriously. I was in a small hamlet in my constituency at the weekend. The unintended consequence of something as simple as a road diversion in Oxfordshire—I have to say it, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, is an Oxfordshire MP—forced a considerable volume of traffic through that small hamlet, causing considerable distress in narrow rural lanes. The same could happen from any major infrastructure scheme.
We have heard in the oral evidence sessions and on Second Reading about the concerns that traffic displacement immediately surrounding the lower Thames crossing can be a serious problem for communities and for people trying to get their kids to school, get to work and go about their daily lives. Those local roads are the very veins that flow the traffic to the newer infrastructure projects as they are built. They are the roads off which people predominantly live—nobody lives on a motorway, on a bridge or in a tunnel. Therefore, without due regard for how we ensure vehicle movement through those roads from people’s houses, businesses, schools, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries to those new major infrastructure projects, such as the lower Thames crossing, nothing will work. This is almost the very definition of needing joined-up Government, joined-up planning and joined-up approaches to anything that we build in this country, including the lower Thames crossing and the other potential future unnamed projects that the Bill would allow for. The official Opposition have considerable sympathy with amendment 37. If the Liberal Democrats push it to a Division, the Conservatives will vote for it.
Moving on to the other amendments in group 2, amendment 47 would remove the Office of Rail and Road’s duty to have regard to contributing to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under the Bill. The amendment is not an attack on the environment or anything like that; it is about getting the balance right between getting infrastructure built and doing it at the lowest possible cost. We saw in the oral evidence sessions, and I have certainly seen in my research, that one of the things wrapped up in sustainability is—through separate order but fundamentally coming back to the wording in clause 1—the banning of the use of diesel plant in construction. White diesel runs between 20p and 25p a litre cheaper than hydrotreated vegetable oil, which is the current primary alternative that can be used instead of diesel plant—although, it has to be said, it is not a drop-in fuel; it requires mechanical changes to fuel filters and other parts of the vehicle to be operational. Banning the use of diesel plant will just drive up the cost, which ultimately be borne by payers of tolls.
Greg Smith
I will in one second; I will finish my point. The hon. Gentleman knows I will always give way where I can. The cost will ultimately be borne by toll payers on the lower Thames crossing and in any other scheme that could be built under the Bill. That is a position that I do not think any of us really want to see. We know from other debates that there seems to be either an unwillingness or an inability to name what the toll on the lower Thames crossing will cost, but we can be sure that the clauses on sustainable development and the duty for sustainable development that the Opposition are seeking to remove, such as clause 1, can only possibly drive the cost up.
Jim Dickson
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and it is absolutely in the interests of my constituents for tolls to be as low as possible, and therefore for cost to be controlled through the project. However, is he mindful of the evidence that the National Highways executive director for the project, Mr Palmer, gave when the Committee spoke to him on Thursday? He said that the cost of HVO and electric plant together was comparable with that of continuing with diesel, and that in any event, that element of the project cost is extremely marginal to the overall cost of delivering the lower Thames crossing. Attempts to prevent measures that will make the project sustainable and
“the greenest road ever built”,
which my constituents care about, are therefore pretty futile, given the overall size of the project.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman may not be surprised to hear that we will not find consensus on that point. I accept that Mr Palmer gave us his view of the world, which was that there was no differential in price. However, any simple look at the market prices of white diesel and HVO shows that the differential very much exists. That is not even a point of debate; it is in the market price. Also, later in the Committee’s oral evidence session, we heard evidence that the building of the road pales into slight insignificance compared with everything that will use the road. Operational vehicles powered by either petroleum or diesel will still be the vast majority of vehicles using the lower Thames crossing, which clearly has not been taken into account.
Alison Griffiths
In the evidence session, we heard from Mr Palmer that he had not taken different quotes from organisations looking at the differential cost between HVO and white diesel; all the quotations were based only on HVO. Therefore, his assertion that they were comparable in price was based on his view alone.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It struck me that in his answer, that witness did not necessarily say that there is no differential in cost, but that his duty was simply to get a quote for HVO, so he would not take a quote on any other fuel source. That goes contrary to my view of the world, and my belief that we would all be better served if we as Members of Parliament, and politicians at large, did not just accept what we were told, and instead properly challenged and looked at the consequences of everything. There is a failure to challenge and say, “Hang on—isn’t white diesel 20p or 25p a litre cheaper?” If I were in the Minister’s place, I would push back on National Highways over that to ensure value for the toll payers of the future.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Does the hon. Member understand how construction procurement works? National Highways would not have specified a particular fuel type; it would have specified an outcome, and the contractors appointed would have chosen how to meet that. That outcome was set out in the development consent order signed under his Government. Is he suggesting that the Government should interfere in the activities of contractors working on the lower Thames crossing? Given that fuel cost is less than 1% of the Bill cost, does he really think this is an issue we should be focusing on?
Greg Smith
I know the hon. Gentleman has a background in this field, and I respect his point of view. I accept that fuel is a small part of the Bill cost, but small parts, if allowed to persist unchallenged, eventually become large costs for the toll payers.
On the point the hon. Gentleman made about the DCO, as I put my hands up to in the Committee’s oral evidence sessions, the previous Government got things wrong. We Conservatives paid a heavy price for that in July 2024, just as the Labour party paid a price for getting things wrong in government in previous general elections. Under our new leadership, we are putting our hands up to some of those mistakes and challenging some of those parts of the past that we think should be put right. The DCO that he referred to was signed under the last Conservative Government, but I would put it to any incoming Government—the Government in which the hon. Gentleman serves as a Back Bencher in particular—not just to accept that and say to the contractors, “Just follow everything that went before. Don’t question it. Don’t look at it again”, but to ask questions and say, “Will this deliver ultimate value for future toll payers on the lower Thames crossing?”. That is not interfering with contractors; it is actually setting contractors free to be able to come to market without the restrictions that clause 1 places on them in this instance and that the DCO placed on them in other instances. It would enable them to offer better value to future toll payers in this scheme and to the taxpayers of this country in other schemes.
Mike Reader
Is the hon. Member suggesting that we should go back and change the DCO to remove the climate targets? I decided after the evidence session to speak to some planning lawyers, and they told me that that would add at least five years to the delivery of this programme. Is he advocating for stalling the lower Thames crossing for another five years?
Greg Smith
No, I do not think we should stall the project. I was very clear in my comments on group 1 that the Conservatives want to see the lower Thames crossing built. We want to see it as a major road building priority for this country, and therefore anything that adds delay is something that we do have to think very seriously about. However, I do not believe it is beyond the wit of any of us to find a way to lower costs without having to relitigate and relegislate on absolutely everything. We should apply a bit of common sense, which is precisely what amendments 47 and 48, by removing that duty from both the ORR and the Secretary of State, would do in this instance.
I very much hope the Committee will consider those amendments in the spirit in which they are intended of delivering value and speed on this project. Indeed, while HVO is in fairly plentiful supply in this country, even with the global challenges we face at the moment, it is not in as plentiful supply as white diesel.
Amendment 68 was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. It would prevent
“the Act from coming into force until the Secretary of State has published the guidance to the ORR on how”—
how is the critical word here—
“it must undertake its regulatory functions under the Act.”
I have noticed from having debated other Bills in Committee during this Parliament that there seems to be a bit of a theme of kicking many features of intended legislation into the long grass for future publication; it happened with the Employment Rights Bill, as was. Governments from time immemorial have done that, so it is not a point I make just to the current Government, but I invite the Committee to reflect on it more widely.
Our constituents send us here to do things in their best interests and in the best interests of our country, yet too often, including in the Bill, we are in a place where we straightforwardly say that we are going to pass a law but too much of it has to come later. Too much of the regulation that will actually shape the Bill will come far down the road so we cannot be confident as Members of this place, whether we sit on the Opposition Benches or the Government Benches, precisely what it will look like.
I ask the Minister to give examples of how duties will be applied and whether they could actually form an override of the main task of delivering and regulating roads built under this scheme, including the lower Thames crossing. I confirm that we will support amendment 37, and I hope that the Committee can back amendments 47, 48 and 68.
Justin Madders
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and I welcome the hon. Member for Guildford to the Committee and thank her for moving her amendment. The concern she raises through the amendment is that the impact of licensed roads on the surrounding network should be properly considered. However, that does not mean that we need to extend the Office of Road and Rail’s general duties in clause 1, nor does it mean that the licence holder would be free to disregard the impact of its activities on surrounding local roads, because clause 1 reflects the scope of the licensing regime concerning trunk roads. The Bill deals with the impact on local roads in other, more appropriate ways elsewhere, for example under clause 4.
Before a licence can be granted, the licensing authority must consult appropriate persons exercising functions in relation to highways. That enables local highway authorities to feed in their views where roads may be affected. The relationship does not end once the licence is granted; clause 8 also allows the ORR to require the licence holder to co-operate with other highways authorities as part of the licence. The framework for the Bill provides a route for local road impacts to be addressed, without extending the ORR’s overarching duty beyond the roads it is regulating. Local roads are considered as part of the Bill, which provides appropriate ways for their interests to be considered without extending the overarching statutory duties beyond the scope of the licensing regime. The existing provision provides the appropriate balance between ensuring that the wider impacts are considered and giving the ORR a clear and workable statutory duty.
In terms of the specifics of the lower Thames crossing, it is difficult to see what this other local road crossing the Thames would be and how it would be affected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has explained so clearly, that is one of the reasons why this project is crucial. I would therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.
I turn to amendment 47 from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire. It would remove the ORR’s duty to contribute to sustainable development when carrying out its duties under the Act. We have deliberately designed those duties as a balanced package. The ORR’s principal focus remains the interests of road users, alongside the efficient and economic delivery of highways and the ability of licence holders to finance their activities. Sustainable development is one of the wider considerations that the ORR must have regard to when carrying out those functions—it does not override the principle considerations.
This is not a novel duty; it is an approach consistent with established economic regulatory regimes in the energy and water sectors, where sustainable development forms part of the wider statutory framework within which independent regulators operate. Projects put forward under this legislation will involve significant infrastructure works, including the construction and improvement of roads. This can have significant environmental and wider impacts, therefore it is right that sustainable development, including the consideration of environmental impacts, is expressed in the duties in the Bill.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Dowd. Can the Minister give us any idea of how much the sustainable measures are actually costing on the project?
Justin Madders
I do not have any particular details on that, so I will write to the hon. Member. The requirements on sustainable development originate from the Environment Act 2021. I know he was not here at that time, but that was a piece of legislation brought in under the then Conservative Government. Under section 19 of that Act, Ministers are required to have due regard to the Government’s environmental principles policy statement when making policy. Those principles ensure that environmental considerations are built into policy making from the outset, as is the case in this Bill, so we are not breaking new ground or doing anything different from what has been done before on sustainable development.
There are real factors to bear in mind in delivering major infrastructure, and it is right that we consider them as part of our consideration of the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, whose constituents are affected by this Bill, would want the local environment to be considered.
I turn now to amendment 48. I think the general thrust of the arguments here will be the same, because the approach we are taking is consistent with established economic regulatory precedents, as seen in the energy and water sectors. The Secretary of State’s primary focus remains the interest of users of trunk roads in England, particularly the efficient and economic delivery of highways and the ability of the licence holder to finance its activities. As I have already stated, sustainable development does not override those considerations. Decisions under this framework should take into account the wider public interest factors set out in the clause and not focus on any single consideration in isolation.
To respond to the questions that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked about diesel, as we have already heard, the evidence is clear that this is at best a marginal issue in terms of costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South suggested, reopening this question could lead to significant delay on the project.
Of course, the DCO has been settled for a considerable period. It has brought significant benefits already, in particular large landscape-scale environmental enhancements of semi-natural habitats, woodlands, species-rich grasslands, open mosaic habitats, and wetlands. This approach will support a greater, more diverse range of wildlife than areas such as agricultural land or amenity grasslands. By making LTC a tunnel and extending it, the project will avoid protected wetlands on the banks of the River Thames, helping to reduce impacts on environmentally sensitive habitats such as the marshes special protection area and Ramsar site. That will be of benefit to the wider community, and the suggestion that we withdraw that element of the Bill is regrettable.
Amendment 68 is in this group of amendments, but I do not think the shadow Minister spoke to it, so I seek your advice, Mr Dowd, as to whether we are dealing with it now.
Justin Madders
Did you? I must have missed that.
In effect, amendment 68 would force the Secretary of State to publish guidance for the ORR under section 1(5) before the Act came into force and would simultaneously remove the Government’s ability to make regulations ahead of particular clauses coming into force.
Amendment 68 would mean that the vast majority of the Act cannot come into force until the guidance of section 1(5) is published, but there would be nothing meaningful to issue guidance about until the Act is in force, because the bidding would not have happened, we would not know who the investors would be, and therefore we would not know what the ORR would have to provide guidance on. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State could not meaningfully provide guidance.
I turn now to clause 1 stand part and the overall duty that will guide the ORR in carrying out its functions under the Bill, which we have probably already covered in some detail. The ORR must act in a way that it considers best supports the interests of users who use highways covered or potentially covered by the licensing regime. That includes future users, which is important because the ORR might make decisions about a road before construction works or improvement works have been completed.
When carrying out this duty, the ORR must consider the efficient and economical construction, improvement, operation and maintenance of those highways. It must also consider the need for licence holders to be able to finance their activities required under the licence. Of course, those are not the only considerations for the ORR. It must also have regard to safety, as I have said, as well as sustainable development, competition and the effects of its decisions on the wider strategic road network.
The clause also reflects the principles of good regulation. ORR’s regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, and they should be targeted only when action is needed. ORR must also have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Clause 1 places road users at the heart of ORR’s role, while ensuring that it takes account of safety, efficient delivery, financial viability and the wider public interest. That is an important framework, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jim Dickson
It is clearly incredibly important to all users of this future infrastructure and the present Dartford crossing that the ORR is as capable and fully equipped as it can be to carry out its duties. Up to now, the ORR has been more equipped on rail than on road, even though it has considerable responsibilities for roads at the moment. A recent report commissioned by the Department for Business and Trade indicated that the ORR needed to increase its skills and capacity in order to do this work. Will the Minister reassure my constituents and all other future users of the infrastructure that the ORR will be fully equipped, have full capability and be able to discharge its duties under the Bill?
Justin Madders
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is vital that the duties set out in clause 1 can be delivered to the best of the ORR’s ability. The whole purpose of the RAB model is that we have a functioning and effective regulator, so resourcing it is vital.
Greg Smith
The Minister is making an eminently sensible point about the ORR’s ability. Given that the Department for Transport, in relation to the Railways Bill, is playing down the ability and role of the ORR, will he assure the Committee that the framework being set out is deliverable by the ORR and that it is a capable organisation to take on this important work, when the other arm of the DFT is suggesting that it is not for railways?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s question. The Bill’s purpose is to give the ORR the powers and ultimately the responsibility to regulate this model. It will be able to levy the licence holder to finance that particular work. A great deal of preparatory work is already going on to ensure that the ORR is capable of delivering the important functions set out under the Bill.
Alison Griffiths
The Minister just made the point that the ORR is not yet capable of delivering this. What is the plan from the Secretary of State and the Minister to deliver an ORR that has that capability? We also heard in evidence last week that the ORR does not believe that it is ready for it either.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. There is a plan in place, but it would be a bit ridiculous for us to have everyone ready now when the legislation has not been passed. I assure her that a number of considerations are already taking place about having the right skills. We heard evidence last week that there is confidence that the right skillsets and people will be in place to provide the important functions that the ORR will have to deliver under the legislation.
Clause 2 sets out the overarching duty that will guide the Secretary of State when exercising functions under the Bill. It mirrors the duty placed on the ORR in clause 1 and ensures that both key decision makers operate within a consistent statutory framework. As the Bill gives important functions to the Secretary of State and the ORR, it is therefore important that decisions made by each are guided by the same overarching objectives and principles.
The clause requires the Secretary of State, like the ORR, to act in a way that furthers the interests of road users. In doing so, the Secretary of State must balance a range of important considerations, including efficiency, safety, sustainability and the impact of decisions on the wider strategic road network. These duties are underpinned by established principles of good regulation, helping to ensure that decisions are transparent, accountable, proportionate and targeted only when action is needed. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Zöe Franklin
I thank the Minister for his comments. However, I remain unconvinced about local authorities not having that statutory duty, so I wish to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 19 to 26.
This amendment would ensure that licences could only be granted for the construction of new roads.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 44, in clause 3, page 3, line 20, at end insert
“, provided that such improvement creates at least one additional continuous traffic lane along the entirety of the specified highway section.”.
This amendment sets a strict physical threshold for what legally constitutes "increasing capacity", preventing minor roadworks, junction tweaks, or smart motorway conversions on existing roads from being used as a pretext for introducing tolls.
Amendment 81, in clause 3, page 3, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) Where a highway specified in a proposed licence is to become a trunk road, the licensing authority must consult any relevant local highway authority, mayoral combined authority or combined county authority before granting the licence.”.
This amendment would require consultation with relevant local and mayoral authorities before granting a licence for a road that is to become a trunk road.
Clause stand part.
Greg Smith
The amendment would ensure that licences could only be granted for the construction of new roads. The key word is “only”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could explain in detail why the Government think a licence should extend beyond simply the construction of a new road, and how the Bill prevents modest works being used to justify a toll-backed licence. This goes to the crux of what we are debating today and of what we are being asked to consent to, on behalf of all our constituents who are motorists and who use the strategic road network; I am sure they will enjoy the new lower Thames crossing once it is constructed, but they are concerned that some of the drafting of the Bill opens a back door and a pathway to enabling things that most people, looking through any lens of common sense, would consider to be minor to allow for increases in tolls or, indeed, new tolls.
I do not think that anyone who backed the lower Thames crossing would necessarily be willing to back something that did not itself support, say, a major new piece of road infrastructure, be that the lower Thames crossing or anything else. We explored that point a lot in last week’s oral evidence sessions and on Second Reading. I commend the Minister for his clarity at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading and in his oral evidence in the Boothroyd Room last Thursday about how the Government have—that favoured political phrase—“no intention” of delivering new tolls for other projects. That perhaps includes things as simple as new cameras, line painting that makes the road a bit clearer or smart motorway provisions—not that I believe there is anything smart about smart motorways.
The Government say they do not intend to use any of those mechanisms to introduce new tolls. We therefore have to ask ourselves a question, which is why the Opposition tabled amendment 82. If what the Minister has said is a clear signal and there genuinely is absolutely no intention—for the record, I believe the Minister—why not put it on the face of the Bill? Let us say clearly and unequivocally that the Bill is only about the construction of new roads in the United Kingdom—well, I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South that Scotland is not included in the Bill’s scope—
Greg Smith
Or Wales.
Can the Minister rise to the challenge? Can he make a legislative commitment in line with his words at the Dispatch Box and in oral evidence, and accept amendment 82? If the Government are reluctant, or straightforwardly do not want, to accept the amendment, I fear those questions are forever going to persist in the minds of British motorists and of all road users, be they driving a car themselves or reliant on a car’s passenger seat to be taken wherever they want to go. That is an important point of principle on which the Minister must surely accept the view out there in the country, and the view of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. He should put it on the face of the Bill.
Douglas Lumsden
I am struggling to understand something about the Bill. If an improvement is made on a small section of a 100-mile road, is it clear whether tolls could be introduced for the whole road or just for the section that was improved?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which is really one for the Minister. He highlights one of the key points that the public out there—all our constituents—will be asking about what this really means. As best, the current scope of the Bill allows for a bit of a lawyer’s paradise and for the issue to be argued over for many years and decades to come; at worst, it straightforwardly allows precisely the fear that my hon. Friend outlined.
Let us just have clarity. It is a simple amendment. We are not asking for the world. We are saying we are broadly with the Government on introducing this model for the lower Thames crossing, but there has to be that legislative certainty that does not allow for mission creep from where the current Minister sees the world, under this legislation, compared with where any future Government might wish to try to take it. The Opposition do not believe that tolls should apply beyond the construction of wholly new roads. There should not be the mission creep that is currently allowed, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I tabled amendment 82.
Also in this group is Opposition amendment 81, which would
“require consultation with relevant local and mayoral authorities before granting a licence for a road that is to become a trunk road.”
There is considerable concern in the country about this issue, particularly from councils and a number of mayors. There is certainly concern from the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, who is arguably the best mayor in the country at the moment—he is a very old and dear friend of mine, if I need to declare an interest. Whenever I try to do the journey from Buckinghamshire to Suffolk, where my in-laws are, I am frustrated by the fact that, the minute I hit Cambridgeshire, the traffic stops and everything seems completely dug up. I will immediately phone him to have a go, but he will continually push back and say, “But the Government haven’t given me any highways powers or authority!”, whereas we know that other mayoralties in the country have them.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd—I hope you are not too distraught about not having been in the Chair for some of the other very exciting transport Bill Committees that we have had this year.
I want to start by addressing amendment 82, tabled by the shadow Minister. We understand where he is coming from, because the Committee heard evidence from Steve Gooding of the RAC Foundation about the danger of clause 3 being used as a Trojan horse for widespread road pricing, which is something that the Minister has assured us will not happen.
Our amendment 44 takes a different approach to the problem of excluding non-new roads altogether. As I said on Second Reading, we feel that the idea of tolls and fees is reasonable in principle, and it is used quite widely in Europe, but the safeguards must be clear. That is why our amendment 44 would require a strict threshold for applying tolls to existing roads, which we are defining as a continuous extra lane, to show a genuine improvement in the road’s capacity and to justify any introduction.
I agree with the shadow Minister on clause 3, in that so much of the Bill relies on us to take it on trust that the Government will do the right thing with the extensive powers that it creates. There was a good article in The Economist a few years ago about the problem with the good chaps theory of government, which has been an historic feature of the British so-called constitution. The problem is that it is difficult to take things on trust and rely on the current generation to do the right thing and interpret a Bill as it was intended, because a Bill cannot force the hand of a future Government, but future Governments do need to work to the legislation that has been passed. We therefore have some concerns about that and would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.
We support the shadow Minister’s amendment 81. It is sensible to require consultation with the relevant local and mayoral authorities and important to involve them in any major changes to their areas that could increase local traffic flow and the burden on the local community, so we would support the amendment if it were pressed to a Division.
Subject to what the Minister says, at this point we would be keen, with your permission, Mr Dowd, to press amendment 44 to Division.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak to amendment 82, standing in the shadow Minister’s name and my name.
On the face of it, clause 3 looks quite straightforward. The licence would be granted for “works involving”—not delivering, just involving—
“the construction of a highway specified in the licence”.
However, granting a licence for being involved in the work set out in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c), which our amendment 82 would remove, would make the ORR responsible for determining what is fair and transparent in terms of a toll that could be charged in future for that work. Again, to be clear, the clause does not talk about delivery; it just talks about involvement, so there is a total lack of clarity.
The ORR will rely on a code that has not yet been written and that will not come before this House, so we will have no say in what it looks like. As far as I am aware, there will be no cost-effectiveness constraints on the licensee, so the toll could be considerable. Nor does the toll need to end when the costs have been recovered. Paragraphs (b) and (c) create the prospect of a never-ending toll upon our constituents for what could be a pretty unspecific piece of work.
To return to the points already made by the shadow Minister, a licence should be granted only for the construction of new roads. If we want to look at future roads, the code should be subject to a parliamentary vote at a later stage. Obviously the Committee has voted against this, but to return to our earlier discussion, we would prefer to be looking at two specific roads: the lower Thames crossing and, potentially, the associated Dartford crossing. Without those constraints, however, this piece of legislation is very problematic. I support the amendment.
Douglas Lumsden
Last week, we heard that the Bill is potentially a Trojan horse. We could have narrowed its scope earlier to just the lower Thames crossing with amendment 46, but that was ruled out. We also have issues with what constitutes an “improvement…increasing the capacity”. We have heard that that is not necessarily a new road, or even a new lane built along the whole length of the highway; it could just be smart cameras or other little improvements that increase capacity slightly.
We have had some assurance from the Minister that this will not be a Trojan horse Bill and that it will be used only for the lower Thames crossing, but as we know, Ministers change, Governments change. We are meant to put that all down to trust. The amendment therefore makes it quite clear that this has to be a new road, and the measure would only be able to be used on that new road.
As things stand, I think we are leaving too much down to interpretation—leaving too much to having faith in Governments that may come and go. This is probably the most important amendment that we will look at today, so I think it is vital that it is included in the Bill to make it as clear as possible that the Bill applies just to new roads. It even should apply just to the lower Thames crossing.
Justin Madders
I thank hon. Members for their contributions on this group. Without doubt, the scope of the licensing regime is an important subject, including which road schemes can be brought in and—as amendment 81 refers to—how local authorities should be consulted.
Turning to amendment 82, I thank the shadow Minister for raising the issue of the circumstances in which a licence can be granted for improvements to existing highways. He asked why the licence would extend beyond the construction period. The simple answer to that is that the model is deliberately designed around the whole life cycle of major infrastructure, not simply the point at which it is built. That is why the Bill provides not only for construction, but for qualifying capacity-enhancing improvements and the subsequent operation and maintenance of infrastructure within the regime.
In particular, things such as the lower Thames crossing, a very expensive project, will need consistent and persistent maintenance and repair. That matters because one of the benefits we seek from this model is strong long-term management of assets. The regulatory framework provides ongoing oversight, with incentives to manage operating costs and maintenance investment efficiently over the life of the infrastructure. Removing capacity-enhancing improvements would unnecessarily restrict the framework. It would mean that the model could not be used for major upgrades to existing road infrastructure, simply because the project involves improving an existing road rather than constructing an entirely new one. For example, a significant reconstruction of an existing bridge to add capacity, or a new tunnel that increases the capacity of an existing highway, could be excluded from the regime.
Douglas Lumsden
I asked this question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and I will ask the Minister the same. When this Bill comes into play, if an improvement were made on one small section of a road, could a toll be introduced for the whole length of that highway, or could it be introduced only for the small section where the improvement was made?
Justin Madders
That would be where clauses 1 and 2 come in, which should give the hon. Member sufficient reassurance. It is important to say—I will use scouse terminology, if you do not mind, Mr Dowd—that I think the arguments coming forward are a bit jarg. I do not know if that is a phrase the Committee is familiar with, but it is a bit of a scaring-the-horses moment—a bit of a ride on the ghost train. Unfortunately, that is what we have come to expect from the Opposition. They are trying to create a scare story where none exists. I have to be clear, as I was on Second Reading and in the evidence sessions, that improving an existing road does not mean that the road will automatically be brought into the regime or be subject to tolls.
Justin Madders
I will just finish.
Establishing and structuring a RAB arrangement comes with significant costs, so for small-scale improvements such as the setting up of a speed camera, it is just not going to be financially viable for anyone to consider it. In practice, it simply would not be justified, or work, in any way. We are clear from the evidence that we heard last week that the model will make sense only for projects of sufficient scale, where the benefits of bringing in long-term private investment justify those costs.
Members should be clear that I know that what I say on the record is relevant to the intention of the Bill, and that that will be something that any future court will take into account.
Justin Madders
I will now give way to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I understand the arguments he is putting forward, and I reiterate that I believe his intent—but we are not being asked to put his intent on the statute book; we are being asked to put the words that are printed in the Bill on to the statute book. Therefore, to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South, is it conceivable, under the Bill as currently written, that if, at some point down the path, a new road licensed under this Bill that carries a toll has another enhancement built into it under a new licence—a bridge, a crossing or whatever it might be—that enhancement could have a new and separate toll added just for that small section, compared with the entire length of the original road?
Justin Madders
We are very clear that the clause is about the specified highway. It is about the trunk road. It is about the protections in clauses 1 and 2. I will simply push back that, if there was some secret plan to expand road tolls, there is already legislation in place that would allow us to do that. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which was passed by the hon. Member’s party in Government, created the powers to introduce road tolling. If there was a secret plan to do that, we would not need to bring forward legislation. This is about setting up a new regulatory model to bring in investment for particular projects.
Alison Griffiths
I refer back to the intervention that I was going to make earlier, which was about clarity. The Minister said several times that he was being very clear, but I would gently suggest that the legislation is not very clear. That is the point that several of us are making: we are in danger of passing legislation that may not deliver what is perhaps intended by the Minister at this stage. It is at a point where a future Government, perhaps not as benign as others, might abuse the wording of the legislation. We are really just looking to ask the Minister to be clear in the Bill, not just in his words.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question and her description of “benign”, which I will frame and put on my wall at home.
The Bill is clear. There are reasons why we have to look at the existing network, particularly when we consider what is happening in the lower Thames crossing. The simple economics of this would not be attractive to investors if we were going to broadly open up road charging across the country—as I say, there is already legislation that would enable us to do that. The clause is about setting up a specific financial model, which will have strong regulation and will enable capacity-enhancing improvements to be made to the road network. As I say, it is very clear that there are sufficient protections already within the legislation to avoid the situation that Opposition Members are concerned about.
Turning to amendment 44, I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for raising the question of capacity-enhancing improvements. We will be clear that this framework is intended for major road infrastructure, not for minor changes to the road network. There are practical constraints on the use of this model. Again, as I have referred to, clauses 1 and 2 require the ORR to act in the “interests of users” of the highway specified in licences or proposed to be specified. Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to act in the
“interests of users of trunk roads in England.”
Both have regard to the principle that regulatory action should be proportionate and targeted only where it is needed. I am not entirely sure that the amendment would deliver the changes that the hon. Gentleman proposes. I am concerned that, while he is talking about an extra lane, he has not put any de minimis length on that, which might give a future non-benign Government encouragement to take it further than is our intention.
We have to be clear that establishing and structuring a RAB arrangement carries substantial costs. It must be sufficiently large and economically viable for that financing approach to make sense. We heard evidence that the geography of this country is such that simply adding lanes on here and there is not a viable option. I therefore suggest that the hon. Gentleman not press his amendment to a Division.
The shadow Minister spoke to amendment 81. I hope I never have a call from him when he is feeling frustrated—I am not sure how that would go for either of us—but he made an important point about ensuring that local and mayoral authorities are notified where there may be a proposed scheme. It is of course the case that the Bill already ensures that the relevant authorities are consulted. As set out in clause 4, before any licence can be granted, the licensing authority must publish the proposal, which must also be shared with the relevant bodies, expressly including the strategic highways company and any other appropriate bodies exercising highway functions. At least 28 days must be allowed for representations from those bodies.
Different projects will affect different places and different authorities. Therefore, the right consultees will depend on the project. As we have seen in recent times, the structure of local government can change, so it would not make sense to hardwire into legislation that particular types of authority should be consulted, because that could become outdated.
Greg Smith
Is the Minister seriously suggesting that we might move on from either a local authority or mayoral model? Those are the two that we have at the moment, and no one is suggesting anything else, so it is hard to see how it could possibly be the case that we move on from the environment, which we are trying to lock into the Bill with amendment 81, of local authorities and/or mayors.
Justin Madders
Of course the answer to that is that we cannot predict the future. In 2010, the idea of a mayoral combined authority was nothing more than a glint in George Osborne’s eye. It is about future-proofing the legislation: it does not make sense for us to come back at a later stage to add in extra consultees, because the Bill already has the correct powers to ensure that the licensing authority must consult appropriate bodies. That makes the framework flexible enough to respond both to the circumstances of individual projects and to changes in local government structures over the life of the legislation, which will be significant, because of the LTC project.
Clause 3 is at the heart of a lot of the debate today. The clause establishes what a licence is, what it can authorise and the circumstances in which one can be granted. The purpose of the licensing regime is to provide the framework through which private investment can support the delivery of strategic road infrastructure. In simple terms, clause 3 allows a licensing authority to grant a person a licence giving them the right to charge tolls on a highway specified in that licence. But that right is not freestanding; it is granted in return for the licence holder securing specified works to the highway.
The works fall into three main categories. A licence may support the construction of a highway; it may support the improvement of an existing highway, where the purpose is to increase its capacity; and, where a highway has already been constructed or improved under this licensing regime, it may provide for its maintenance, operation or further improvement. If another highway is specified in the licence, the licence may also authorise the licence holder to charge tolls in respect of that highway. That is an important point about the structure of the regime. Clause 3 is not simply a general power to allow private companies to charge motorists; the authority to charge tolls is tied directly to the licence holder securing the highway works specified in the licence. In addition, clause 3 does not allow the model to be applied indiscriminately across the road network.
We have heard the concern about the measure meaning a change to existing roads. A small improvement to an existing road, such as a smart motorway camera, does not automatically mean that that road will be brought into the regime or become subject to tolls. A highway can be included in a licence only if it is, or is to be, a trunk road in England, or part of one. The licensing regime created by this part is therefore deliberately confined to that network.
Clause 3 also sets out who may grant the licences. When the regime first begins, both the Secretary of State and the ORR will be licensing authorities. This is known as the “initial period”. Put simply, it is the period for dealing with the first licence under the Bill. Once the first licence has been issued, the initial period will end and the ORR will become the licensing authority. The end of the initial period will be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
It is important to say that there is an additional safeguard during that initial period. The ORR cannot itself grant a licence without the Secretary of State’s consent. Where the Secretary of State gives that consent, the decision must be published in a way that the Secretary of State considers appropriate to bring it to the attention of people likely to be affected. Where the Secretary of State grants the licence directly, a copy must be provided to the ORR as soon as reasonably practicable.
Clause 3 should also be read alongside the safeguards in the rest of the licensing framework. In particular, clause 4 requires consultation before a licence can be granted. The proposal must identify both the works to be secured and the highway on which tolls would be authorised, and there must be at least 28 days for representations. A licence cannot be granted unless that consultation requirement has been met.
That is an important safeguard because bringing a road into this regime is of course a significant decision. Before a licence is granted, those likely to be affected have an opportunity to understand what is proposed and make representations. The licensing authority must go through that process before deciding whether the licence should be granted.
It is also important to be clear that, whether we are talking about a new road or a capacity enhancing improvement, the regime is confined to the trunk road network. A highway can only be included in a licence if it is, or is to become, a trunk road in England.
We will come later to clause 81, which makes the necessary changes to the existing trunking provisions in section 10 of the Highways Act 1980 so that a new highway built under this licensing regime can become a trunk road. It does not create a blanket new power to designate any road as a trunk road; rather, it enables the existing process to work for the new type of highway.
Alison Griffiths
I thank the Minister for giving way. This should be the easiest intervention to reply to—I only wish to ask him to speak more slowly so that I can understand what he is saying.
Justin Madders
Apologies to the hon. Member.
Taken together, these provisions mean that the Bill can support both new strategic roads and significant capacity enhancing improvements, while remaining firmly focused on the trunk road network. The licensing authorities will also exercise their functions within the overarching statutory duties we have just debated. Those duties put the interests of road users at the centre of decision making, while requiring consideration of matters including efficiency and economy, safety, the wider strategic road network, sustainable development and competition.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, particularly on amendment 82. However, as the debate has moved on, the official Opposition are actually no further forward on the clarity we seek. The Minister likes to paint a picture of us looking for a scare story or something that would be more befitting of trick-or-treating last Saturday night; that is not what the Opposition are seeking to do. We are seeking clarity. We are seeking, through the usual procedures of this House, to check that the Bill in front of us does what it says it is going to do, without having an unintended negative consequence.
In the answers the Minister has given about whether we should restrict the measure to the construction of a new road in its entirety, we still do not know the answer to whether it is feasible, to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South made, that a licence could be granted for a subsection of a road that already has a master licence for the entirely of its run.
In his response, the Minister made reference to the installation of smart motorway cameras. I accept the point on a simple set of cameras. What is still unclear is whether a motorway that is part of the strategic road network, and is not currently designated as a smart motorway—the M40, which runs in part through my own constituency, is an example—could suddenly find itself with a licence, and therefore a toll, if it is permanently changed to an all-lane running motorway by turning what we currently know as the hard shoulder into a permanent running lane. I categorically do not want that scenario, but as this Bill is drafted it is unclear at best whether that would be permitted.
Therefore, without repeating it, I come back to the core argument that, for the Bill to work as I think the Minister intends it to, it should restrict the operation of a new licence to the construction of new roads, as amendment 82 makes clear.
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(c) publish an independent assessment evaluating whether alternative transport investments, including rail and bus connectivity, could fulfil the transport requirements of the proposed licence.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State and the ORR to evaluate whether alternative transport investment, including rail and bus, is needed and suitable before granting a license to upgrade or build new highways infrastructure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 78, clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(v) any mayoral combined authority, combined county authority or local highway authority whose area includes, or is likely to be affected by, a highway specified in the proposed licence.”
This amendment would require licensing authorities to send a copy of the notice to mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities or local highway authorities who may be affected.
Amendment 87, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(c) prepare, consult upon, and publish a report assessing—
(i) the anticipated impact of the specified highway on traffic volumes, congestion, and highway wear across local road networks maintained by adjacent local highway authorities; and
(ii) the specific traffic management, infrastructure, and financial mitigation measures required to address any adverse impacts identified under subparagraph (i).”
This amendment requires the licensing authority to publish a comprehensive local road impact and mitigation report prior to granting any licence, ensuring that traffic displacement onto surrounding local council roads is fully evaluated and mitigated in advance.
Clause stand part.
Olly Glover
I want to be clear at the beginning that we are keen to press amendment 87 to a vote.
Amendment 45 would mandate an independent modal shift and alternative transport assessment before any new highway tolling licence could be granted. It would prevent multibillion-pound road schemes from proceeding in isolation without evaluating whether rail passenger, rail freight or bus upgrades could deliver better value and lower carbon emissions. There is a clear need to reduce pressure on the Dartford crossing and improve connectivity in the south-east of England via the lower Thames crossing. But so far, the Labour Government appear to be looking only at roads-based means to do so.
I grew up in Staines, which is very close to junction 13 of the M25 and which road nerds will know is the busiest segment of motorway in Europe. When I was growing up and the M25 was new, it had three lanes, which then increased to four and eventually to five. Seeing the M25 permanently under upgrade was the accompaniment to my youth and adolescence. Do people who use that section of the M25 now find it a joyous driving experience, one that is entirely bereft of stress and complaint, or do they still consider it to be what Chris Rea once called a “road to hell”? They still consider it a road to hell, because while the M25 is of course a useful asset, one of the challenges of increased road investment is that very often that capacity gets absorbed and it does not address some of the wider transport challenges.
There is a clear need to improve rail connectivity in the region alongside the lower Thames crossing project. There is currently no Kent to Essex rail connection and very limited provision for channel port freight to move by rail—only by road. There are developed proposals on the table to upgrade the Kent railway network and the Barking freight terminal via High Speed 1 as part of the plan to significantly increase rail freight through the channel tunnel.
As Ralph Smyth from the Transport Action Network argued in front of the Committee last week, granting certainty to a major private road scheme can make it significantly harder for regional mayors or local authorities to promote sustainable alternatives like rail, tram or bus upgrades. Ben Garratt of Logistics UK noted that while road capacity is needed at Dartford, rail freight connectivity to ports plays a vital role in national supply chain resilience and must be integrated into transport planning.
Why should Ministers grant a potentially century-long highway licence without first publishing an independent evaluation of whether rail or public transport investment could solve the bottleneck? If we are to move towards achieving our environmental goals and providing good transport for those who cannot, will not or cannot afford to drive, serious investment in other infrastructure and public transport is needed alongside improving the road network.
Amendment 87 would make it mandatory to publish a local road impact and mitigation report. Toll-avoiding traffic that diverts into surrounding residential streets and local A roads could cause severe congestion, noise, air pollution and safety hazards for nearby communities. The amendment would force the licensing authority to assess the exact financial cost of extraordinary road wear imposed on “adjacent local highway authorities” such as Kent, Essex or Surrey—or whatever they are called now as part of local government reorganisation. As Declan Pang, the director of policy at the Road Haulage Association, warned us last week, traffic displacement and unmitigated local congestion can drive significant indirect costs across local economies and businesses.
I will turn briefly to Opposition amendment 78, which we support. It would require licensing authorities to send a copy of the notice to mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities or local highway authorities. That would go some way towards addressing some of the deficiencies of clause 4, which leaves it quite open as to which organisations need to be consulted. Clause 4 does not explicitly list local highway authorities, local planning authorities or emergency services—among others—as mandatory statutory consultees. In his comments, I hope the Minister will address why clause 4 is so open and why it does not explicitly name local highway authorities and emergency services as mandatory statutory consultees.
Greg Smith
I will start with amendment 78, which was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage hit the nail on the head regarding why we tabled this amendment. We have come back to what I fear will be a familiar theme as we go through the clauses of this Bill in Committee: the openness, at times fuzziness, of the drafting, which leaves too much open to the imagination.
Ill-defined legislation that then gets caught up in the courts forever, with lawyers forever arguing over what was really meant, gives none of us, certainly none of our constituents, our local authorities or those areas of the country that have mayors—mine does not—the clarity that they need and want from this Bill. So amendment 78 really is a very clear and straightforward amendment. It was not tabled with any intent to undermine or derail the Bill, or push it off course, but to give the Government an opportunity to lock in something that gives clarity to the important institutions out there that we and our constituents rely on to deliver local services.
Local authorities and councils—in my case Buckinghamshire, which is also the highways authority covering my constituency—and in other parts of the country, mayors like the Mayor of London, where we are right now, and as per my earlier reference, the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, should be locked into the process. I cannot see a single argument why the Government would not want that clarity in the Bill. If they have an in-principle opposition to that, there needs to be a very clear and compelling reason not to simply include the status quo of local authorities, mayors, mayoral combined authorities and the emergency services, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage said, in the Bill. I cannot see us moving away from a local authority and mayoral model, but in any future Government—we cannot predict changes—I am sure it will not be difficult to update the legislation to bring those authorities and institutions into effect.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if a proposed highway scheme touches an area or impacts local traffic nearby, the local authorities covering that ground need to be kept in the loop? The amendment simply ensures that local highway authorities, combined authorities and mayoral authorities get a copy of the notice right at the start. It ensures that local councils responsible for the surrounding roads are not left out of the loop so that they can plan for traffic and protect local roads for the local people.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which goes to the heart of what we are talking about here: projects not on the strategic road network but that are important to local people—roads or indeed other forms of transport, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman spoke of—will be integral to getting traffic flows and people on to the new schemes that the Bill would enable. Not shutting out and turning our back on the other authorities that are part of the all-important jigsaw puzzle of our road network in its entirety, which feeds into and feeds off the lower Thames crossing or other schemes that the Bill would enable, surely has to be all important.
Alison Griffiths
I listened to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in the Chamber yesterday espouse the future of her devolution programme, which of course encompasses many strategic authorities and regional mayors and is at the heart of the Government’s programme. It seems inconceivable that this Bill specifically excludes them. I urge the Minister to join us in a spirit of cohesion and future clarity. Let us show our constituents what we can do when we work together. We can improve legislation, and the Minister would be working hand in glove with the Secretary of State to deliver that, so I encourage him to support us.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend adds to the argument for amendment 78. For the sake of the record, I should say that those mayoral combined authorities are not excluded; they are just not explicitly included and named in the Bill as important stakeholders in our road system that will ensure that any new scheme functions properly and well, and does not lead to the unintended consequences I spoke of earlier. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Olly Glover
I did not seek to say that we should not have more cars or support private road users, merely that the reason a lot of people choose to drive is that it has been the relentless direction of policy going back decades. The rail network has significantly contracted, and a lot of investment has gone into motorways. Does the hon. Member accept the clear statistics showing that far fewer young people are learning to drive and they need alternatives? We cannot rely on continuing to promote the private motorcar over everything else.
Greg Smith
I am not sure the private motorcar has been promoted over everything else. I accept the challenge the hon. Member lays down about the issues young people have securing a driving test in a timely manner, but the statistics out there absolutely show that—whether it is people commuting to work, travelling for leisure or a holiday, getting kids to school or whatever—the majority of miles travelled across the totality of the country are by private car. That is why the Bill seeks to ensure that the lower Thames crossing is built and there are potential future capacity increases elsewhere: so that the vast majority of our constituents—outside of the country’s major cities, like London, which have tube networks and more frequent bus services—can use their cars. We take issue with amendment 45. I will reflect, when we break for lunch, on whether to report to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) that the Liberal Democrats have called the junction to Staines on the M25 a “road to hell.”
Amendment 87, which would provide for a comprehensive assessment of the impact on local roads, has more to be said for it. I will not repeat the arguments I made earlier about the importance of the local road network supporting any new infrastructure. There is some merit in the amendment, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. This is something we should all reflect on. We must try not to look at the road network as if it can be compartmentalised into the strategic road network and local roads, but to see the two as part of a single ecosystem that cannot be separated.
Justin Madders
I turn first to amendment 45. I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for raising whether alternative transport investment should be considered before a licence is granted. I have to say that I have never been entirely clear whether the Liberal Democrats support the lower Thames crossing. The hon. Gentleman’s comments push him more into the “no” territory, but as the Bill progresses we will no doubt see whether they can support it.
Olly Glover
Given that the Minister was putting words in my mouth, let me clarify my view. We do support the lower Thames crossing, because the Dartford crossing is under pressure and there is no resilience when it closes, but that does not mean that we support only the lower Thames crossing. The problem with policy over decades—I disagree with the shadow Minister on this—is that it has been roads, roads, roads, and motorways, motorways, motorways. It should be not either/or, but both.
Justin Madders
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s clarity. I understand his argument, but it is probably a bit late now. The assessment on alternative transport options belongs in the scheme appraisal and the business case process, not in this Bill, which is about whether to grant a licence in the first place.
The Association for Consultancy and Engineering was clear in its written evidence that schemes must be
“sufficiently developed before financing and procurement decisions are taken.”
As the hon. Gentleman knows, for the lower Thames crossing, the development consent order has already been issued, and all the issues that he talked about were considered. It has been approved, and construction is under way.
The Bill is not about which road should be built; it is about creating an additional financing and regulatory framework, which can be used where there is a need for a road scheme. It is not about putting roads ahead of rail or bus transport. That will be considered through the earlier business case process. Requiring that to be assessed again once the licence has been granted would duplicate the work and add delay. As hon. Members have said, there is an urgent need for this scheme to proceed, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
On Opposition amendment 78, we debated a similar point when we discussed amendment 81. The shadow Minister did not press that amendment to a vote, but given the gusto with which he advanced his argument today, he may press amendment 78. I will not repeat the point that have been made, but clause 4(1)(b)(iv) requires that consultation includes
“such other persons (including persons exercising functions in relation to highways) as the licensing authority considers appropriate.”
So the assurances that Opposition Members seek are there in black and white.
If we are too prescriptive, we may not cover every type of authority. At the moment, we know exactly what the local authority structures are but, as we have seen in recent years, that can change, so it would not be prudent to hardwire that into primary legislation. The Bill rightly allows the licensing authority to identify and consult the appropriate bodies exercising high-risk functions for the scheme. That makes the framework flexible enough to respond to the circumstances of individual projects and changes to local government structures over the lifetime of the legislation.
On amendment 87, I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. We absolutely recognise that major road schemes can have impacts on surrounding local roads, and they need to be properly considered—indeed, the lower Thames crossing is proceeding because we want to improve the conditions on the local roads—but I do not believe that the amendment puts the consideration in the right place.
Licences granted under the Bill are about bringing qualifying trunk road projects within the new financing and regulatory framework. It is not the process through which the underlying impacts of a road scheme are first identified and addressed. Those impacts, including changes to traffic and congestion, should be considered through the development and planning of the road scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows, for the lower Thames crossing, traffic forecasts were assessed and considered as part of the development consent order, which is the appropriate stage for such considerations. Carrying out that work again would delay the project and duplicate work that has already been completed.
Clause 4 sets out the requirements that must be met for consultation before a licence can be granted under the Bill. It ensures that the grant of a licence is subject to a clear, transparent and accessible consultation process, giving those likely to be affected a proper opportunity to make representations before the licence is granted. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2026 - large print - (3 Nov 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Today we will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. As a reminder, the Committee must conclude its consideration of the Bill today. In accordance with the programme order for this Bill, if the Committee is still sitting at 5 pm, the Chair will put the questions necessary to bring proceedings to a conclusion. There can be no debate after 5 pm.
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Members are reminded to bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate.
New Clause 25
Review of non-statutory first responder organisations
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act and annually thereafter, review the list of first responder organisations which are not public authorities (‘non-statutory first responder organisations’) for the purposes of assessing whether further organisations should become non-statutory first responder organisations.
(2) Any review under subsection (1) must—
(a) have regard to the need to maintain a system for identifying victims of modern slavery which is effective, ensures appropriate and timely safeguarding of potential victims, and provides appropriate and timely access to support;
(b) be based on regular review and analysis of—
(i) the number of referrals received through the National Referral Mechanism from statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations, and any changes or trends in the number of referrals received or the proportions received from statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations;
(ii) the geographic areas from which referrals are received and the types of exploitation to which they relate, any changes or trends in such data, and whether there are any identifiable gaps in reporting related to geography or exploitation type.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to annually review whether further organisations should be registered as non-statutory first responder organisations, based on the capacity and needs of the system.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 26—Review of training for first responder organisations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the training and guidance provided to first responder organisations.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the quantity, quality and content of training currently provided to first responder organisations;
(b) the training needs of first responder organisations, and the extent to which these needs are met by current training provision;
(c) any gaps or weaknesses in the training currently provided to first responder organisations;
(d) any further resources which are required to meet the training needs of first responder organisations.
(3) A report on the findings of a review under this section must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the training and guidance provided to first responder organisations which assesses the quality of current provision, the needs of first responders, any gaps in current provision, and any further resources required.
New clause 27—Resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, review the resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations.
(2) A review under this section must have regard to the need to increase the capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of non-statutory first responder organisations.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations.
Siân Berry
It is great to have you back in the Chair today, Mrs Barker.
I am speaking today in support of new clauses 25, 26 and 27, which I tabled and which address the issues faced by non-statutory first responder organisations. As we know, people suffering from modern slavery cannot self-refer themselves into the national referral mechanism. These new clauses are a vital part of making sure that we fulfil our duties towards victims of modern slavery.
We have designated statutory and non-statutory organisations that are known as first responders. Those organisations have a duty to refer potential survivors of trafficking and modern slavery into the NRM when they identify indicators of trafficking that suggest somebody may be a potential victim of trafficking or modern slavery. However, the number of non-statutory first responders in the UK has not kept up with the increasing demand for referrals into the NRM. We know that the percentage of referrals from non-statutory first responder organisations is dropping. That does not mean a lack of demand, but rather a lack of capacity; it means that the number of non-statutory first responders has not kept up with the increasing demand for references into the national referral mechanism. I believe that the Government need to take action on this, hence these new clauses.
Non-statutory first responders play an absolutely crucial role in the identification and support of survivors. Many organisations that support potential victims report that many survivors are afraid of public authorities, the statutory first responders. They worry that the statutory first responders will, for example, prioritise criminal investigations over the survivor’s safety and that these FROs might have information-sharing policies with other Government agencies, as we have discussed when debating earlier amendments.
These organisations find that their service users are better served with referrals made by non-statutory first responders. We can see in the evidence that the data suggests that referrals made by non-statutory first responders are more likely to get positive decisions in the NRM. That suggests higher quality service and referrals, along with support to gather the evidence provided about potential victims and getting those people properly referred in to the support that they need.
Between the second quarter of 2025 and the second quarter of 2026, referrals made by non-statutory first responder organisations received a positive reasonable grounds decision in 81% of cases. The rate of positive decisions for referrals by local authorities was 73%, while it was 62% for police referrals and just 47% for the other Government agencies. That suggests a lack of capacity in those organisations, but also systemic issues around collecting evidence and making the appropriate support available so that the right disclosures can be made.
Higher-quality referrals of the kind made by non-statutory first responders also make the job of NRM decision makers easier and faster. Their work leads to a more efficient use of the public purse as they cut down on the need for reconsiderations. However, many of these organisations report a lack of capacity, which in some cases leads to potential victims being turned away. In many cases, potential victims have also given up looking for a non-statutory first responder at that point. As an MP, I am not a first responder of any kind, but in my casework I have had people come to me with indicators of modern slavery, and I found it hard to find the right first responder organisation and to reassure that person that they would be able to get hold of them. For my casework, I would love to have more non-statutory first responders available in my area.
The evidence underscores the urgent need to increase the number of non-statutory first responders through an open tender and transparent application process to deal with increased demand for referrals, reduce the postcode lottery in access to support for survivors of modern slavery, and reduce the stigma around referrals. That is the ultimate call of new clause 25: to hold a review to look for new non-statutory first responder organisations.
I have also tabled new clause 26, which asks for a review of training for first responder organisations. We need high-quality and specialised training for first responders. That is integral to successful victim identification and would ensure better quality and more efficient decision making. Statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations and non-first responder organisations have said that there are serious gaps in first responder training provision. In fact, many officers in statutory first responder organisations are unaware that they are first responders, which means that Home Office toolkits and information hubs alone are ineffective. My new clause would ask for a review of the quantity, quality and content of training, ensure that such training reaches the organisations who need it, and make a report on the review available to the Houses of Parliament.
New clause 27 would, again, tackle the issues that I have outlined. It asks for a review of the resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations. The capacity issues faced by first responders highlight their lack of resources to make enough referrals to keep up with the increased number of survivors who need them. First responders do not receive dedicated funding to discharge their responsibilities, which can significantly affect their capacity to fulfil their role effectively. In practice, it can limit their ability to allocate specialist staff, undertake first responder duties and ensure sufficient staffing levels to meet demand and to respond to the people referred to them and other organisations that raise cases with them.
Accordingly, there have been many calls for the further allocation of resources to non-statutory first responders and the need to enable survivors to access identification and support through the NRM. We are asking for a review of current resourcing for first responders, to get some evidence of the scale and impact of this issue, identify gaps in capacity of service provision and assess how that affects the identification of and support for potential victims. Such a review would also help to determine what actions, resources or structural changes are needed to address those gaps and ensure that first responders are able to discharge their responsibilities effectively. It would also ensure that we, as a country, are discharging our duties towards the victims and survivors of modern slavery.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
As always, Mrs Barker, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I wish a good morning to honourable colleagues. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for new clauses 25, 26 and 27, which seek to introduce statutory reviews relating to first responder organisations. Modern slavery is a brutal crime that strips people of their dignity, and the Government remain unwavering in their commitment to tackling this abuse and ensuring that survivors can access the right protections and support they need to recover and rebuild their lives. The Government recognise the vital role that first responders play in identifying potential victims of modern slavery and referring them into the national referral mechanism. Work is ongoing to consider the support and training needed for first responders as part of the implementation of the Bill to ensure a robust end-to-end system.
However, the Government do not consider these new clauses necessary. Mandating specific reviews in primary legislation would duplicate existing activity, reduce operational flexibility and create additional statutory reporting requirements without improving outcomes for potential victims. The existing framework enables referrals through a broad range of statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations. The overwhelming majority of referrals are made by statutory first responders, demonstrating that existing arrangements are well established and operating effectively.
We have recently introduced a range of improvements to support first responders, including enhancements to the NRM referral form and the publication of the first responder toolkit, which provides practical guidance to support high quality referrals. We keep the operational effectiveness of the first responder system, including the training and support available to first responders, under regular review. We continue to consider evidence from operational engagement, published data, stakeholder feedback, and the lived experience advisory panels that were attended as part of the recent call for evidence on victim identification. I am particularly grateful to the survivors who shared their feedback, which continues to inform our work.
I reiterate that, since taking office in 2024, this Government have demonstrated their commitment not only to improving identification and support for modern slavery victims, but to tackling modern slavery in all its forms. That includes, but is not limited to, clearing the unacceptable NRM backlog in just two years. As a result, victims are now spending less time waiting for recognition of their victim status, which helps them with their recovery. We have improved support for adult victims through the procurement of a new support for victims of modern slavery contract, replacing the current modern slavery victim care contract. We have also invested £25 million to deliver a new contract, which will provide national coverage of the independent child trafficking guardianship service across England and Wales from 2027 to support child victims.
We have introduced a change to support skilled workers leaving exploitative employers and moving to new, safe employment. We have provided a more cohesive response to labour exploitation, by introducing stand-alone offences for child criminal exploitation and cuckooing through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, and by creating the Fair Work Agency through the Employment Rights Act 2025. Those changes seek to collectively tackle modern slavery and make the operating environment tougher for those who commit these horrendous crimes and more supportive of those affected by them.
I will refer to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. She is right that the overwhelming majority of referrals are made by statutory first responders. In the year ending June 2026, a total of 25,373 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the Home Office, a 5% increase compared with the year ending March 2026. Of those, 93% of were made by statutory first responders and 4% were made by non-statutory first responders. Our established position is that an effective first responder cohort is essential to victim identification and that the operation of the first responder system should be kept under review through existing policy and operational processes.
The Home Office engages regularly with statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations and other stakeholders to identify operational challenges and opportunities for improvement. As I mentioned, we recently introduced the updated referral form, first responder e-learning and the first responder toolkit. The recent call for evidence on victim identification gathered evidence relevant to the operation of the NRM and continues to inform policy development. The Home Office continues to consider opportunities to strengthen support and training for first responders, informed by stakeholder engagement and calls for evidence.
I think I have responded to the hon. Member’s points. We continuously review and develop processes relating to first responders. I am afraid that, for the reasons I have set out, we do not support these new clauses, and they should not be added to the Bill.
Siân Berry
I appreciate the detail in the Minister’s response, and I am content to withdraw the new clause. However, I would very much like the points around resourcing to be tackled, and I do not think that that was covered in the Minister’s response. She might agree to write to us with more about the resourcing of non-statutory first responders and the future plans for it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 28
IIAA: publication of data
“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the publication of data relating to the work of the IIAA.
(2) The data required by this section must be updated and published at least every three months.
(3) The data to be published under this section must include—
(a) the number of appeals submitted to the IIAA;
(b) the number of decisions made by the IIAA;
(c) the outcomes of decisions made by the IIAA;
(d) the proportion of people submitting appeals to the IIAA who had legal representation;
(e) the number of appeals waiting to be processed by the IIAA;
(f) the length of time taken for a decision to be made on an appeal by the IIAA;
(g) the number of appeals that were withdrawn before being heard by the IIAA;
(h) the number of reviews of decisions made by the IIAA under section 6; and
(i) the outcomes of reviews of decisions made by the IIAA under section 6.
(4) The data published must, where possible, be broken down by—
(a) the type of appeal;
(b) the nationality of the person submitting the appeal;
(c) the gender of the person submitting the appeal; and
(d) the age of the person submitting the appeal.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require the Home Secretary to arrange for the publication, at least every quarter (as is the case for the existing Immigration and Asylum Tribunal), of data relating to the work of the IIAA.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 31—Large-scale asylum accommodation: publication of costs—
“(1) Where the Secretary of State proposes to provide, or arrange for the provision of, asylum accommodation at a large-scale asylum accommodation site, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish an assessment of the expected costs associated with the site before accommodation is first provided at the site.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the estimated cost of acquiring, leasing or otherwise securing the use of the site;
(b) estimated capital expenditure required for the construction, conversion, refurbishment or adaptation of the site;
(c) estimated annual operating and running costs;
(d) estimated total expenditure over the period for which the site is expected to be used;
(e) the estimated cost per person accommodated at the site;
(f) a comparison with the estimated costs of reasonably available alternative sites or forms of asylum accommodation; and
(g) the principal assumptions on which the estimates in paragraphs (a) to (f) are based.
(3) If, before accommodation is first provided at the site, there is a material change to the estimated costs published under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a revised assessment.
(4) In this section—
‘asylum accommodation’ means accommodation provided—
(a) under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999,
(b) as support under section 95 or 95A of that Act in a way mentioned in section 96(1)(a) or (b) of that Act, or
(c) under section 17 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;
‘large-scale asylum accommodation site’ means a single site at which asylum accommodation is intended to be provided for 300 or more persons at any one time.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the estimated capital, running and overall costs of a proposed large-scale asylum accommodation site, together with a comparison with alternative sites or forms of asylum accommodation.
New clause 64—Local impact and safeguarding assessments for high-capacity asylum accommodation sites—
“(1) Before designating a site for use as high-capacity asylum accommodation, or materially increasing the capacity of such a site, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a Local Impact and Safeguarding Assessment in respect of the proposed designation or increase in capacity.
(2) A Local Impact and Safeguarding Assessment must assess the reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed designation or increase in capacity on—
(a) public safety and community safeguarding;
(b) local policing and other emergency services;
(c) the provision of health and social care services;
(d) local authority services, including housing, education and children’s services;
(e) community cohesion and the wellbeing of persons living or working in the surrounding area; and
(f) the capacity of local public services to respond to additional demand arising from the proposed accommodation.
(3) In preparing an assessment under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant local authority or authorities;
(b) the chief officer of police for the area in which the site is situated;
(c) the relevant integrated care board;
(d) the relevant fire and rescue authority; and
(e) such other public authorities or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The assessment must—
(a) identify reasonably foreseeable risks and pressures arising from the proposed accommodation;
(b) consider the likely scale and duration of those risks and pressures;
(c) identify measures proposed to prevent, mitigate or manage those risks and pressures; and
(d) identify any additional resources or coordination between public authorities considered necessary to manage the anticipated impact.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
‘high-capacity asylum accommodation site’ means any site used for asylum accommodation purposes with a potential capacity of 300 or over people.
‘a material increase in site capacity’ is defined as any plan to increase the capacity of an asylum accommodation site by 100 or over people.”
This new clause would require an impact and safeguarding assessment to be carried out on a potential high-capacity asylum site before the site can be granted approval or have its capacity increased.
New clause 65—Reporting of serious incidents in asylum accommodation—
“(1) Any provider of accommodation under arrangements made by the Secretary of State for the provision of asylum support must report serious incidents occurring at, or in connection with, that accommodation to the relevant police force.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a serious incident is an incident which gives reasonable grounds to suspect—
(a) that a serious criminal offence has been committed or attempted;
(b) that a person has suffered serious physical injury or sexual violence;
(c) that a child or vulnerable adult is at immediate risk of serious harm;
(d) that there has been a credible threat of serious violence; or
(e) that any other circumstance involving a serious risk to the safety of a person requires police notification.
(3) Where a provider becomes aware of a serious incident, the provider must—
(a) notify the relevant police force without undue delay and, where there is an immediate threat to life or safety, immediately;
(b) take reasonable steps to preserve relevant records and evidence;
(c) record the incident, the time at which it became known to the provider, the time and method of notification, and any action taken in response; and
(d) notify the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision within three months of passing the Act about notifications under subsection (3) including—
(a) the information to be included in a notification;
(b) the form and manner of notification; and
(c) the handling and onward sharing of reports, including with other Government departments and bodies exercising national security or research security functions.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6) A provider who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(8) For the purposes of this section ‘serious criminal offence’ has the meaning given in section 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (Involvement in serious crime: England and Wales orders).”
This new clause will require any serious incidents that occur at asylum accommodation sites to be reported to the relevant authorities.
Tom Gordon
I am tm;1speaking in support of new clauses 30 and 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Let me be clear—these new clauses do not challenge the Government’s responsibility to accommodate people seeking asylum. They ask two simple things: that before a large site is chosen, the Government show us that it is suitable, and that before public money is committed, they show us what it will cost.
New clause 30 would require the Government to publish an assessment of every large site, covering transport, healthcare, policing capacity, safe pedestrian access, safeguarding, infrastructure, the alternatives considered and the impact on the local community. It would also require consultation with local authorities. New clause 31 would require the Government to publish the full costs, including acquisition, capital expenditure, running costs and cost per person, alongside a fair comparison with alternative options. If those estimates changed materially before a site opened, the assessment would have to be revised.
Why propose these new clauses? Because the urgent Crown development route allows the Home Office to bypass much of the usual planning scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock has seen the consequences of that at MOD Bicester in his patch, where up to 1,256 people could be housed for 10 years. The sewage arrangements rely on tankering, which would not work at full occupancy. The electricity plan assumes generators, because the existing supply cannot be relied on. The environmental screening assumed buildings no higher than 6 metres, while the plans allow buildings up to 12 metres. Local people had just 10 days to make representations, and there were no pre-application discussions with the highways authority.
My hon. Friend’s analysis also suggests that the scheme could cost more than £250 million to establish, and over £1 billion across 10 years. There are serious questions about suitability, infrastructure and value for money. They deserve proper answers before the public are committed to such a substantial bill. The concerns are not confined to Oxfordshire; in North Yorkshire, my part of the country, the proposed reopening of the former Royal Air Force site at Linton-on-Ouse also raises many of the same questions. In 2022, the Home Office proposed accommodating asylum seekers there. The scheme was subsequently abandoned, but only after significant public money had already been spent. Now the proposal is back.
On 15 July, North Yorkshire council passed a cross-party resolution opposing the proposal, and I join colleagues from across North Yorkshire and York in supporting the council leader’s letter to the Minister. It is worth noting that the Labour Mayor for York and North Yorkshire, David Skaith, has also opposed those plans, which is interesting when we consider the Government’s devolution agenda; they want to empower mayors to make planning decisions, yet seem keen to ignore them when those decisions are coming from the centre.
The concerns set out in the letter read almost like a checklist of the issues that new clause 30 would require the Government to assess. The proposal is to accommodate over 1,000 single adult men beside a village of approximately 600 people. The primary school is very nearby and the site covers 680 acres, raising many important questions about security and safeguarding. Public transport, local services and support networks are limited; the surrounding roads are rural and prone to flooding; there are serious questions about the capacity of water, sewage, drainage and electricity infrastructure; and there is no mains gas.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I will speak to new clauses 64 and 65, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and me, and to new clauses 30 and 31.
Everyone in this Committee wants to see the end of asylum hotels. The Government’s plan is to move people on to large sites—former military bases housing hundreds at a time. As we have heard, new clauses 30 and 31 would require consultation and published costs first. The Opposition are sympathetic to the arguments that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has just made, but consultation and costs alone are not enough. Communities need to know that the risks have been properly assessed and that when something goes wrong, it will be acted upon. It is not fair to leave communities feeling unsafe and ignored.
That is what new clause 64 would do. Before any site for 300 or more people is designated or significantly expanded, the Home Secretary would have to publish a local impact and safeguarding assessment after consulting the council, the police, the NHS and fire services. That assessment would ensure the identification of foreseeable risks to public safety before a site is approved, not afterwards. It would set out the pressure a site would place on policing, healthcare, social care, housing and education, and the additional funding, staffing and resources needed to manage it, so that local services are not left to absorb an unsustainable burden with no warning and no plan.
It would also close a significant gap in the law. Currently, there is no requirement to assess the impact of such sites on community wellbeing or local safety. Decisions with enormous consequences for towns or villages can be taken without the public having any say at all. That is totally unacceptable. Under new clause 64, large sites and significant increases in capacity would face proper scrutiny before approval and because the assessment would be published, local people could see for themselves what the effects are likely to be and what plans are in place to ensure those impacts will be mitigated. I hope the Committee recognises how new clause 64 would deliver transparency and accountability for communities and taxpayers.
New clause 65 deals with what happens once a site is open. It would require providers to report serious incidents to the police, including instances of serious violence, sexual offences, physical injuries, credible threats of violence and cases where children or vulnerable adults are at risk. Failing to do so would be an offence itself. There is currently no statutory duty at all, and recent reporting has shown that serious incidents have too often gone unreported. The new clause would set clear reporting requirements and ensure consistency so that practice no longer varies from one provider to the next. It would create a record of when an incident became known, when it was reported and what action was taken. It would require the Government to set clear rules for how incident information is reported, handled and shared.
The situation in Epping last year showed us what happens when communities lose confidence and feel that risks are not being assessed and incidents are not being acted upon. It is obvious that large sites in communities concentrate significant risk. They need clear, consistent, enforced rules.
How many large sites do the Government plan to open and where? Is there any duty on providers currently to report serious incidents to the police? I will push new clauses 64 and 65 to a vote, and I hope that the Committee recognises their importance for our communities and constituents across the country.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire completely, but I want to make a separate point. I have some sympathy for the Minister. Last week, we rightly criticised the Government’s approach on hotels; now, we are rightly criticising their approach on large sites. The argument might be, “Well, what are the Government expected to do?” I urge them to take a wholly different approach.
A few weeks ago, the Home Affairs Committee went to Denmark. Denmark is often seen as hardcore on immigration issues, but it is far subtler than that. Their approach to asylum accommodation is so very different. Rather than the neoliberal obsession with outsourcing and making the asylum billionaire Graham King millions, if not billions, Denmark uses non-governmental organisations. The Red Cross runs the asylum centres rather than private enterprise making a profit. They run on a not-for-profit basis. If they make a profit, the money goes back into the asylum centre or is given back to the Government.
That wholly changes the tone. In Denmark, we saw local people not protesting against asylum centres, but volunteering to work in them. One asylum centre was being closed and local people petitioned for it to be kept open. We could change the whole nature of the debate if we went to NGOs rather than private providers to deliver the accommodation—accommodation that I accept is needed, although the Government must improve and speed up their processing of claims.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the contributions this morning. As Members across the House will know, when the Government entered office in 2024, the use of hotels to house asylum seekers was widespread. That was clearly impacting the confidence that the public had in the Government to run an efficient and cost-effective asylum system.
Hotels are a visceral and visual representation of the previous Government’s failure to establish any form of coherent strategy for dealing with the issue of asylum accommodation. Hotels taken away from communities act as lightning rods for social unrest. They represent the removal of a lever that the local population can use to promote tourism, incentivise wider interest in the area and promote the broader economic and business growth of the community.
That is why we are working relentlessly to house asylum seekers fairly across the country, and we have a manifesto commitment to close every asylum hotel, just as the public expects. We have already saved £1 billion for the taxpayer by reducing the number of hotels down to, I think, fewer than 160. I look forward to closing the remaining few over the next couple of years.
Hotel exit is not simply about closing hotels; it is about moving to a more sustainable accommodation model, moving asylum seekers into alternative accommodation, including former military sites, to reduce impact on local communities. As part of that commitment, we are looking at a range of more appropriate sites that provide basic and safe accommodation, including ex-military sites.
To answer the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, two sites are already operational: Wethersfield, which was opened under his Government, and more recently, Crowborough. Three more are in the pipeline, undergoing various reviews and planning permissions. Those sites provide basic and safe accommodation for asylum seekers and are designed to be as self-sufficient as possible, reducing the impact upon communities. I must reiterate that large sites offer a sustainable solution for housing asylum seekers. They allow for dedicated on-site services such as health and safeguarding services, which lessen reliance on overstretched local facilities.
In terms of security, the safety of local communities, the staff who work there and those accommodated on large sites are of the utmost importance. Unlike hotels, ex-military sites allow for dedicated safeguarding and oversight services, reducing disruption to local communities and ensuring public safety. Specialist security will also be on site 24/7, with CCTV and strict sign-in procedures for residents.
To be extremely clear, although I understand that there is concern surrounding whether asylum accommodation goes hand in hand with an increase in crime in the local area, I categorically reject that. In September, the chief constable of Essex police confirmed that crime linked to the Wethersfield site is very low and that there is no reason for the public to be concerned about possible criminality in the area associated with the site.
As I hope I have outlined, large sites build public confidence in a fair and humane system, reducing pressure on communities while giving us greater oversight and control at critical points in the asylum decision-making process. Alongside the expansion of large sites, we continue to make use of medium sites and dispersal accommodation. That approach is being implemented in close consultation with local authorities across the UK.
Tom Gordon
Let me press the Minister a little further. In my speech in support of the new clauses, I spoke about the lack of capacity when it comes to sewage and electricity and the lack of consultation with local government. Will the Minister not acknowledge that and try to empathise with those individuals and authorities on the inappropriate nature of these sites? Will she look again?
Anna Turley
When we apply for planning permission or urgent Crown development, all these issues are taken into account as part of that planning process and decision making by the Secretary of State.
Anna Turley
I have some responses to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. That also includes consultation with local authorities. All the application processes have a due window for local authorities to make their applications, and all of that will be considered in the round. I will give way.
Tom Gordon
Can the Minister explain and outline why she thinks that both the Conservative-run North Yorkshire council and her Labour Mayor for York and North Yorkshire have got it wrong in their opposition to these sites?
Anna Turley
As a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Gentleman will know clearly that “nimbyism” gets used quite a lot. It is important that local authorities quite rightly make representations, whatever their political party, on behalf of their local areas, and we would expect that as part of the planning processes. All those representations will be taken into account when the decisions are made.
I will respond to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, going back to the engagement with local authorities. As I said, we recognise their importance, but a single statutory model would not reflect the different circumstances, planning routes and stages of development that apply to individual sites. It could duplicate existing processes, require premature disclosure and delay urgent decisions. Engagement should remain proportionate, properly sequenced and responsive to each proposal.
A point was also raised about publishing costs and assessments. We will be as transparent as we possibly can, whenever we can. We have to balance publication against commercial confidentiality, personal data and site security and the need to protect sensitive operational information. As hon. Members can imagine, that is all extremely important when undertaking sites of this significance.
The reforms that we are looking at are crucial to overhauling the immigration system to restore control at the border. This is about fairness, restoring confidence and public trust in the system and, in particular, handing our hotels back to the communities.
To give some statistics behind the Government’s reforms, as of June this year, the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was 46% lower than when the Government entered office. There are 71% fewer people staying in hotels compared with the peak in September 2023. As I mentioned, that has led to fewer than 160 hotels currently in operation.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I am listening to the Minister talking about taking people out of hotels, which of course we all support and want the Government to be successful at. Can she provide any justification, because I cannot see one, for housing a large number—more than 1,000 asylum seekers or refugees—in a community that is smaller? How can that ever be right? It does not even matter that those people are refugees and are not from this country—1,000 extra people on the side of a smaller settlement seems to me crazy. It seems to be something that should not be able to happen.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. We are not housing them in the community. They are being housed on a specific site that is self-contained and away from the community. All their needs are met on that site. Where they are not met, they are transported usually to larger places—cities or towns. That is certainly the situation at the two sites we have at the moment at Wethersfield and Crowborough. They are taken specifically for their needs and requirements, but it is very rare, as a whole, that those individuals leave the camp of their own volition. They have to sign in and out. The sites are self-contained. They are not in the village; they are separate, on a self-contained site.
This Government made a manifesto pledge to end hotel use because the right level of hotel spend is zero. We stick by that. That is how we will restore public confidence in the system.
As Members will know, this is only a small portion of the drastic work we are undertaking to fix the broken immigration system. Alongside our accommodation reform, we are restoring control of the wider asylum system through faster case progression, reduced backlogs, increased returns and stronger border security, with the intention of reducing the overall demand for accommodation.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I know he has a long-standing interest in delivery and delivery partners. We have protocols and agreements with those organisations. They have high standards to fulfil and, if they do not do so, we will review their contracts. We keep that under review all the time.
I turn to the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, and specifically to new clause 30, which
“would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant local authorities and other public bodies considered appropriate, and to prepare and publish a site suitability assessment before a site is used to accommodate 300 or more people as part of the asylum support system.”
Similarly, new clause 64 would require the Home Secretary to
“prepare and publish a Local Impact and Safeguarding Assessment”
before designating a high-capacity asylum accommodation site or materially increasing its capacity.
I thank hon. Members for highlighting the importance of effective engagement on new asylum accommodation sites, safeguarding residents and understanding the impact on local services and communities. The Government agree with that objective. Site selection and mobilisation already involve assessment of safety, safeguarding, service capacity and local impacts, supported by widespread engagement with local authorities, the police, health partners and other relevant bodies. However, the new clauses would impose a rigid statutory process and publication requirement before a site could be approved or expanded. That would create significant overlap with existing planning processes, which would delay delivery and reduce the Government’s ability—
Blake Stephenson
If the Government are not willing to concede that there should be a rigid statutory process, would they accept that those safeguarding risk assessments should be made available, so that there is transparency for the local community? I know the Minister said, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, that those asylum seekers are effectively not living in the community because they are in a camp outside, but they are free to come and go into their local communities. It is important that the Government commit to providing safeguarding impact assessments to the local community.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We take safeguarding very seriously. That is all undertaken as part of the process when we make those decisions and contracts, and we keep them under review all the time. I refer to the point I made earlier: the police, particularly at Wethersfield, have said that there has been no discernible impact on crime. I just wanted to reiterate that, but I take his point.
New clause 64 also applies fixed thresholds, which may not reflect the circumstances of an individual site or the scale of local impact. A smaller site may require intensive engagement, whereas an increase of 100 places at a larger, established site may not create the same pressures. The Government consider that existing operational assessment and engagement arrangements provide the necessary flexibility to manage risks proportionately. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to withdraw the new clause.
Tom Gordon
I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response, which outlines the Government’s views. I do not think it adequately addresses the issues that Crown development routes pose in bypassing much of local planning scrutiny. The Minister also made the point that the Government want to be as transparent as possible. I do not think that this place should let them off the hook on these issues. The questions about the suitability of sites were not adequately answered, so I will not withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 38—Use of immigration data to develop artificial intelligence—
“(1) Personal data obtained or generated in the exercise of functions relating to immigration, asylum, nationality or modern slavery may not be used to train, fine-tune, test, evaluate or otherwise develop an artificial intelligence system.
(2) Any contract for the provision of an artificial intelligence system used in connection with those functions must prohibit the supplier from retaining or using such data for any purpose other than providing the service and must require the deletion of such data upon the completion of the task for which it has been provided.
(3) For the purposes of this section, an interview record, witness statement or account given by a person remains personal data even where names or other direct identifiers have been removed.”
Siân Berry
The purpose of my new clauses is to ensure that the Government stop using artificial intelligence systems to shape life-changing—and, in some cases, life-or-death—decisions about people’s protection, liberty and removal until they can show that they are lawful, accurate and open to challenge.
This debate is not solely about the future, because that goes on in the present: the Home Office already deploys two AI tools in asylum casework. The asylum policy search tool has operated since July 2025, and the asylum case summarisation tool was rolled out to all decision makers in April 2026. Both tools use OpenAI’s GPT-4.
According to the Department’s own impact assessment, those tools summarise around 17,500 asylum cases every month, including interviews in which people share traumatic experiences relating to torture, persecution, their sexuality, faith and politics. A machine condenses those detailed accounts into the summary, which a decision maker reads before deciding whether that person will be sent back. That is the human cost at stake.
The Home Office and the Minister need to deal with those issues—particularly the legality of that practice. The Home Office ignored its own AI playbook when introducing those tools. Neither is listed on the algorithmic transparency register, there is no independent audit and testing of the policy search tool has now stopped altogether. As far as I can see, the Government’s only justification for using those tools is speed, rather than quality or someone’s human right to have their evidence in a life-or-death case considered in full by another human. When the cost of an error is a person being returned to danger, speed is not a safeguard and does not equal justice. Parliament must not accept a system that cannot show its working or justify its decisions. The Minister must deal with those points if she wishes to dismiss the new clauses.
New clause 37 is simple, but it is also comprehensive and precise. It says that no decision with a legal or a similarly significant effect on a person and relating to protection, leave detention, removal, support or trafficking may be made by, or with the help of, an AI system that processes their personal data. Subsection (3) makes it clear that any “summary, transcript, translation,” or “search result” generated by AI and given to a decision maker counts as assistance.
A human who reads a machine’s summary of an interview is already seeing the case through the filter of that machine. If the summary omits a detail that shows an account’s credibility, the decision maker may never know to look for it. That is unacceptable when a person’s life or freedom is at stake. Subsection (6) matters, as the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018 currently lets the Home Office set aside people’s data rights. That subsection ensures that the exemption cannot be used to involve AI in those decisions.
New clause 38 protects the data itself. Asylum interviews hold the most sensitive information that the state collects, about health, sexuality, religion, political opinion, criminal allegations and details of children. The Department’s own impact assessment for the ACS and APS tools ticks every one of those categories. People give that information to claim protection; they do not give it to train commercial AI. New clause 38 would set out that the data may not be used to build, train or test AI systems, and that suppliers must not keep or reuse it.
Subsection (3) closes an obvious loophole. An asylum account does not stop being personal just because the name is removed. In so many cases, the story itself identifies the person because of the detail that must be included. The impact assessment for the asylum case summarisation tool records that no other party is involved in processing and names no processer, even though the model is supplied by OpenAI and is hosted on Microsoft’s Azure platform. Parliament is entitled to know what those contracts say. New clause 38 would put the answer to that beyond doubt.
Relatedly, I am also concerned about the appeals systems set up by schedule 3 and clause 13, which we have debated. Under the new appeals authority, if an adjudicator cannot see whether AI shaped the decision under appeal, the appeal cannot correct it. Changes need to be made to schedule 3 to require the Home Office to say, in every appeal, whether AI was used in the original decision, and to produce any output that was relied on. The legislation, through amendments that I hope the Government will introduce, needs to state that an adjudicator may not use AI to decide an appeal, judge credibility or write reasons. Credibility is a human judgment about a human being, and such decisions are about people’s human rights. To ensure that the conditions stay that way, restrictions on AI must be added to the Bill.
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clauses 37 and 38, which address an important issue. It is right that, as technology develops, we continue to monitor it and do everything we can to use it effectively and responsibly.
New clause 37 would effectively bar the use of AI systems in immigration and modern slavery decisions in all but a small number of highly limited circumstances. It would apply to any decision made by or with the assistance of AI systems. That would include the prohibition of summaries, transcripts or search results being relied on or made available to a decision maker. The Government are fully committed to implementing AI systems in a responsible way, in line with our legal and ethical obligations, which we take seriously. We have in place robust policies and frameworks that guide our approach to adoption of AI systems. All new AI tools must undergo mandatory evaluation and insurance, and we have in place measures to ensure that staff who use such tools are provided with clear guidance and ongoing training on how to use them responsibly. We also have in place measures to ensure that where AI systems are used, they are adopted in a transparent way, with clear mechanisms for accountability.
The UK general data protection regulation, or GDPR, already sets out robust safeguards to protect the rights of an individual who is subject to a solely automated decision that has no meaningful human involvement. For example, under article 22C of the regulation, safeguards are required where a significant decision is based solely on automated processing and based entirely or partly on personal data. Those safeguards include measures that
“provide the data subject with information about decisions...enable the data subject to make representations…enable the data subject to obtain human intervention”
and
“enable the data subject to contest such decisions.”
Together, those existing legal, ethical and governance safeguards already require careful consideration of the rights and interests of individuals when deploying artificial intelligence. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that the Government remain committed to ensuring that AI systems are adopted in a fair, responsible and ethical way.
However, we must also recognise that AI is creating new opportunities. AI has the potential to greatly transform the way in which the Government carry out functions and provide services. In his recent speech to the UN General Assembly, the Prime Minister said that the UK will put AI at the heart of our G20 presidency next year, and that we will bring the right people together to deliver on the potential for AI to be used for good, while guarding against the risks. This new and powerful technology can increase speed and consistency across our services, providing a better experience for those who interact with them.
Siân Berry
The Minister mentions speed and consistency, but I am worried about quality and bias. Given that AI is trained on what is currently on the internet, and given the biases that exist in society, is she confident that credibility decisions and recommendations will not be subject to racial or gender bias, for example?
Anna Turley
The hon. Lady makes an important point—we have all seen issues of ingrained bias in the media—but we are ensuring that we have safeguards in place. AI systems should not undermine people’s rights or discriminate unfairly. The Government are committed to responsible and evidence-based AI adoption guided by robust policies, ethical frameworks and transparent governance. That includes mandatory evaluation and assurance for all new AI tools, including ongoing staff training in responsible AI practices and clear accountability mechanisms to ensure that every deployment of AI upholds public trust and meets our legal and ethical obligations.
Operational efficiency time savings, as measured during the pilot, are set out in the pilot evaluation. A high volume of detailed information is gathered during the asylum decision-making process and interviews. Decision makers who have had access to the case summary are able to effectively identify areas of review to aid the decision-making process. We will continue to review and improve the tool’s outputs for the benefit of decision makers. The output of the tool is deliberately designed not to provide enough information for the decision maker to make their decision. It is there to aid them in the decision-making process and direct them to the information that they need to do that more efficiently.
I want to re-emphasise the mitigations we are putting in place to protect public safety and national security from AI harms. They include new offences targeting AI-generated child sexual abuse materials and the creation of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images, and the extension of the paedophile manuals offence to cover AI-generated material. We are also working with industry and the AI Security Institute to understand and address AI-enabled harms. We have introduced measures that will enable authorised organisations to safely and easily test AI systems for harmful and illegal outputs, which will help to identify vulnerabilities in safety mechanisms, improve safeguards and prevent criminal misuse.
To reiterate, data protection law applies to any processing of personal data, including personal data processed by or for the development of AI systems related to immigration functions. Where solely automated decision making—any decision taken by automated means and without meaningful human involvement—has taken place for a decision that has legal or similarly significant effects, there are specific provisions in place. The Home Office does not undertake solely automated decision making, but uses AI in various roles across the system, such as translation, summarisation and other assistive roles. The use of those AI systems is governed by data protection law where personal data is processed, and by the Home Office’s internal AI use policy. The Information Commissioner has also published guidance on how to apply data protection law to AI, which is reflected in the Home Office’s processes and policies.
As I have said, AI can support our decision-making process, particularly by reducing the time that decision makers spend on basic, time-consuming tasks, allowing them to focus their attention and human expertise, to which the hon. Lady referred, where they are most beneficial. AI tools are already assisting asylum decision makers. The asylum case summarisation and asylum policy search tools are already in operation. Our evaluation of those tools shows that their use can reduce the time taken to carry out some decision-making tasks, creating new efficiencies. The Home Office published those evaluations, demonstrating our commitment to transparency.
It is right that we work to harness those opportunities for the benefit of those we serve. The Government’s position is that AI will have a significant part to play in transforming our public services and ensuring that the immigration system remains fair and sustainable in the future, while not placing unnecessary burdens on UK taxpayers. The new clause does not add to the safeguards already in place, but it does significantly restrict our ability to realise the benefits of AI in delivering better public services now and in the future. I do not believe that that it is proportionate or desirable.
New clause 38 seeks to prevent personal data relating to immigration, asylum and modern slavery from being used to train and develop AI models, to prevent suppliers of AI systems from retaining or using such data except to fulfil their obligations in providing the service, and to include redacted information within the definition of personal data for immigration purposes. AI systems must be tested and evaluated using real-world data to ensure that they are accurate, safe and effective. By prohibiting the use of immigration and other related data for those purposes, the new clause would severely constrain the development and deployment of AI, including for tools that have not been trained on Home Office data. Taken alone, it risks encouraging the deployment of AI that has not been rigorously tested and evaluated.
Siân Berry
As I said in my speech, the impact assessment for the summarisation tool states that no other party is involved in the processing of people’s personal data. I think the Minister has confirmed that data is passed back into OpenAI and Microsoft systems for training by the tools. Would she be prepared to put that in writing for us so that we can look at it again?
Anna Turley
Yes, I am happy to respond and clarify. I reiterate that by prohibiting the use of immigration and other related data for these purposes, new clause 38 would severely constrain the development and deployment of AI, including for tools that have not been trained on Home Office data.
Taken alone, new clause 38 risks encouraging the deployment of AI that has not been rigorously tested and evaluated. The Government are committed to responsible AI adoption, so that is not tenable. In conjunction with new clause 37, however, the cumulative effect would be that AI could not be developed using, or deployed within, immigration and other related functions. That would prevent the use of AI to improve the efficiency and security of the immigration system and to protect the vulnerable, even where it is effective, efficient and ethical to do so.
The use of any personal data in the development of AI systems related to immigration and related functions is also governed by the UK GDPR, as I have said. Existing GDPR obligations impose rigorous processes to ensure that the processing of personal data is lawful, proportionate, secure and transparent. They also require those processing personal data to consider whether anonymous or pseudonymised data could be used to achieve the same result.
The Home Office manages AI suppliers through procurement, contractual and assurance controls designed to protect personal and Government data. Our AI policies have introduced appropriate contractual provisions. Contractual controls, including non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality clauses, expressly restrict how any Home Office data is processed and used—for example, Home Office contract material requires authority data to remain within the supplier’s secure environment.
Lastly, the intent of new clause 38(3) is already covered by data protection legislation, which provides the legal definition of personal data. The test for determining whether data is categorised as personal data requires a holistic assessment as to whether that data can be used to identify an individual, and does not rely solely on whether direct identifiers are included within it. Altering that definition through new clause 38 would have wide-ranging impacts, including on the definition of personal data offered in new clause 37.
For those reasons, the Government cannot accept the new clauses and I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the motion.
Siân Berry
I am afraid that I am not convinced that the Home Office has the right protections in place under current law or through the Bill. I detect that the Minister is not completely sure of the grounds that she has given for dismissing the new clauses, or that safeguards are in place for privacy and the most sensitive personal data in current and future use of AI.
I suspect that I have made the Minister think more about this today, so I hope that she will seek further information and consider introducing further measures to the Bill in its next stages. For now, pending further debate, I am happy not to press these two new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 39
Further provisions relating to the prevention of slavery and human trafficking in organisations and value chains
“After section 54 (transparency in supply chains etc) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, insert—
‘54A Duty to prevent slavery and human trafficking in organisations and value chains
(1) A relevant organisation must take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent slavery and human trafficking arising or occurring in—
(a) its own operations;
(b) the operations of any franchisee or subsidiary undertaking; and
(c) the operations, products or services of any person in its supply or value chain or other business relationship.
(2) In determining what are to be considered reasonable and proportionate steps for the purposes of this section, regard must be given to guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on what are to be considered reasonable and proportionate steps for the purposes of this section within 12 months of passing of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations designate an enforcement authority with responsibility for ensuring that relevant organisations comply with the requirements of this section.
(5) The enforcement authority may, where it is satisfied that a relevant organisation has failed to comply with any of the requirements of this section—
(a) issue a public censure notice;
(b) require the organisation to take specified compliance, prevention, restoration or remediation steps within a specified period;
(c) require the organisation to compensate any persons adversely affected by the noncompliance;
(d) impose a monetary penalty of up to 5% of the organisation’s global turnover;
(e) exclude the organisation from participation in public procurement procedures for a period determined by the Secretary of State.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
“relevant organisation” means—
(a) a body corporate or partnership, wherever incorporated or formed, which carries on a business or part of a business in the United Kingdom, supplies goods or services, and has, inclusive of any subsidiary undertaking, total turnover of £36 million or more;
(b) a public undertaking within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Procurement Act 2023;
“value chain” includes all activities undertaken by any entity during the lifecycle of a good or service upstream and downstream of the commercial organisation, including but not limited to material sourcing, processing, production, manufacturing, development, sale, warehousing, logistics, marketing, finance, use and end of life disposal.
54B Responsibility for slavery or human trafficking in organisations and value chains
(1) Where slavery or human trafficking occurs or is identified in the supply or value chains of a relevant organisation (“O”), O is responsible for such slavery or human trafficking if—
(a) any activity of O causes or contributes to the occurrence of the slavery or human trafficking, or
(b) the occurrence of slavery or human trafficking is directly linked to O’s operations, products or services by O’s business relationships.
(2) O is not responsible for the slavery or human trafficking if it is proved that O had taken reasonable and proportionate steps under section 54A.
(3) Where O is responsible for slavery or human trafficking, O commits an offence.
(4) Where an offence under subsection (3) is committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, partner or other senior officer of O, that person also commits the offence.
(5) A party guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) in the case of a relevant organisation, and any director, manager, partner or other senior officer of that organisation who commits an offence under subsection (4), to an unlimited fine;
(b) in the case of an individual—
(i) on summary conviction, to an unlimited fine, with such a fine being proportionate to the degree to which they were responsible for slavery or human trafficking;
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to an unlimited fine, or to both.
(6) A person adversely affected by any slavery or human trafficking for which a relevant organisation is alleged to be responsible may bring civil proceedings against that organisation, whether or not criminal proceedings have been commenced or concluded in respect of the same conduct.
(7) Civil proceedings under this section may be brought by the person who claims to have been adversely affected by slavery or human trafficking (a “victim”), the Secretary of State, or any person acting on behalf of a victim.
(8) For the purposes of this section, “relevant organisation” has the meaning given in section 54A.’”—(Blake Stephenson.)
This new clause would require organisations to take steps to prevent slavery and human trafficking in their operations, and make organisations or individuals responsible for slavery or human trafficking liable to fines or imprisonment unless they have taken reasonable steps to prevent it.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 40—Designation of goods presumed to involve forced labour—
“After section 54 (transparency in supply chains etc) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, insert—
‘54A Designation of goods presumed to involve forced labour
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate—
(a) goods of a specified description,
(b) goods from a specified country, region, facility, undertaking, sector or industry, or
(c) goods involving a specified person,
as goods presumed to be made with the involvement of, or as the result of, forced labour.
(2) An organisation which trades in the United Kingdom must publish on its website, as part of any slavery and human trafficking statement prepared under section 54 or otherwise, details of whether the organisation—
(a) makes available on the United Kingdom market,
(b) imports into the United Kingdom, or
(c) exports from the United Kingdom,
any goods designated by the Secretary of State under this section.
(3) Regulations under this section must provide for a right of appeal against any designation.
(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on compliance with this section and on the action organisations are to be required to take to reduce or eliminate their involvement with designated goods.
(5) In this section—
‘forced labour’ means forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2 of the Forced Labour Convention 1930 (No. 29) of the International Labour Organization, and includes forced child labour and labour or services exacted under slavery, servitude, human trafficking, debt bondage or any other form of coercion; goods are made with the involvement of, or as the result of, forced labour if forced labour has been used at any stage of their extraction, mining, harvesting, production, manufacture, processing, packaging, transportation or storage, at any stage of an organisation’s value chain;
‘value chain’ includes all activities undertaken by any entity during the lifecycle of a good or service upstream and downstream of the organisation, including but not limited to material sourcing, processing, production, manufacturing, development, sale, warehousing, logistics, marketing, finance, use and end of life disposal.’”
This new clause would permit the Secretary of State to designate goods as being presumed to involve forced labour and require organisations to publish whether they sell, import or export goods so designated.
Blake Stephenson
New clauses 39 and 40 raise an issue about which there is strong feeling across the House: goods made with forced labour, including in Xinjiang, entering British supply chains. Experienced and well-respected right hon. and hon. Members have drafted these new clauses carefully to be within the scope of the Bill, and they would, I think, like to hear the Government’s view on the moral and economic questions that arise—actually, having just said that, I believe that all those who have put their names to the new clause are right hon. Members.
The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner told us that:
“The UK imports more than £20 billion-worth of goods every year that are at risk of being produced using forced labour.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 12, Q13.]
That figure matters more with every month that passes. From 14 December 2027, products made with forced labour cannot be sold in the European Union, whether they are imported or made there. The United States already bans them. Once those two markets are closed, those goods will look for the next open market, and there is a risk that, without action, that market will be the United Kingdom.
Goods made with forced labour are artificially cheap. British businesses are already expressing concern that they are being undercut by cheaper Chinese imports. Surely the risk is that the problem intensifies after other markets close their doors to such goods. Modern slavery already costs the UK up to £60 billion a year, and at present it is the taxpayer who pays to deal with exploitation after it has happened. UK firms that trade with the EU will have to meet its forced labour ban by 2027 anyway. There is widespread concern and a case to consider.
New clause 39 would create a new regulatory regime for large businesses, making them responsible for keeping forced labour out of their supply chains, with penalties of up to 5% of global turnover. New clause 40 is narrower. It would let the Government designate high-risk goods and require businesses to disclose whether they trade in them—the foundation that any import ban would need—and addresses a widely shared concern. Can the Minister explain what the Government’s policy is on preventing the import of goods made with forced labour, and when they will report their review of responsible business conduct?
Anna Turley
New clause 39 would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to impose a duty on businesses with a turnover of £36 million or more and all public authorities to take reasonable steps to prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains or face criminal and civil penalties. New clause 40 would also amend the Modern Slavery Act, to allow the Secretary of State to designate goods presumed to involve forced labour, and to require organisations trading in the UK to publish a statement, either in their reporting under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act or otherwise, if they make, import or export any such goods.
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who put their names to the new clauses. Their cross-party nature gives us reason to explore them in more detail. I want to reassure the Members who tabled the new clauses and members of the Committee that the Government are absolutely committed to tackling modern slavery and human trafficking. We recognise the importance of ensuring that businesses take effective action to identify and address risks within their operations and supply chains.
Clauses 44 to 49 of the Bill strengthen the current reporting requirements under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, raising expectations on businesses and public sector organisations to better report and act on exploitation in their supply chains, with stronger consequences for non-compliance. They sit alongside a range of other measures that we have taken to address forms of modern slavery, including forced labour.
For individuals and employers involved in modern slavery, there are criminal sanctions. The Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to reject bids and terminate contracts with suppliers known to use forced labour. The National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025 require public bodies to assess modern slavery risks and take responsible and proportionate measures to address them. Our trade policy also plays an important role. We pursue anti-forced labour provisions in our free trade agreements, and the developing countries trading scheme allows preferential trading arrangements to be suspended in cases of serious labour rights violations.
New clause 39 would go considerably further than the existing transparency regime and other measures we have in place to prevent modern slavery. I recognise the ambitions of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), in whose name it was tabled, to strengthen corporate action. However, a new duty of this nature, particularly one carrying potential criminal liability, could place a significant new burden on businesses. I was listening intently to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire but did not hear any sense of the financial implications of the new clause for businesses. We need to understand that this would be quite a considerable expansion of the duties that we put on businesses, which may have quite a considerable cost for them. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be keen to ensure that we do not place further and disproportionate burdens on businesses in this country.
To impose such a duty, we would need to ensure that it is properly considered alongside the wider UK framework for tackling forced labour and other harms in supply chains. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade has undertaken a review of the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct. That was an evidence-based appraisal of the UK’s policy approach, its impact and, crucially, options to strengthen it further. The Government are considering the findings and will set out our position in due course.
On new clause 40, the Government again recognise the ambitions of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. However, the proposed designation mechanism raises important questions about the evidence and the threshold required to designate goods, how decisions will be made fairly and consistently, and what would be expected of businesses dealing with designated goods. Section 54 of the 2015 Act and the accompanying statutory guidance are clear that no industry is immune to the risks of modern slavery. We encourage organisations to actively identify, monitor and mitigate any risks pertinent to their operations and supply chains, rather than rely on a list of at-risk goods published by the Government.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. I am sure the right hon. and hon. Members who put their names to the new clauses will be grateful and will find that useful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 41
Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to UK immigration and asylum legislation
“(1) In respect of any provision of any UK legislation relating to immigration, asylum or deportation—
(a) the Human Rights Act 1998 is of no effect and must be disregarded in the interpretation and application of such legislation;
(b) any such provision must be read and given effect to as if there were no mention of or reference to the Human Rights Act 1998.
(2) Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the exercise of any function under any provision of any UK legislation relating to immigration, asylum or deportation—
(a) a Minister of the Crown will decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure;
(b) no immigration officer, court or tribunal may give any regard to the interim measure unless a Minister of the Crown decides that the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure.”—(Matt Vickers.)
This new clause would disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to UK legislation about immigration, asylum or deportation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 60—Application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—
“In Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Article 8 of the ECHR), after section 117A insert—
‘117AA Relationship with the Human Rights Act 1998
(1) Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (interpretation of legislation) does not apply in relation to this Part.
(2) A decision of the Secretary of State, or of a court or tribunal, that is made in accordance with this Part is not to be regarded as unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Acts of public authorities) by reason only of incompatibility with Article 8.’”
This new clause would make Part 5A an exclusive code for Article 8 in immigration cases by disapplying the interpretative obligation in section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and providing that decisions taken in accordance with Part 5A are not unlawful under section 6 of that Act.
Matt Vickers
The British people are fair, but what they cannot stand is people who break the rules getting the same as or better than people who do not. To be fair to the Home Secretary, there are measures in the Bill that we welcome, but time and again it identifies the right problem but stops short of a solution. Nowhere is that clearer than on human rights law.
New clause 41 says that for immigration, asylum and deportation law, the Human Rights Act 1998 would have no effect. Our laws would mean what Parliament wrote. No officer, court or tribunal could act on a Strasbourg interim measure unless a Minister of the Crown decides that the UK should comply. New clause 60 would make part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—the article 8 code—final. Courts would not be able to reinterpret its words, and a decision made in line with it would not be unlawful just because it clashes with article 8.
Let me say why we tabled the new clauses. This is not about being against human rights. The Conservatives believe in the rule of law and protecting people from persecution, but the rule of law means laws made by this Parliament, applied as this Parliament intended. Over the past 25 years, the Human Rights Act has given the courts the job of reading words into immigration law that Parliament did not put there, and the effect has been to move the most important decision that any country makes—about who gets to stay—away from the people the public can vote out. That matters for democratic consent.
When people see a foreign criminal who abused children remain here because a judge felt that removing him could impact his family, they do not blame the judge; they blame all of us—Members of every party. They conclude that their votes do not change anything and that politicians are powerless or do not care. That corrodes trust in the whole system and hands a gift to those who want to tear it down rather than fix it. Our motivation is to restore the simple principle that Ministers decide, Parliament holds them to account, and the public holds Parliament to account at the ballot box.
There is a fairness point, too. The protections in our law should exist for the people who need them most: the genuine refugee and the victim of trafficking. Every time those protections are stretched to cover a convicted criminal, they lose their legitimacy, and it becomes harder to defend them. Why do we need them? Because of some of the cases we have seen.
In February last year, a Pakistani man convicted of child sex offences was allowed to stay in this country because a tribunal judge decided that deporting him would be unduly harsh on his family, even though the law already restricted his access to them. When the Home Office appealed, the upper tribunal called that ruling contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong and rationally insupportable, and sent it back to be heard again. A convicted child sex offender used his own children’s family life as a shield, and it took an appeal just to get the case reheard.
That was not a one-off. A Zimbabwean paedophile was due to be deported in 2021, but a judge blocked it. Why? Because, among other things, his criminal record for child sex offences meant he was likely to face hostility from the authorities if he went home. Let that sink in: the very crimes that should have guaranteed his removal became part of the reason he could stay. Most people in this country would find that not just wrong but upside down. A law that turns a conviction for abusing children into a shield against deportation is a law this Parliament has a duty to change.
In 2014, this House put part 5A into law to stop exactly that sort of outcome; 12 years later, the Government are back amending the same sections through clauses 18 to 20 of this Bill. Why? Because the courts keep reading our laws through the Human Rights Act and finding exceptions that Parliament never meant. The Law Society told this Committee that the Government’s new definition of family life is a big narrowing of article 8. Fine, but if the Minister wants those words to survive their first trip to court, she needs new clause 60.
Look at Rochdale. Adil Khan and Qari Abdul Rauf were members of the grooming gang convicted in 2012 of sexual offences against young girls. Rauf trafficked a 15-year-old girl for sex. They were stripped of their British citizenship. Then they spent seven years fighting deportation on article 8 grounds, while living in Rochdale near their victims. They finally lost in 2022. This summer, the Government were still in talks with Pakistan about removing them, and the Home Office has not said whether either has gone. Seven years of article 8 litigation for men who did that to children just is not acceptable.
Look at Reading. Khairi Saadallah’s asylum claim was refused. He had a string of convictions. The inquest heard that he had killed people in Libya before he came here, yet for years he was in limbo, refused but not removed, because of the risk on return to Libya. In June 2020, he murdered three men. The coroner found their deaths were “probably avoidable”.
Remember, too, June 2022, when a rule 39 indication issued late in the evening by a judge whose name was not then disclosed grounded a removal flight already on the runway. Under new clause 41, that decision would rest with a Minister, answerable to this House.
None of this is new to the House. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 said that it was for a Minister of the Crown, not the courts, to decide whether to comply with a Strasbourg interim measure. Parliament passed it. This Government repealed it in full through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which received Royal Assent last December.
The question for the Minister is not whether this can be done; it is why her Government chose to undo it. Meanwhile, at the end of June, 21,294 foreign offenders due for deportation were living in our communities, up more than 2,000 in a year. If the Minister agrees that Parliament should decide who stays in this country, she should support the new clauses, and I commend them to the Committee.
Anna Turley
I thank the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling the new clauses, which would require the Government to limit the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 in immigration decisions.
Both new clauses seek to give greater weight to the wording of our domestic immigration legislation and would provide less scope for human rights challenges in UK immigration cases. However, they are likely to result in our domestic immigration legislation, and action taken under it, being found to be incompatible with the ECHR. The changes could reduce the ability of UK decision makers, including the courts, to resolve human rights issues, and they would increase the number of cases going to Strasbourg. They would undoubtedly create greater uncertainty in the relationship between domestic law and the UK’s convention obligations.
I do not want to relitigate all the discussions we have had over many days in Committee, but hon. Members will not be surprised that our position remains unchanged. We are clear that we are fully committed to the European convention on human rights. That commitment includes respect for our obligations under international law. We do not have to withdraw from the convention or disapply the Human Rights Act to deliver meaningful reform and ensure that we have an immigration system that has the consent of the British people.
Removing the duties and protections provided by the Human Rights Act would create greater confusion and inconsistency in decision making while reducing the UK’s ability to resolve human rights issues domestically. The Human Rights Act remains an important part of our constitutional arrangement and reflects the UK’s long tradition of protecting fundamental rights, enshrining those set out in the ECHR—which we helped to establish—while preserving parliamentary sovereignty. Courts cannot strike down primary legislation, and Parliament retains the final authority to determine how any incompatibility is addressed. Within that system, our separation of powers also recognises the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary in determining the application of rights or laws, including remedies available through judicial review.
As set out in the Government’s “Restoring Order and Control” statement, the balance between the individual’s article 8 rights and the public interest needs to be fundamentally reset, and that is part of the key principles of the Bill. The proposals set out in the Bill will help deliver that reset. We will make the fundamental changes that the immigration system requires to restore control at the borders and restore public confidence. We will clarify and tighten the application of article 8 to put more emphasis on compliance with the rules and contribution to the economy and society. That can be done while ensuring that article 8 protections remain available to those who genuinely need them.
The Government played a leading role in securing the Chişinău political declaration, which was agreed by consensus by all 46 Council of Europe member states on 15 May 2026. The declaration recognised the need to ensure that the convention remains effective in the face of modern migration challenges, and reaffirmed the importance of maintaining public confidence in the system. Together, all 46 member states supported a clearer, shared approach to applying the convention in line with established European Court of Human Rights case law. At its heart, the declaration recognised that national Governments and courts are usually best placed to assess the facts before them, including the application of article 3 protections and the balancing of article 8 rights against the public interest. That is how this Government are delivering reform: strengthening the system domestically while helping shape its operation internationally. We are addressing modern migration challenges by improving how the system operates in practice, not by stepping away from it. We need a seat at the table.
The UK is committed to complying with international law, including by implementing judgments of the ECHR and complying when it indicates binding interim measures in pending cases. Members should not forget that the European Court does not find against the UK routinely; indeed, in the last 10 years there has only been one immigration-related judgment concerning article 8. Other cases have been to secure protections for important issues on justice, such as police data and surveillance, as well as family court procedure. The Court has also reformed and improved its approach to interim measures, including by making it clear that they should be used only where there is evidence of an imminent risk of irreparable harm, which I welcome.
For those reasons, we cannot accept the new clauses. I respectfully invite the shadow Minister to withdraw them.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 43—Disregard of certain claims, applications etc—
“(1) The duty in section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) applies in relation to a person who meets the three conditions of that section regardless of whether the person—
(a) makes a protection claim,
(b) makes a human rights claim,
(c) claims to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking as defined by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 69 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, or
(d) makes an application for judicial review in relation to their removal from the United Kingdom under this Act.
(2) If a person who meets the three conditions of section (Duty to remove persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) makes a protection claim or a human rights claim within subsection (4), the Secretary of State must declare the claim inadmissible.
(3) A declaration under subsection (2) that a protection claim or a human rights claim is inadmissible is not a decision to refuse the claim and no right of appeal under section 82(1)(a) or (b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (right of appeal to the Tribunal) therefore arises.
(4) A human rights claim is within this subsection if it is a claim that removal of a person from the United Kingdom to—
(a) a country of which the person is a national, or
(b) a country or territory in which the person has obtained a passport or other document of identity,
would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities).
(5) In this section—
‘application for judicial review’ means—
(a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, an application to the High Court for judicial review,
(b) in Scotland, an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and
(c) any other application to a court or tribunal which is required by an enactment to be determined by applying the principles that would be applied by a court on an application within paragraph (a) or (b).
(6) References to a claim include a claim—
(a) that was made on or after the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) that has not been decided by the Secretary of State on the date on which this section comes into force.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove people who have entered the UK without leave under NC42 even where a person makes a protection or human rights claim, claims to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking, or seeks judicial review.
New clause 55—Entry into and settlement in the United Kingdom—
“(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 8(1) (exceptions for seamen, aircrews and other special cases), after paragraph (c) insert
‘or—
(d) the person has ever met the three conditions specified in subsections (2) to (4) of section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2027;’
(3) After section 8A, insert—
‘8AA Persons ineligible for leave to enter and remain, entry clearance or ETA
No person who has ever met the three conditions specified in subsections (2) to (4) of section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2027 may—
(a) be given leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom;
(b) be granted an entry clearance; or
(c) be granted an electronic travel authorisation.’”
This new clause would prevent any person who has ever met the three conditions specified in NC42 from being able to enter the UK.
New clause 56—Limits on grants of British citizenship—
“(1) For the purposes of this section, an ‘ineligible person’ is a person who has ever met the three conditions specified in subsections (2) to (4) of section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave).
(2) An ineligible person is not entitled to be registered as a British citizen, British subject or British overseas territories citizen under any of the following sections of the British Nationality Act 1981—
(a) section 3(2) or (5) (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: minors);
(b) section 4(2) (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: British overseas territories citizens etc);
(c) section 5 (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: British overseas territories citizens having connection with Gibraltar);
(d) section 10(1) (registration as British citizen following renunciation of citizenship of UK etc);
(e) section 13(1) (resumption of British citizenship);
(f) section 17(2) or (5) (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by registration: minors);
(g) section 22(1) (right to registration as British overseas territories citizen replacing right to resume citizenship of UK etc);
(h) section 13(1), as applied by section 24 of that Act (resumption of British overseas territories citizenship);
(i) section 27(1) (registration of minors as British overseas citizens);
(j) section 32 (registration of minors as British subjects).
(3) In relation to an application made by or in relation to an ineligible person, the Secretary of State may not—
(a) cause the person to be registered as a British citizen or a British overseas territories citizen under any of the following provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981—
(i) section 3(1) (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: minors);
(ii) section 4A (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: further provision for British overseas territories citizens);
(iii) section 10(2) (registration as British citizen following renunciation of citizenship of UK etc);
(iv) section 13(3) (resumption of British citizenship);
(v) section 17(1) (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by registration: minors);
(vi) section 22(2) (right to registration as British overseas territories citizen replacing right to resume citizenship of UK etc);
(vii) section 13(3), as applied by section 24 of that Act (resumption of British overseas territories citizenship);
(b) grant to the person a certificate of naturalisation as a—
(i) British citizen under section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (acquisition of British citizenship by naturalisation);
(ii) British overseas territories citizen under section 18 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by naturalisation).”
Matt Vickers
Together, these four clauses would mean that people who come here illegally are removed, cannot block that removal with last-minute claims, can never come back lawfully, and can never become British citizens. Take a man who lands on a beach in Kent on 1 December 2026, having paid a smuggling gang with no visa and no permission, and having come from France, a safe country. Under new clause 42, he meets all three conditions. He needed leave and did not have it; he entered without permission; and he arrived after 30 June 2026, the day this Bill was introduced. The Home Secretary had to remove him to his own country or a safe third country. He claimed asylum; under new clause 43, that claim would be inadmissible, there would be no appeal and a modern slavery claim or judicial review would not stop the duty either. If he later applied for a visa, new clause 55 would say never, and new clause 56 would say that he could never become a British citizen. The message to the next person on the beach in northern France would change from, “Get across, and you will probably stay,” to, “Get across, and you will be sent back for good.”
Anna Turley
I thank the Conservatives for their new clauses in this group. The main thrust of the new clauses is to restore the duty to remove, which as the hon. Gentleman set out bears a striking similarity to their failed Illegal Migration Act 2023. In fact, new clause 42 seems to copy and paste direct excerpts from that Act.
I will take a moment to remind the Committee exactly what happened when the 2023 Act received Royal Assent: asylum decision making stopped. Not a single decision was made, but arrivals continued. That led to an enormous backlog of cases, which we have to overcome in order to prevent the system from being completely overwhelmed. Everything that came afterwards was a direct result of that decision. More and more hotels housing migrants opened every week, and the cost of housing migrants skyrocketed.
This Government ended that chaos, restarted decision making, removed more than 80,000 people—up by more than 50%—reduced hotel use, with fewer than 160 now in operation, and brought down the cost of the asylum system by almost £1 billion. Incredibly, however, the Opposition want to take us back.
This Government have made significant progress in reducing the number of small boats, down from the highs we saw under the previous Government. As of 13 October, arrivals are down around 40% on 2025, and the annual record for crossings remains 45,774 arrivals in 2022; the number of organised immigration crime arrests and other disruptions are at record levels; our work with France has prevented more than 50,000 attempted crossings since the general election; and more than 60% of small boat events have been prevented this year.
The new clause sets out three conditions that this rehashed duty to remove would apply to. In essence, the Opposition argue that any individual without the legal right to be here should be deported, but I highlight what I said, that more than 80,000 individuals with no right to remain in the UK have been returned or removed from the UK since the 2024 election.
Matt Vickers
Does the Minister think that fewer than one in 10 of those people who arrive illegally being removed is the right thing? Does she believe that people who arrive illegally should be able to go on to become British citizens?
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman knows that we have made substantial improvements on the removals, which are up more than 50%. Our intention is clear. I hope he has heard our announcements, here and yesterday, that mean that people who arrive on that route will face an extra penalty. They will not be able to settle within five years, as they would have been able to under his Government; they will now have to wait approximately 30 years to be able to settle in this country.
In the year ending July 2026, there were 12,412 voluntary and enforced asylum-related returns, 10% more than in the previous year. In support of those outcomes, between July 2024 and July 2026, the Home Office operated 167 charter flights, alongside the tens of thousands of returns made on scheduled commercial flights. Removing those with no right to be here is a key pillar of the work of the Home Office to tackle illegal migration. The crux of the argument set out in the new clauses comes through with the drafting set out in new clause 43. It states that all forms of protection, human rights and modern slavery claims should be declared inadmissible without any suggestion of where the claimants could be safely and lawfully returned.
As hon. Members opposite will know, many individuals come to this country seeking refuge from torture, degrading treatment, exploitation, political persecution and death. This country has never turned its back on those who genuinely need our help, and under this Government, it is not about to start doing so. It is also interesting that the new clauses are essentially copied and pasted from the Illegal Migration Act. If this scheme was such a deterrent, how come despite that threat, small boat arrivals were higher in the first half of 2024 in the run up to their scheme than in the first half of 2026? The reality is that any third country scheme needs to be feasible and in collaboration with other international bodies and partners, because a scheme that will not work is no deterrent at all.
New clause 55 is another copy and paste from the Illegal Migration Act. It seeks to amend the Immigration Act 1971 to disallow anyone from entering the UK who has met three conditions. This would prevent anyone who had ever met the conditions in new clause 42 from ever entering the UK—whatever the circumstances. This completely removes the discretion of the Secretary of State from granting leave to enter. Additionally, new clause 56 would place limits on the ability to grant forms of British nationality to those entering the UK without leave.
I recognise that we are in familiar territory here. These new clauses mirror in part similar provisions that were placed into the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and apply them to a wider cohort. The House will recall that on taking office in 2024, steps were taken first to suspend the operation of the Illegal Migration Act and then to repeal it completely last year in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.
It will be no surprise to say that, having already taken such steps, we cannot accept this clause which would reverse the position again while extending its principles to even more people. That does not mean that we do not recognise the concerns that these measures might be said to address and the need to confront attempts to circumvent immigration control. However, rather than rely solely on statute, we have already made substantial changes to the good character guidance in this area and have also successfully defended those changes when challenged in court. We have made it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally or arrives without the required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation having made a dangerous journey, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused. That approach sends out a strong message that arriving unlawfully will not result in citizenship for the vast majority of individuals, while still retaining an essential element of flexibility for the rare deserving case.
The Committee will forgive me for saying that it is disappointing that in the two and a half years that they have been out of government, the Members opposite seem to have no new solutions to the problems of illegal migration in this country, and instead wish to reheat an idea that so spectacularly failed the first time around. The Government reject these new clauses, and will instead get on with the job of bringing down the number of small boat arrivals, removing those with no right to be here, and delivering value for money for taxpayers in our asylum system.
Our collective efforts on both sides of the channel are having an impact but we are not complacent. We know that there is more to do. There is no single intervention that would stop all small boats, and that is why we will be relentless in bringing the criminal gangs to justice, reducing the incentives to make these crossings, strengthening international co-operation against people smugglers and ensuring the swift return of those with no right to be here.
It is pertinent at this point to remember the goals of this Bill in the light of the inheritance that this Government received. The goals of this Bill are simple: to ensure that decisions and appeals are fast and fair; to provide protection to genuine refugees and to offer protections under human rights law for those who are in genuine need and close loopholes that have too often been abused so as to ensure that the generosity of the British people is not forgotten and that people can contribute when they are in a position to do so.
This is a Bill that will provide fairness for genuine refugees, but also fairness for local communities and make sure that we secure our asylum system for generations to come. For the reasons outlined, I invite Members to withdraw the new clauses.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We can pass all the laws we like, but if nobody carries out the removals, nothing changes. New clause 44 would require the Home Secretary to set up a dedicated UK removals force within six months. Its job would be clear: remove foreign offenders, illegal entrants, visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and illegal workers and return them to their home country or a safe third country, and work with the police and use facial recognition and shared biometric data to find people with no right to be here.
I will give the Government credit: returns have gone up, but let us be clear where much of that capacity came from. Most returns of small boat arrivals since 2018 have been to Albania under the returns arrangement the last Government agreed. The Government inherited that and built on it, which is fair enough, but let us look under the bonnet. In the year to June 2026, there were 9,669 enforced returns. Voluntary returns passed 30,000, many paid up to £3,000 to go, and nearly half of those who took up the scheme last year were Brazilians. Would the Committee believe it? How many of those people would have gone anyway? Paying people to leave is not enforcement. Now look at the size of the job. The Home Office made 116,000 initial asylum decisions last year, with a grant rate of 38%—tens of thousands of refusals. More than 21,000 foreign offenders are living in the community awaiting deportation, and fewer than 6,000 foreign offenders were returned in the year.
Failure to remove has a human cost. Emad al-Swealmeen had his asylum appeal dismissed in 2015, and he was not removed. Six years later, he detonated a home-made bomb in a taxi outside Liverpool women’s hospital. Khairi Saadallah was refused, convicted, and left in limbo for years before he murdered three men in Reading. Ahmed Alid’s claim was refused, and three years later, he was still in Home Office housing in Hartlepool when he killed Terence Carney.
Why have we tabled the new clause? Because a law that is not enforced is worse than no law at all. It tells people that the rules are for show. Every time a refused asylum seeker, a visa overstayer or a foreign offender stays on with no consequences, it sends a signal around the world that the UK is a soft touch and it tells the public at home that the system has given up. We want enforcement to be a priority, with its own leadership, budget and accountability to this House, so that Ministers can be asked a straight question, “How many have they removed?”, and they have to give a straight answer. Right now, removals are spread across immigration enforcement, escort contractors and the police, who all have other priorities. The new clause would create one body with one mission and the resources and powers to do the job. That is how we would stop a refused claim turning into permanent residence by default. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Member for tabling new clause 44, but I do not agree that it is necessary. The functions and powers of the removal force proposed in new clause 44 already exist within Immigration Enforcement and Border Force, which are directly accountable to the Home Secretary.
Most of the functions set out for this proposed new removals force are functions that law enforcement agencies already carry out. Without wishing to repeat myself, I reminded the Committee earlier that we have carried out over 80,000 returns, which is a 52% increase, as the hon. Member was generous enough to acknowledge. We have done so at a time when similar duties were already in place under the duty to remove in the Illegal Migration Act 2023.
I will highlight again that we are taking pragmatic steps to develop returns agreements with countries, which has delivered clear results. In October 2025, we signed an agreement with Vietnam to crack down on illegal migration and to increase returns. In August, we signed a migration partnership with Egypt, which will continue to bear down on illegal migration and cut the time required to return Egyptian nationals with no right to be in the UK by 90%. They are just a couple of examples.
As Members will be aware, we have also leveraged our visa system to positive effect. Earlier this year, after threatening Namibia, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo with visa penalties, the Home Secretary secured returns co-operation from all three countries. Restructuring the work of law enforcement agencies, which are already seeing a large increase in the number of returns, into one organisation would also be a costly distraction—a shifting of the deckchairs—from the effective work that is already being carried out.
I have said previously that there is plenty more work to do and that the Government are not complacent. The measures in clause 20, which has already been debated, demonstrate a real and material way in which the Government can increase the volume of returns of foreign national offenders. Simply moving around powers and creating new organisations at great public expense is not a credible way to achieve that. For those reasons, I reject the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 54—Finality of decisions—
“(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State has made a decision in respect of a protection claim or immigration claim.
(2) Any decisions or conclusions of the Secretary of State are final and are not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court or tribunal.
(3) In particular—
(a) the decision maker is not to be regarded as having exceeded its powers by reason of any error made in reaching the decision;
(b) the supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to, and no application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to, the decision.
(4) The court of supervisory jurisdiction is not to entertain any application or petition for judicial review in respect of a decision relating to a protection claim or an immigration claim that it would not entertain (whether as a matter of law or discretion) in the absence of this section.
(5) In this section—
‘decision’ includes any purported decision;
‘first-instance decision’ means the decision in relation to which permission (or leave) to appeal is being sought;
‘the supervisory jurisdiction’ means the supervisory jurisdiction of—
(a) the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or
(b) the Court of Session, in Scotland,
and “the court of supervisory jurisdiction” is to be read accordingly.”
This new clause would prohibit judicial review for all immigration decisions except on vires grounds (where the Secretary of State has exceeded their statutory powers).
Matt Vickers
This group of new clauses is about ending the endless cycle of claims, appeals and challenges. New clause 46 would set four simple rules: someone should make all their claims at once; they should back them with real, checkable evidence; they should not contradict what they have said; and there is only one appeal. Later claims are inadmissible unless something has genuinely changed in someone’s home country, and claims based on how someone has behaved since arriving are disregarded.
New clause 54 makes the Home Secretary’s decision final, with no possibility for judicial review, except where she has acted outside her legal powers. That builds on what Parliament has already done. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 introduced evidence notices and told decision makers to give minimal weight to evidence produced late without good reason. This Government kept that Act. New clause 46 takes the same principle to its logical conclusion: if something was not raised at the start, and nothing has changed at home, it does not get raised at all.
Three cases show why that should be so. Abdul Ezedi raised his conversion to Christianity only on his third attempt. The Home Office warned he was using religion for his own ends; he could not answer basic questions about the faith. A judge granted him asylum anyway. In January ’24, he attacked a mother and two little girls with a corrosive substance in Clapham.
Emad al-Swealmeen came here on a visit visa claiming he wanted a holiday, and then claimed asylum as a Syrian. The judge rejected his account in its entirety in 2015. He converted after his appeal rights were exhausted, made a fresh claim under a different name and had yet another appeal outstanding on the day he set off a bomb outside Liverpool Women’s hospital—more than six years after he first lost his case.
Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai arrived in 2019 claiming to be a 14-year-old orphan. He was in fact an adult who had murdered two people in Serbia with a Kalashnikov on his way here. He was placed with a foster carer and given a place at a school. In March ’22, he stabbed a 21-year-old to death.
Under new clause 46, a claim built on a false identity, a false age, a new name or a conversion after arrival would not get off the ground. Under new clause 54, a decision made would stick. That is not harsh; it is how most people assume the system already works.
Jamil Ahmed is a Pakistani national living in Scotland. He was convicted in 2008 of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16. In 2013, he was convicted again for the same offence against another girl and for sexually assaulting a teenager, and jailed for three and a half years. He was made subject to a deportation order and lost his appeals twice. After a legal fight lasting the best part of a decade, he finally won at the upper tribunal—on the basis that the reporting of his crimes would put him at risk if he went home. That took nearly 10 years of litigation, but under new clause 54 a decision would have been made. It would have been final, and he would have gone.
These new clauses are motivated by a simple belief that a fair system is a final system. Endless litigation does not serve genuine refugees. It leaves them waiting in the same queue as those gaming the process, sometimes for years, unable to get on with their lives. It also does not serve the taxpayer, who picks up the bill for the hotel, the support, the lawyers and the tribunal, and it does not serve justice, because a decision that can be reopened again and again is not really a decision at all.
We should get it right first time, give people one fair appeal, and then let the answer stand. That is how every other part of public life works, and asylum should be no different. The system is drowning. More than 90,000 asylum appeals are waiting, each taking around 61 weeks. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that there were nearly 330,000 open cases across our tribunals earlier this year.
Furthermore, the Government already accept the principle of finality. Clause 1 has an ouster clause for the new appeals body. If finality is right for that body, will the Minister tell the Committee why it is wrong for the Home Secretary? I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Anna Turley
I thank the right hon. Member for Croydon South and the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling these new clauses. The Government are committed to an asylum system where claims are considered promptly and fairly, and where any abuse is investigated and swiftly dealt with. The core issue that new clause 46 seeks to address—that all claims related to an asylum case should be made at the same time—is already well covered in existing policy and legislation.
Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 sets out that an asylum claimant’s credibility will be damaged if they make a claim late. Similarly, verifiable and objective evidence clearly describes the kind of supporting evidence that we would expect to see where reasonably available.
I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Stockton West with stories of asylum abuse—many of which he has detailed—such as claims being made on the steps of charter flights, but we cannot support the new clause. It would substantially restrict our ability to consider the full circumstances of an individual case. As he will be able to imagine, there are good reasons why relevant information or evidence might become available only after an initial application has been made, and it is important that it be considered.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 47 is one line long, and would abolish legal aid for applications or claims about a person’s immigration status or right to be in the UK. Immigration and asylum legal aid cost £59 million in 2024-25, which paid for more than 64,000 pieces of work. The Government have since added a £20 million-a-year uplift to the fees. Under this Government, more taxpayer money goes to immigration litigation, not less.
Let me put it simply: a family in Stockton who cannot get legal aid for a dispute with their employer or for most family court cases are entitled to ask why it is there for someone who came here illegally to fight their removal. Since 2012, legal aid has been taken away from large parts of civil law for British citizens, and immigration should not be the exception. It shapes behaviour: more than 90,000 asylum appeals are waiting, and more than a third of asylum appeals are withdrawn before they are even heard. When someone else is paying, there is very little cost to having a go. We have already heard about what endless rounds of claims and appeals can lead to.
Our motivation is about priorities. Every pound of public money has to be justified. Right now, families across the country are being asked to tighten their belts. When budgets are stretched, the public expect legal aid to go first to British citizens who are facing eviction, domestic abuse or the loss of their children before it goes to funding challenge after challenge against removal.
This is not about denying anyone their day in court, but about deciding who the taxpayer should pay for and being honest about it. This new clause would save money, cut last-minute challenges and put the British taxpayer first. I think most people would say that that is not an unreasonable expectation. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Anna Turley
New clause 47 seeks to remove the availability of legal aid for immigration cases. As hon. Members know, legal aid is available for asylum cases and certain immigration matters involving vulnerable individuals, including victims of domestic abuse or modern slavery, and separated migrant children. Legal aid is not granted automatically, and applications remain subject to both a means test and a merits test. Legal aid is available for asylum cases and for immigration advice for victims of domestic abuse or modern slavery, separated migrant children, and those challenging immigration detention decisions.
Removing legal aid from all immigration and asylum matters would risk reducing access to justice for individuals facing complex immigration and asylum proceedings. Legal aid helps to ensure that those seeking protection can access justice and supports the effective operation of the asylum system, which is fundamentally central to an open, independent and fair justice system. The UK also has obligations under the UN refugee convention to provide access to justice for those seeking asylum.
The hon. Member for Stockton West asked why we continue to fund legal aid for immigration matters specifically. As I said, legal aid is available for asylum cases and certain immigration matters, particularly for those involving vulnerable individuals, victims of domestic abuse—
Highways (Financing) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 View all Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2026 - (3 Nov 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 78, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(v) any mayoral combined authority, combined county authority or local highway authority whose area includes, or is likely to be affected by, a highway specified in the proposed licence.”
This amendment would require licensing authorities to send a copy of the notice to mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities or local highway authorities who may be affected.
Amendment 87, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(c) prepare, consult upon, and publish a report assessing—
(i) the anticipated impact of the specified highway on traffic volumes, congestion, and highway wear across local road networks maintained by adjacent local highway authorities; and
(ii) the specific traffic management, infrastructure, and financial mitigation measures required to address any adverse impacts identified under subparagraph (i).”
This amendment requires the licensing authority to publish a comprehensive local road impact and mitigation report prior to granting any licence, ensuring that traffic displacement onto surrounding local council roads is fully evaluated and mitigated in advance.
Clause stand part.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I think where we got to before we adjourned was that we would withdraw amendment 45, but press amendment 87 to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 87, in clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(c) prepare, consult upon, and publish a report assessing—
(i) the anticipated impact of the specified highway on traffic volumes, congestion, and highway wear across local road networks maintained by adjacent local highway authorities; and
(ii) the specific traffic management, infrastructure, and financial mitigation measures required to address any adverse impacts identified under subparagraph (i).”—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment requires the licensing authority to publish a comprehensive local road impact and mitigation report prior to granting any licence, ensuring that traffic displacement onto surrounding local council roads is fully evaluated and mitigated in advance.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 49, in clause 6, page 6, line 3, at end insert—
“(4) The ORR must review each licence it issues at intervals of no more than five years, or at such shorter intervals as the ORR considers appropriate.
(5) The matters the review must examine include, but are not limited, to—
(a) whether the licence holder is abiding by the terms of the licence,
(b) the satisfaction of road users with the services provided by the licence holder,
(c) whether the tolls charged represent value for money for road users,
(d) the financial performance and resilience of the licence holder, including the returns generated from toll revenues, and
(e) the impact of the operation of the highway and the tolls charged on traffic volumes and congestion on surrounding roads.
(6) The ORR must publish the results of the review required under subsection (4).”
This amendment would require the ORR to review each licence every 5 years to ensure that the licence holder is providing a good service.
Clause 6 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Lewell. You missed some exciting debates this morning; I hope we can maintain the standard this afternoon.
The clauses in this group relate primarily to the licensing regime. They are about making sure that the regime works, not just when the licence is granted but throughout its life. The Bill provides a clear process for applications, the duration of licences and continuing regulatory oversight to ensure that licence holders are properly held to account.
Clause 5 makes provision for applications for licences under the new licensing regime. It allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how applications must be made. Those regulations may cover the form and manner of an application, the information and documents that must accompany it, and any application fee. The Secretary of State must consult the Office of Rail and Road before making such regulations.
The clause also enables a licensing authority to require an applicant to provide any further information or documents that it reasonably needs to determine the application. That will help to ensure that licensing decisions are made on the basis of sufficient and relevant information. Once a decision has been made, the licensing authority must notify the applicant as soon as is reasonably practicable. If the application is refused, the notice must explain the reasons for that decision and give the applicant at least 28 days in which to request reconsideration. That ensures that the applicant understands the basis for the refusal, and has an opportunity to ask the licensing authority to reconsider it.
If the licensing authority upholds its decision not to grant a licence after the reconsideration period, the applicant may appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Clause 5 establishes a clear and transparent application process, while providing flexibility to specify detailed requirements in regulations and appropriate safeguards where an application is refused. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 6 makes provision for the duration of licences granted under the Bill. A licence may be granted for a specified period. Where no period is specified, the licence will remain in force until it is revoked. That allows the duration of a licence to reflect the circumstances and requirements of the particular project.Where a licence has been granted for a specified period, the ORR may extend that period with the approval of the licence holder. This ensures that a licence cannot be extended without the agreement of the licence holder.
The clause also requires the ORR to give the licence holder appropriate notice of its intentions. At least one year before the end of a specified licence period, the ORR must tell the licence holder whether it proposes to extend the licence.This requirement provides the licence holder with certainty and sufficient time to plan for the extension or expiration of the licence and the future operation of the highway.Clause 6 therefore establishes a clear and flexible framework for the duration and extension of licences, while ensuring that licence holders receive suitable notice before a time-limited licence is due to expire.I commend it to the Committee.
I will turn briefly to amendment 49 once we have heard from the shadow Minister.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Lewell. Let us see if we can rise to the Minister’s challenge of maintaining this morning’s quality of debate.
Amendment 49, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, essentially requires the ORR to review each licence at least every five years and to publish that review. The review would include compliance, user satisfaction, value for money, financial performance and resilience, toll returns and—continuing a theme of some of the amendments we discussed this morning and that flows through the entire Bill—the effects on surrounding roads off the trunk road network and the strategic road network that are the feeders to the new infrastructure: the lower Thames crossing and potentially others that the Bill enables.
I put it to the Committee and particularly to the Minister: why should a long-term licence not be subject to a mandatory review period published at least every five years, although I am open to other suggestions on the period? This is something that will impact motorists from across the whole country, particularly in the case of the lower Thames crossing. The hon. Member for Dartford has already expressed concerns about the impact on local roads. If a licence is granted for much longer than that—and I cannot see how it would not be, in order to bring realistic commercial payback under the tolling arrangements—what if it is a complete disaster? What if things do not pan out as everyone expects them to?
We do not want things to go wrong, but let us face it: sometimes they do. Often they do not go wrong due to any eventuality that has been foreseen. We would not have done it in the first place if there was a plan that saw things going wrong. But when things do go wrong, we need clear answers from those accountable to those paying the tolls on these roads, and indeed to the Government who will have set up the scheme in the first place. That goes in many respects to the conditions that the Minister spoke to in clause 6 around timely notice.
I gently say to the Minister: yes, it is important for an operator to get timely notice of any change, whether that is termination of a licence as it comes up to its expiration or an extension, but what is missing in clause 6 is anything that addresses the point about things going wrong. What if the Government need to step in and salvage a pretty horrendous situation that we might conceive of in future?
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The hon. Member is making a good case; clearly, things need to run well in the interests of road users, the infrastructure provider and local residents. However, clause 11 already provides for the modification of the licence after the grant, which surely includes most of the things he is calling for—that is, an ability to issue a notice and to say that the licence needs to be modified for some reason to do with the operation of the infrastructure.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is right that there are measures in clause 11 that would address that issue, but we are currently discussing clauses 5 and 6, and the Minister’s comments reflected the fact that clause 6 only refers to extensions of a licence as opposed to reviews of a licence.
I cannot imagine that any of us, whatever walk of political life we find ourselves in at any one moment, would not want to have a statutory review period, so that all of us can question whether a contract is working as well as we want it to. Frankly, there are many projects I can think of that I wish we had had review periods for in the past, because we might have been able to pick up things that were going the wrong way.
If the Minister and the Government do not wish to have a five-year review period, I would welcome suggestions about what sort of review period would be acceptable to them. If they do not want a review period at all, there needs to be a pretty good case for that.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a compelling point. Once a company gets a road licence, it should not just be left to run it indefinitely, without any checks. A review every five years would force the regulator to consider the facts, including whether drivers are getting value for money and whether tolls are pushing extra traffic on to surrounding local streets. Publishing those findings would keep the operators accountable to the public.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend makes the case incredibly well. This discussion is about transparency; it is about openness. It is about saying to those who in the future might receive a licence to run the lower Thames crossing or any other piece of road infrastructure that might be financed through this model that they are still accountable to the public and to the Government, be that the current Government or any future Government.
Such reviews will give us transparency and a clear light on what is going on, so that—to go back to the earlier debate today—any future schemes, which no one can name yet, that might be financed under the scheme created by the Bill could be improved upon by reviews of the operation of the lower Thames crossing in the future. Let us not put a date on when it will actually get built; every state project ends up being built more slowly than originally intended. But five years into the operation of the lower Thames crossing, why would all of us collectively—as parliamentarians or as the general public—not want to know how it was going?
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I was also reflecting upon the fact that the tolling is almost open-ended. From a competitive perspective, in any regular private sector organisation it would be expected that at the end of a licence or a contract, there would be a competitive tender period. If a road has already been built and, as we now know, the maintenance of that road will then become part of a tolling operation, surely we should consider regularly—my hon. Friend said potentially every five years, but I am open to other suggestions—and on a competitive basis which company should operate it going forward, because once a road is built there is no reason why it should be the original road builder that does so.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend makes some interesting suggestions. I challenge the Government to reflect upon—[Interruption.] One Government Back Bencher is leaving already, it seems.
Greg Smith
It’s getting closer! [Laughter.]
Maybe the Government can go back and reflect on that, and before Report, when the Bill returns to the whole House, they will have a sensible suggestion or counter-proposal on the table for how we properly monitor and review the operation of these licences.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his contribution. I enjoy when he and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton riff off of each other—it is like a remake of “Dempsey and Makepeace”; I hope they put themselves forward for the leading roles. To be fair to the shadow Minister, I think that he is coming from the right place on this. It is important that we have assurances that the licences work and deliver the appropriate standard of service, and I agree that we need to hold licence holders to account, but I will explain why I do not believe that amendment 49 is the right vehicle for doing that, if Members will pardon the pun.
First, I do not think that we should fix a five-year review cycle in primary legislation. The appropriate level and frequency of any regulatory scrutiny could change over the life of a licence. A newly established licence may require a different approach from a mature licence, and different projects may present different issues. If this amendment was accepted, we may not actually have the lower Thames crossing operational five years into the licence. When we looked at how best to frame this, because the shadow Minister raised an important matter—
Greg Smith
The amendment is very clear in saying, “review each licence”. That is not to say, “treat each licence as if they are identical,” because of course as time passes there might be different regulatory set-ups or safety standards that a new licence is granted under. We are very clear that each licence must be reviewed every five years, as opposed to—as I think the Minister is trying to argue—treating them all the same.
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman may unwittingly be making my point for me, which is that we want to have regular consideration and an ongoing process from the regulator. We looked at how existing licencing regimes work, including, for example, the Civil Aviation Act 2012. As I am sure he realises, there is no review period specified in that Act, because in practice the Civil Aviation Authority regularly reviews and updates the licences that it has issued. The fact that there is no specified review period has not hindered it in carrying out that role. It is apparent from how the Civil Aviation Authority operates that it takes a proactive approach; that is what we are trying to do here. It does not wait five years to spot a problem and deal with it, but deals with problems as they arise. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will see that as a preferable approach to waiting five years between reviews.
Secondly, a number of the issues listed in the amendment are already reflected in the ORR’s statutory duties. Clause 1 puts the interests of road users at the heart of the ORR’s role. It also requires the ORR to have particular regard to efficiency and economy, and the ability of the licence holder to finance its activities, as well as to have regard to matters including safety and impacts on the strategic road network. Under clause 1(5), the Secretary of State can provide guidance to the ORR about how they would like it to interpret or carry out its duties, and the Secretary of State can update that if they are not satisfied with that interpretation. Those duties are continuing duties under clause 1; they do not suddenly trigger after five years or at any other arbitrary point.
Compliance with the licence is also already covered by the Bill’s regulatory regime. Part 4 gives the ORR powers for monitoring and information gathering, and provides for enforcement when licence conditions are not met. Clause 7(5) requires the ORR to keep tolling conditions imposed on the licence in clause 7 under review. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, clause 11 gives powers to amend licences. The shadow Minister talked about the absolute disaster scenario, which we hopefully will not see, but clause 12 gives powers to revoke licences. Therefore, there would be no need to wait five years, and I think it is clear that the flexibility and ongoing review that the Bill sets out is the correct approach.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The amendment is asking for a couple of specific things to be in the review:
“the financial performance and resilience of the licence holder, including the returns generated from toll revenues, and…the impact of the operation of the highway and the tolls charged on traffic volumes and congestion on surrounding roads.”
In the interest of transparency, does the Minister not think that it would be good for the general public to see the main criteria in the amendment?
Justin Madders
I was about to sit down, but there are publication requirements in clause 78, which will deal with a number of the issues that the hon. Member referred to, so I request that the Committee reject the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Tolling and other mandatory conditions
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 7, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(c) a condition requiring the holder of the licence to compensate affected local highway authorities for extraordinary maintenance costs, traffic management or congestion mitigation arising from any increased traffic as a result of vehicles avoiding tolls on the chargeable highway.”
This amendment ensures that local authorities are compensated for the knock-on costs of increased traffic on local roads as a result of drivers aiming to avoid the toll road.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 40, in clause 7, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(c) a condition requiring the holder of the licence to establish a scheme for issuing automatic partial or full refunds of tolls to users in the event of significant traffic delays as a result of roadworks on the specified highway.”
This amendment would ensure that license conditions must include automatic refunds for drivers who face severe delays as a result of roadworks.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 72, in clause 103, page 67, line 18, leave out lines 18 to 21 and insert—
“after the Secretary of State has published a report setting out the proposed licence conditions including proposed arrangements for setting toll levels and approving any increases.”
This amendment would prevent the Act from coming into force until after the Secretary of State has published a report setting out the proposed licence conditions including tolling arrangements.
Olly Glover
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Amendment 39 would create a mechanism for compulsory compensation for local councils as a result of additional traffic due to people avoiding tolls.
Local council taxpayers must not be forced to subsidise private toll road profits by picking up the repair bill for local roads damaged by heavy diverted traffic. As Declan Pang of the Road Haulage Association noted in front of the Committee last week, local A and B roads are heavily used by small businesses and hauliers, and severe wear caused by toll evasion can hurt the wider local economy.
Placing compensation in clause 7 would make it a binding legal condition so that private operators cannot bypass or negotiate away the wider impacts. One of the reasons I have tabled the amendment is because of the problem with the current roads funding formula. It is based overwhelmingly on miles rather than use levels. Higher use of existing roads would not necessarily lead to more funding for local authorities as a result, so we need a mechanism to deal with that.
Amendment 40 would, in effect, extend the delay repay concept from the railway to toll roads. It would mean an automatic toll refund scheme that issues partial or full refunds to drivers trapped in severe congestion, roadworks or operator-induced disruptions would come into existence. Motorists paying premium commercial tolls expect a reliable, free-flowing journey and should not be charged full price when the operator fails to maintain traffic flow.
Drawing on European tolling models, the Italian network has a motorway refund system, which creates a direct financial incentive for operators to clear incidents and manage roadworks efficiently. Currently, operators do not always manage to do that here. We are not necessarily saying that that is the right system for the UK context, but it is an illustration of what is possible and an example that the Minister may wish to consider.
As Edmund King told the Committee last week, if drivers pay a higher toll under an independent business model, it must work both ways, giving drivers money back when the road fails to operate properly. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Greg Smith
I largely wish to comment on amendment 72 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, but before I do so, I will speak briefly to amendments 39 and 40.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage makes a good point about the increased use of local roads that feed vehicles on to new infrastructure, such as the lower Thames crossing, or indeed bring motorists—be they private motorists or haulage operators—off those pieces of new infrastructure. The current modelling that finances local highway authorities—predominantly councils—up and down the land has no mechanism whatsoever for acknowledging the point that the hon. Member makes. When traffic flows are massively increased on an existing road, those surfaces very quickly degrade and start to resemble the surface of the moon. I am sure we all see that in our own constituencies. It something that drives all of our constituents—and me—absolutely potty on a daily basis.
I see that in my own constituency, where we have seen a large amount of big infrastructure being built over recent years, such as East West Rail. That happens where compounds are put in for heavy goods and groundworks vehicles. The traction zones where those vehicles are accelerating to pull out, or braking to come in, as they go to site, move earth away and bring aggregate in, very quickly degrade.
It makes sense to take into account where an existing local road—one that is owned by a local highway authority and is the responsibility of local council tax payers—is suddenly asked, as they will be in the case of the new lower Thames crossing and potentially other schemes in the future, to be used for infrastructure projects. There should be a flow of funding, either from the licensee or from the Government through the Department for Transport, and ultimately the Treasury, that ensures that council tax payers in local areas are not asked to pick up the bill—as my council has been asked to do for roads broken by HS2 construction—for the construction of the lower Thames crossing and other schemes under the Bill. Indeed, they should not be asked to pick up the bill for the ultimate operation of them, either. I have some sympathy for amendment 39 tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage.
Amendment 40 is a more problematic proposition. I do not disagree with the sentiment. No one can tell us what the toll on the lower Thames crossing would ultimately be, but we can presume it to be commensurate with the M6 toll, where an average vehicle pays £7 or £8. Therefore, it makes eminent common sense, and is surely reasonable, that someone would be entitled to some sort of compensation, or money back, if they paid the toll but then got snarled up in a traffic jam and just sat in a queue that they could have sat in on the original M6 anyway. I have sat in a jam on that road many times over my life.
The problem with the proposition that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage has put forward is how that would be determined. With trains, delay repay is very straightforward: what time does the train ultimately pull into the destination station? That is very clear: it is either on time or a number of minutes late. Certainly, since Chiltern Railways was nationalised, I have been on late trains from my constituency every single day, but that is beside the point.
However, how is that level of delay really determined in a private vehicle? Everyone’s journey will be slightly different. What is to stop someone from deliberately driving slowly in order to avoid paying the full toll, artificially making their journey seem longer? Is it for the ORR to determine whether someone has had a longer than usual journey? How will they determine that without—and I do not want to sound all conspiracy theorist—some level of state snooping on people’s exact movements in order to determine how long that journey actually took them?
Olly Glover
The shadow Minister gives me an opportunity to say something I omitted from my notes—despite everyone’s obsession with Google, it is incapable of formatting a document properly when it is printed, but that is for another day. The Italian model calculates a base amount for roadworks, plus an extra amount for time lost. One qualifies after any delay on a trip up to 30 km, after a 10-minute delay on trips of 30 to 50 km, or after a 15-minute delay on trips over 50 km. I do not know how they determine that. It may be through some sort of monitoring system, and we already have that in many formats, such as automatic number plate recognition. The Italians are not generally well known for welcoming state surveillance. That is just one mechanism, and I am sure that many options are available using 21st-century technology.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I am sure that the Italian model works well to make the number of minutes delayed commensurate to the compensation paid, but he himself acknowledges that he does not know the manner in which it is determined. I would be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to look at options—
Greg Smith
There are no coalitions here. There is only one audition going for the next general election, and it will not be looking toward our side of the House.
If there is a sensible solution that does not involve state snooping on our motorists as they use this new infrastructure, the principle that someone has paid their money and should expect a quick journey time is a fundamentally good one, and it should apply.
Amendment 72 would prevent the Bill from coming into force until after the Secretary of State has published a report that sets out the proposed licence conditions, including—this is the $64,000 question, though I hope not literally—tolling arrangements. Throughout the debates so far, a number of questions have been asked about that. I understand the technical nature of the answers, but bluntly, that does not cut it with our constituents. No one can answer how much it will actually cost motorists to use the lower Thames crossing or how the tolling mechanism will be regulated to give clear, unambiguous rules about how a toll must be set and if there will be any caps on it, so that drivers, motorists, private cars and hauliers alike can have confidence in what is coming.
That is simply what amendment 72 seeks to do. The public should know how tolls will be set and how any increases—an equally important point—will be approved before the regime starts operating. It is not good enough for the road to be built and for people to then find out that they cannot afford to use it. Why should Parliament commence the Act before those conditions are published? If the Minister can come back with some clear guidance and rules around that, we will be much closer to full-throttled support for what he is trying to do. We want the lower Thames crossing, but we do not want it at a rate that nobody can afford to use.
Alison Griffiths
When I spoke earlier to amendment 82 to clause 3, it was with this exact issue in mind. We failed to get that amendment passed, so the improvement and maintenance of these roads will be paid for through tolling. However, we know that the “fair and transparent code” the ORR will decide on will not be put to a vote in Parliament. It therefore becomes even more important that on the tolling for these roads, we require a report from the Secretary of State that sets out the conditions and proposed arrangements for toll levels and the approval of increases. Without that, there is no control or stopgap for these tolls. The tolling does not end when costs have been recovered by the operator, so we could have a very open-ended tolling situation.
Given that it is going to one operator, we do not know how cost-effective maintenance will be. Will they be required to go out to tender on this? If a report is coming to the Secretary of State before we set tolling, that will create a position where we have greater control.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I am trying to understand the Opposition’s position, because it seems that they want the Government to intervene in setting the tolling price, but they have also called for a strengthened and independent regulator. I am trying to understand their proposed position.
Alison Griffiths
We are looking for clarity and making sure that our constituents are looked after in this process. At the moment, our constituents are left liable for whatever costs are coming down the track, with only the ORR’s code, which this place will have no say in, to set what those costs will be. Given that the Government do not wish to put in place a limit on the length of a licence, all these things concurrently are creating a situation where constituents, quite rightly, may be wondering what exactly it is that they are paying for.
Shivani Raja
We are generally in agreement that it is essential that both transparency and cost control sit at the heart of this framework. Drivers and local businesses deserve to know exactly what they are being asked to pay before any tolling arrangements are introduced. We cannot expect motorists to accept potentially significant and unexpected costs without first having a clear understanding of what those charges will be, and how they will be determined.
Amendment 72 is about ensuring proper scrutiny before decisions are made and effectively locked in. By requiring licence conditions and proposed toll levels to be published before the Act comes into effect, Parliament has the opportunity to examine the arrangements and understand the potential impact on roads users and motorists.
Ultimately, people deserve transparency, accountability and certainty. We must ensure that the interests of drivers and local businesses in all our constituencies are properly protected, and that no one is left facing unexpected costs without having had the opportunity to understand them.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Members for Mid Buckinghamshire and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for their amendment.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage tried to make a noble case for something that this Government are already dealing with through the record funding for highways maintenance that we have announced and are already delivering on. I understand the thrust of his argument about compensation to local highway authorities for displaced traffic. The right approach is to undertake an assessment of the whole strategic road network, to understand what improvements and likely increases to overall capacity could achieve more widely. Then, we should assess the impact if we do not proceed.
Of course, the whole thrust of the Bill is to reduce congestion, not increase it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has said on many occasions, we know that his part of the country is already at bursting point. We know what happens when things go wrong at that vital section of the strategic road network. There are already local problems as people try to find alternatives to avoid the congestion it has caused. That is clearly not because people are trying to avoid the toll, which has been in place for many years; it is actually about the lack of reliability at that vital pinch point. The answer is not to compensate people for delays caused by trying to avoid that unreliability; the answer is to make the Dartford crossing more reliable so that people actively choose that road.
Olly Glover
The Minister, as he has in a few of his speeches, is talking as if the Bill is only about the lower Thames crossing, but it is not. It is much broader than that, as he has acknowledged, although it is focused on the lower Thames crossing. If the Bill was just about the lower Thames crossing, I might well agree with his argument, as there are no alternatives in that particular case. But as drafted, it is not just about the lower Thames crossing, is it?
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that the Bill is scheme-agnostic, but as the lower Thames crossing is the only scheme we currently have in mind, it is helpful to draw examples from that for why the amendment is not acceptable.
It is probably also worth pointing out that I am not aware of any other such toll schemes operating in this country at the moment. Is it his position that this compensation measure should be extended to the Mersey tunnels or the Mersey Gateway crossing, for example? My local transport authorities might be interested to hear that, and they might wonder where the funding would come from.
As I have said, the whole purpose of the Bill is to create the regulated asset base model that will fund the crossing. It will be a separate income stream from the general roads budget, and those who benefit directly from the new infrastructure will pay for it. It will improve the reliability of the whole network, which is the correct approach and is far more effective than trying to compensate people for an already overstretched and failing network.
Greg Smith
I genuinely do not think the Minister and I are that far apart, because I do not disagree with anything he has just said about getting the new infrastructure to work in the interests of motorists. Where I think he has perhaps missed the point that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage and I have made is that, in order to get traffic flows on to that new infrastructure, in many cases it is conceivable that local roads will see a much higher level of use than they do today. Therefore does the Minister acknowledge that getting new infrastructure up and running well, in the interests of motorists at a price they can afford, will have an impact on the rest of the road ecosystem, mainly falling on those local authority-owned and financed roads?
Justin Madders
I understand the hon. Member’s point, but I cannot say I agree with it because the traffic is already on the local road network. The whole purpose of the Bill is to take that traffic away. It is worth reiterating that we do not intend to do a deal at any cost. We need to do the right deal for road users and make sure this legislation has the necessary protections in place for them. Heaping more costs on to the project by bringing in a wide and broad compensation package would have unintended consequences.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage mentioned the perceived unfairness of the road maintenance formula, which the Department is committed to reviewing, but I cannot accept his amendment and I say the same about amendment 40. That would insert a mandatory licence condition requiring an automated refund system to be provided by a licensee. As I have already stated, the amendment would be contrary to what we are trying to achieve. The shadow Minister talked amusingly about people driving deliberately slowly to try to get a repayment. I am not sure people would be that Machiavellian, but maybe those are the circles he mixes in.
It is fair to say that road users rightly expect well-maintained roads, and they expect operators to minimise disruption in line with their network management duties. However, safe roads require maintenance, and maintenance sometimes requires roadworks. An automatic refund requirement would disincentivise operators from undertaking necessary maintenance and roadworks. It would give them a financial incentive to postpone what might be necessary maintenance. The better approach is to hold operators to account for how they manage expenditure and deliver the service, rather than create an incentive to put off essential work.
Olly Glover
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. On amendment 40, the Minister said that delay repay could incentivise toll road operators to do less maintenance, but I disagree. It would incentivise them to do maintenance efficiently and at appropriate times, such as overnight, rather than making a case for recreating the Conservative party’s cones hotline of the 1990s. One sometimes sees plenty of cones and lane closures out there with very little work taking place.
In light of the shadow Minister’s offer to work collaboratively on a proposal, and of my offer to help him with his conspiracy theories of state suspicion, I will leave amendment 40 for another day. However, I will press amendment 39 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 8, page 7, line 23, leave out paragraph (l).
This amendment removes paragraph (l) from clause 8(2) because the provision is considered unnecessary.
Justin Madders
Amendment 1 is a small amendment to remove an unnecessary paragraph from clause 8(2). Paragraph (l) currently specifies that a licence may have a condition prohibiting transfer of the licence unless it is done under the provisions set out in clause 14. That is not necessary, as compliance with the provisions is already required by clause 14 itself. This is therefore a minor tidying-up amendment to remove an unnecessary provision, which I hope the shadow Minister will be able to support.
Clause 8 allows a licensing authority to include additional project-specific conditions in a licence, which will sit alongside the conditions that must be included under clause 7. That flexibility is important because each project will be different, and the licence needs to reflect the particular road, works and arrangements involved.
Conditions may set out what the licence holder must, may or must not do. They may also control how the licence holder carries out its activities. For example, conditions may cover the use of land, the licence holder’s financial arrangements, and requirements relating to the design or operation of the highway. A licence may also require the licence holder to follow directions from the Secretary of State or the ORR on matters specified in the licence. Conditions may cover the provision and publication of information, co-operation with highways and planning bodies, and the referral of particular matters to the ORR for a decision. A licence may also require the licence holder to meet costs incurred by the Secretary of State in carrying out functions connected with the licence.
The list in clause 8 is not exhaustive, and it is not designed to be. That ensures that a licence can include any other appropriate conditions needed for the project. I think the overarching principle is pretty clear from the list in subsections (2)(a) to (2)(k), but I will give the Committee a bit more detail.
Paragraph (a) is about making sure the licence holder is financially stable and resilient. It gives the ORR the option to lay out things such as the level of debt the licence holder can have.
Paragraph (b) is about making sure that all the things a licence holder must or may do in respect of the road are spelled out in the licence, such as that it must construct the road, for example.
Paragraph (c) is about how the licence holder does the things that are spelled out in the licence. For example, that might be abiding by the planning conditions laid out in the planning permission for a scheme.
Paragraph (d) is about detailing the consents that the licence holder will or will not need for certain actions.
Paragraph (e) makes it clear that the licence holder must abide by directions from the Secretary of State or the ORR.
Paragraph (f) makes sure the licence holder refers appropriate matters to the ORR.
Paragraph (g) makes sure the licence holder is clear that it has to pay the Secretary of State for any costs incurred by the Secretary of State on its behalf.
Paragraph (h) makes sure the licence holder co-operates with National Highways or a local highway authority, for example, when fulfilling its duties under the Highways Act 1980, to give one example.
Paragraph (i) is about the information that a licence holder may be required to share with the ORR or others.
Paragraph (j) is about making sure that land acquired for the building of any scheme under the RAB model—for example, land acquired for environmental mitigation of the lower Thames crossing—is used for its intended purpose and not for some other purpose. For example, if the land was designated for environmental mitigation but the licence holder tried to build a housing estate on it instead, that would be a breach of the licence.
Lastly, paragraph (k) is probably the easiest to explain, because it is there to ensure that the licence holder abides by the licence, particularly in making sure that the correct standards of road construction and operation are used.
Clause 8 therefore provides the flexibility to tailor each licence, while ensuring that the licence holder’s responsibilities are clear. Because the licence will change over time, depending on the stage of the project, the clause needs to reflect that. For example, the road that the licence holder is required to construct will be complete at some point, so a construction condition will then no longer be needed. As I have said, the clause is not an exhaustive list but is designed to ensure that a licence can include any appropriate conditions needed for an individual project. I commend the clause and amendment 1 to the Committee.
Clause 9 enables the Secretary of State to determine standard conditions for licences granted under the Bill. These conditions will provide a clear, consistent baseline across the new licensing regime to give licence holders, investors, the ORR and road users certainty about the core obligations that apply while avoiding unnecessary repetition in individual licences. These standard conditions must be published and provided to the ORR, and they will then be incorporated into each licence by reference, unless the Bill provides otherwise. Conditions published after a licence is granted will not apply to the licence automatically.
Clause 9 also preserves appropriate flexibility. The licensing authority may exclude or modify standard conditions when granting a licence, where that is justified for the project. Clause 10 requires publication, consultation and protections against undue competitive disadvantage before the licensing authority may do so. Clause 9, therefore, provides a combination of regulatory consistency and proportionate project-specific flexibility.
Clause 10 sets out the safeguards that apply where a licensing authority proposes to exclude or modify a standard condition when granting a licence. Before excluding or modifying the condition, the authority must publish a notice setting out the proposed change, its effect and the reasons for it. The notice must be sent to the other licensing authorities, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons, and at least 28 days must be allowed for representations. The licensing authority may proceed only if it considers that the change will not unduly disadvantage either the licence holder concerned or any other licence holder in competing with others. If it proceeds, it must publish the final change, explain its effect and reasons, and state how representations were taken into account. This clause therefore ensures that project-specific flexibility is exercised transparently, proportionately and without distorting competition.
I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of these clauses and Government amendment 1. He will be pleased to know that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not object to Government amendment 1. We might ask why such an obvious duplication in the Bill was not picked up before it was published, but we will perhaps leave that for another day.
Speaking more widely to clauses 8 to 10, though probably more in the realm of clause 8, I would be grateful if the Minister could visualise some of the scheme-specific variations that he spoke of. With only the lower Thames crossing really in anyone’s eye under the provisions of this Bill, can he give us some practical, concrete examples of where such scheme-specific variations may come about, to help the House, the Committee and our constituents to fully understand the scope?
Clause 8(2)(a) talks about conditions
“relating to the financial resilience of the holder of the licence or otherwise relating to the holder’s financial arrangements”.
The Minister directly referred to how much debt a licensee might be allowed to have, under the scheme of a licence. I do not object to that as a core principle, but if it is to be the case that something can be laid down as clearly as how much debt-gearing an operator or licensee is permitted to have, surely it can also be written into any licence not necessarily the exact pounds and pence of what any toll can be, but some sort of ruling that says a toll must be proportionate to, for example, the overall build cost over a certain number of years. Maybe, as we are talking about debt-gearing to build infrastructure such as the lower Thames crossing, a licence could say that the toll must not be any more than the total debt divided over how many years the Secretary of State or the ORR deems the licence to cover.
That is the most important question flowing through all the amendments and all the debates on this Bill: how much are the tolls actually going to cost people to use these roads? I fully accept that a pounds and pence figure is very difficult to conjure up, but surely clause 8(2)(a) would give us the ability to set the parameters of a toll. If we can set the debt limit, we can surely set limits for the tolls.
Justin Madders
I think the shadow Minister supports the amendment, which is good to hear. On his question about other potential variations, conditions could cover the use of land, the design or operation of the highway, information sharing and co-operation with other bodies. Because the Bill is scheme-agnostic and creates a framework designed for the long term, it really is not possible to be any more specific than that; indeed, I think it is prudent for us to keep a broad thrust in the Bill.
On the shadow Minister’s other point, the Bill already contains safeguards for tolling levels; he need only look at clause 7 on tolling conditions, which sets out some of the safeguards through the ORR. I hope that gives him some reassurance. I acknowledge that he recognises—I think—that we are not going to be able to set a precise toll in legislation. I say there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that it will be set at a proportionate level; I suspect he does not agree, but I believe that those safeguards are clear in the Bill.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Modification of licence conditions after grant
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 11, page 10, line 13, at end insert—
“(9) Nothing in this section prevents the modification of a licence by a scheme—
(a) under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 (transfer schemes) in reliance on paragraph 2A(3)(b) of that Schedule, or
(b) under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 (highways administration transfer schemes) in reliance on paragraph 5(6)(b) of that Schedule.”
This amendment is consequential on amendments 29 and 35.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 11 to 13 stand part.
Government amendments 3 and 4.
Clauses 14 and 15 stand part.
Justin Madders
I will start by addressing the clauses in general; if I dive straight into the amendments, it may overcomplicate the debate on what is already a fairly complicated Bill. The clauses set out how a licence can end or be transferred, where the licence holder has requested it. Further to amendments 2 to 4 and 22 to 25, licences can also be transferred under the provisions set out in schedule 1.
For the regulated asset base model to function properly, it is important that transfers of licences can take place and that the process is set out clearly. For some schemes under the RAB model, the same person might hold a licence for a very long time. At some point, however, the licence may well need to change hands. The clauses will allow for that to happen, and set out clearly the conditions that the regulator may deem it appropriate to apply in granting its consent.
Government amendment 2 allows for licences to be transferred under the transfer schemes in schedule 1 as well as under clause 14, and ensures that Government amendments 29 and 35 achieve their objectives. Those amendments allow for the transfer of a licence through a transfer scheme, as well as under clause 14. Amendment 2 makes it clear that provisions relating to modifying licence conditions post grant do not impinge on the ability to make incidental modifications to a licence when it is partially transferred under schedule 1 or schedule 3, once amendments 29 and 35 are made. When only part of a licence is transferred under those schedules, incidental modifications to the terms and conditions of the licence may be necessary to ensure that the licence can be split and continue to operate effectively.
Once it has hopefully been amended, clause 11 will enable a licensing authority to modify licence conditions after a licence has been granted. That power is necessary, because the licences may govern major infrastructure over long periods. The conditions may need to respond to changing operational, financial or regulatory circumstances, and the clause provides a controlled process for doing so. Before making a modification, the authority must publish the proposed change, the effect of it and the reasons for it, and must allow at least 28 days for representations.
If the authority proceeds, it must publish the final decision, explain how representations were considered and give at least 28 days’ notice before the change takes effect. The licence holder may appeal specified modifications to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. During the consultation period, the Secretary of State may also direct the ORR not to make a proposed modification. Clause 11 balances the necessary flexibility with transparency, accountability and effective rights of challenge. I therefore commend amendment 2 and clause 11 to the Committee.
Clause 12 provides a clear process by which the ORR can revoke a licence with the agreement of the licence holder or in accordance with the terms of the licence. That is necessary because a long-term licence may need to end before its stated expiry date, which the clause ensures can happen through an orderly and—importantly—transparent statutory process.
Before revoking a licence, the ORR must publish its proposal, explain its reasons and specify the proposed revocation date. It must allow at least 28 days for representations. If it decides to proceed, it must publish the decision and the date on which the licence will be revoked. The notices must be brought to the attention of those likely to be affected, and copies must be sent to the Secretary of State, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons. During the representation period, the Secretary of State may direct the ORR not to revoke the licence. The clause therefore provides necessary flexibility, and contains transparency, oversight and an orderly transition.
Clause 13 provides for the revocation of a licence where necessary in the interests of national security. Strategic road infrastructure may be of national importance; therefore, the statutory framework must contain a clear mechanism to act where continued operation under a particular licence would present a national security concern. The power is deliberately narrow. The Secretary of State may direct the ORR to revoke a licence only if satisfied that revocation is necessary in the interests of national security.
The ORR must then publish a notice of the direction in a manner appropriate to bring it to the attention of any persons likely to be affected, and must send that notice to the licence holder, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons. The notice must specify the date on which the licence is revoked. Clause 13 provides a focused national security safeguard, while the wider provisions in the Bill ensure that responsibility for the highway can continue after revocation. I therefore commend clauses 12 and 13 to the Committee.
Government amendment 3 ensures that clause 14 refers to both the conditions and terms of a licence in relation to transfers—[Interruption.] I hope that wasn’t a comment on my amendment.
Justin Madders
Amendment 3 makes it clear that licence transfers under clause 14 are subject to the conditions of the licence, as well as its terms. Conditions relating to licence transfers may be imposed on licences under clauses 8 and 9, as the Committee discussed previously. The conditions may affect how and when licence transfers are made, and thus it is important that licence transfers under clause 14 are subject to them.
Government amendment 4 ensures alignment between clause 14 and schedule 1, once the schedule has been amended by Government amendment 29. This amendment is therefore interlinked with amendment 29 and is consequential on it. The Committee will come on to discuss amendment 29 later in its consideration, but by way of brief explanation, it allows for transfer of all or part of a licence through a transfer scheme. Without amendment 4, clause 14(1) would prevent transfer of the licence under schedule 1. The amendment fixes that and ensures that clause 14 aligns with schedule 1, which permits transfer of the licence through a transfer scheme, once the schedule is amended.
Clause 14, alongside the processes set out in schedule 1, establishes the statutory basis for transferring the whole or part of a licence. The licences may operate over long periods. It is therefore sensible to provide for a change of licence holder or a transfer of part of the licensed responsibilities, where appropriate. However, a transfer cannot take place without regulatory control.
The licence holder must obtain the ORR’s consent and comply with the procedure under clause 15, and with any relevant terms or conditions of the licence. The Secretary of State may direct the ORR not to consent where that is necessary in the interests of national security. Subject to that safeguard, the ORR may refuse consent only if it considers that the proposed transferee is not a fit and proper person to hold the licence or the part that is being transferred. The ORR may also impose appropriate conditions, which may ensure that the necessary property, rights and liabilities are transferred or created between the parties. Clause 14 therefore provides commercial and operational flexibility without allowing licence obligations to be transferred free from regulatory scrutiny. I commend it to the Committee.
Finally, clause 15 sets out the procedure that the ORR must follow before consenting to the transfer of a licence or part of a licence under clause 14. Before giving consent, the ORR must publish a notice stating that it proposes to consent and explaining its reasons. The notice must allow at least 28 days for representations about the proposed transfer. If the ORR decides to proceed, it must publish a further notice setting out its decision and the date on which the transfer will take place. Both notices must be published in a manner appropriate to bring them to the attention of persons likely to be affected. The ORR must also send copies to the Secretary of State, each relevant strategic highways company and any other appropriate persons. When sending the proposal to the Secretary of State, the ORR must identify any conditions it proposes to impose on the transfer under clause 14. Clause 15 therefore ensures that transfers are considered openly and on an informed basis, while providing a clear route for an approved transfer to take effect.
I hope that I have been clear for Committee members. Clauses 11 to 15, as amended, will provide the certainty that licence holders need with regard to how their licence may come to an end, or be transferred or revoked. They also provide assurance to the ORR and to the public of the clear processes for how the end of a licence should be managed. I therefore commend the clauses and Government amendments in the group to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I have never been considered a Tory wet, Ms Lewell, but my notes now are, after my acrobatics with them. I particularly apologise to the Hansard reporters when my notes eventually make it to the Official Report at the end of the sitting.
Greg Smith
The Minister suggests an improvement to my notes—I certainly cannot read them any more.
I do not think that there is particular disagreement between the official Opposition and the Government on this part of the Bill, so I just want to pose a couple of questions to the Minister on clauses 12 and 13 on the revocation of any licences. Clearly, a licence may well need to be revoked if things are going horribly wrong, or indeed—as the Minister highlighted in his remarks—if there is a national security concern. The first duty of any Government is to keep citizens safe, and given a national security concern, it is absolutely right that there should be the power to revoke a licence.
What is missing from clauses 12 and 13 is what happens if a licence is revoked, but there is no one out there willing to take it on so that clauses 14 and 15 would come into effect. Who becomes the licensee by default? Is it the Department for Transport? Is it the ORR? Is it someone else? That is not a disagreement with the clauses—they seem relatively comprehensive, and certainly the power given any national security concerns is absolutely right—but who takes over?
What if no company wishes to take on that liability—that licence—and the cost of operating the lower Thames crossing or anything else that is granted a licence? We need clarity on that. Although the procedure set out in the clauses is unobjectionable, the net result in some circumstances is not. I hope those circumstances never come to pass, but we must plan for the worst. We need an answer on that point.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for that important question. The simple answer is that National Highways would become the operator of last resort. As it already operates the adjoining parts of the network, that would be an entirely sensible move. Let us be honest, we do not want to be in that position. At this stage, it is difficult to foresee the circumstances in which that would apply, because the whole purpose of the RAB model is to provide certainty over the long term—although it is of course right that we have safeguards in the Bill. I hope that response has addressed the shadow Minister’s question.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Transfer of licences
Amendments made: 3, in clause 14, page 11, line 21, after “terms” insert “or conditions”.
This amendment clarifies that a transfer of a licence must be in accordance with any conditions of a licence relating to its transfer (as well as any terms).
Amendment 4, in clause 14, page 11, line 38, after first “under” insert
“a transfer scheme made under Schedule 1 or”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 29.
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Holder of licence to be highway authority and traffic authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clauses 16 to 21 engage the fundamental legislative scaffolding required to operate licensed highways by plugging it into the existing legislative framework. The clauses establish clear responsibility for operating and maintaining licensed highways. They give licence holders the legal status and functions they need while retaining specified statutory powers with a public body.
The clauses allow a licensee to delegate, without removing its responsibility or the ORR’s oversight, and protect continuity by allowing a strategic highways company to intervene when a licence holder cannot properly perform its functions. The clauses allow relevant responsibility to pass automatically to the relevant strategic highways company when a licence ends without a replacement. I trust the clauses are uncontroversial but I will go into a little more detail for the benefit of the Committee.
Clause 16 makes the licence holder the highway authority and traffic authority for each highway specified in its licence. That gives the licence holder the legal status to carry out the day-to-day highway and traffic authority functions required to operate and maintain the licensed road. The clause is concerned only with trunk roads covered by the licence, not with the wider responsibilities of highway or traffic authorities. A licensed highway is treated as a highway maintainable at the public expense for the purposes of the Highways Act 1980. That keeps the legal status of the licensed highway clear, even though the works and operation of it are to be privately financed. These arrangements take effect from the date stated in the licence or, if no date is stated, from when the licence is granted. That provides a clear point at which statutory responsibility moves to the licence holder.
Where legislation gives a strategic highways company functions because it is the highway authority or traffic authority for a trunk road, those functions will generally be exercisable by the licence holder for the licensed highway. Development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008 are expressly excluded from that rule. That avoids the automatic transfer of project-specific consents in a DCO. These consents will need to be considered separately as part of specific licensing decisions and can be dealt with separately, as appropriate, either under the Bill’s transfer provisions or under specific provisions of the DCO itself. That also gives much needed flexibility when establishing a new scheme.
Subsequent clauses retain certain functions to the relevant strategic highways company, which is of course National Highways, and provide safeguards for delegation and operational continuity. Clause 16 therefore places responsibility for the licensed highway with the body that will operate it, while preserving the wider statutory framework for trunk roads and other highways.
Clause 17 sets limits on the functions that a licence holder may exercise as the highway authority and traffic authority for a licensed highway. Although clause 16 gives the licence holder that status, certain functions should remain with a public body because of their nature and legal effect. The licence holder may not exercise functions relating to the making of schemes or orders under the Highways Act 1980. It may not exercise compulsory purchase functions under that Act, or functions relating to the making of orders or giving of directions under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. These are delegated forms of legislation and it is important to have proper public scrutiny of their use.
For those unfamiliar with the details of those pieces of legislation, order-making powers include matters such as changing speed limits, making trunking orders, restricting access to a road or introducing one-way systems. These functions will instead be exercised for the licensed highway by the relevant strategic highways company, which ensures that significant statutory powers, including compulsory purchase and most traffic regulation powers, remain with a public body.
The clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about who may exercise highway and traffic authority functions for a licensed highway. It may, for example, be appropriate for certain functions to be exercised by a local highway authority, depending on the specific scheme. Those regulations may provide for a specified person other than the licence holder to exercise one of the functions retained by the clause. They may also allow another specified person to exercise other functions instead of, or alongside, the licence holder. The regulations may also make the modifications needed so that existing highways and traffic legislation operates properly where functions are exercised under the new licensing framework. Clause 17, when read together with clause 16, therefore ensures that the licence holder has the functions needed to operate the highway, while keeping specified statutory powers with an appropriate public body and allowing responsibilities to be allocated clearly.
Clause 18 allows the licence holder to authorise another person to exercise functions conferred on it under this chapter of the Bill, which includes clauses 16 to 22. That provides practical flexibility in how the licence holder carries out its highway and traffic authority functions. It allows another person with suitable operational capability to exercise a function on the licence holder’s behalf. Where the licence holder authorises a strategic highways company to exercise a function, the clause also allows that company to delegate the function further under the Infrastructure Act 2015, subject to the modifications set out in the Bill.
Of course, the ORR must be able to oversee all of these arrangements. The licence holder must therefore provide any information or documents that the ORR reasonably requests to review how a delegated function is being exercised. Importantly, delegation of the function does not transfer responsibility for it. The licence holder remains responsible for the exercise of the function even when another person carries it out. Clause 18 therefore provides operational flexibility while preserving clear responsibility and regulatory oversight.
Clause 19 provides an important safeguard to ensure that essential highway functions continue if a licence holder cannot properly perform them. It allows the relevant strategic highways company to exercise a licence holder’s function instead of the licence holder in two circumstances. The first is an emergency that the ORR considers has seriously affected the licence holder’s ability to carry out the function. The second is where the licence holder has failed or is unable to discharge the function properly, that failure amounts to a breach of a licence condition, and the ORR has issued a contravention notice. In those circumstances, the ORR must notify both the licence holder and the strategic highways company when the function transfers. If the circumstances justifying the intervention come to an end, the ORR must notify both parties and the function will then return to the licence holder.
The strategic highways company may recover from the licence holder any expenditure reasonably incurred in carrying out the function. Clause 19 therefore protects road users and supports operational continuity while ensuring that the responsibility returns to the licence holder when intervention is no longer required.
Clause 20 deals with the acquisition of land needed to carry out works under a licence. I must emphasise that this does not circumvent the normal planning process. For major works, the development consent order will invariably set out the land to be acquired for the scheme in question. It is possible, however, that in the course of a licence for the construction, operation and maintenance of a licensed road, additional land will at some point be required to complete works required to fulfil licence obligations. In some cases, the land needed for those works may not be available to buy by agreement. The clause therefore allows the relevant strategic highways company to use its existing compulsory purchase powers to acquire land needed for the licensed works.
The power will not be given to the licence holder. It remains with the strategic highways company as the accountable public body. The power may be used only where clear statutory tests are met. The strategic highways company must be satisfied that the licence holder has made reasonable attempts to acquire the land by agreement. It must also be satisfied that alternatives have been considered, that compulsory purchase is the better course of action, and that there is a compelling case in the public interest.
Before acquiring land compulsorily, the strategic highways company must consult the ORR. Once acquired, the land must be transferred to the licence holder as soon as reasonably practicable. The strategic highways company may recover from the licence holder the reasonable costs it incurs in exercising the power. Clause 20 therefore ensures that essential land can be acquired where necessary, while keeping compulsory purchase powers with a public body and making their use subject to clear safeguards, as I am sure the Committee would expect.
Clause 21 deals with what happens to responsibility for a licensed highway when a licence expires or is revoked. It is important that the ending of a licence does not create uncertainty about who is responsible for the highway. The clause applies where the highway was covered by the licence immediately before it ended and is not covered by another licence. On the day the licence expires or is revoked, the relevant strategic highways company automatically becomes the highway authority for the highway.
The highway is also treated as a highway maintainable at the public expense for the purposes of the Highways Act 1980. The transfer takes effect automatically. That provides a clear and immediate change of responsibility when no replacement licence is in place. Clause 21 therefore ensures that there is no gap in highway authority responsibility when a licence comes to an end. I hope that answers the shadow Minister in more detail.
Greg Smith
I have a few questions on this group. We have no problem with clause 16. In respect of clause 17, the Minister referenced the setting of speed limits as an example of where functions should be exercisable by persons other than the licence holder—the state, for lack of a better phrase. I do not disagree with the premise—it would be unusual, to say the least, to allow a private company to set speed limits outside our national scheme—but it prompts a question for the whole Bill.
Let us say that a scheme is built, and its original consent, set by the appropriate body, is for a 40 mph speed limit. If the licence holder then makes a representation to the appropriate body in conjunction with the local police force or local authority, it could be determined that the scheme should be converted to a variable speed limit road—we are seeing a lot of those popping up across the country. That could involve quite considerable expense, putting up gantries and having repeater signs with changing speed limits. Where does that fit in with some of the other provisions we have debated? Would that be a capacity change? In theory, variable speed limits speed up the overall journey time and manage congestion spots before they appear, by slowing the whole road down for a bit so that there is not a pile-up. Can the Minister assure the Committee that there would be no back door for a licence holder to negotiate with the appropriate bodies to charge a higher toll because of a change to a variable speed limit system?
Justin Madders
Those were some interesting questions from the shadow Minister. On the first point about the operation of clause 17 and what we have loosely described as “capacity-enhancing improvements”, it is of course the case that the gateway to the licensing regime is through capacity-enhancing improvements in any event. The eligibility for a licence would already have been established under the Act, so I am not sure why additional capacity would create anything different, because the licence would already have been issued by that point. Unless I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman—
Greg Smith
I am happy to explain further. My point is that, with speed limits being set, rightly and properly, by other authorities—there is no disagreement on that point—speed limits could then be used to essentially create new conditions on that road, which could then be used as a springboard to a higher toll or a different set of conditions. The ORR and the licensee could find themselves in a vicious doom loop of disagreement on that point. What I am trying to get across to the Minister is how something that is fundamentally and, I double underline, rightly set by a different authority could become a point of disagreement in the set of licence conditions for any licensee.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s explanation; I think I now understand what he is trying to say. We are entering the realms of speculation at this point—
Justin Madders
And the hon. Gentleman is doing it well. He is speculating that any improvements of that nature would probably improve traffic flow and increase the number of vehicles going through the network. I would say that that was probably more of an argument to reduce returns than to increase them, but the prospect is probably rather too remote for us to say anything more concrete at this stage.
Similarly, in response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions about when an emergency under clause 19(2) might be called, it would be rather risky for me to set out every circumstance in which that might happen here. It is important to remember that the clause is about the ORR’s view of the licence holder’s ability to undertake its obligations under the licence. There are obviously already a number of provisions in the legislation about the kind of things that the ORR would be able to consider. Trying to pin us down on the specific instances where an emergency might be called would unnecessarily tie the ORR’s hands.
Greg Smith
I understand why the Minister does not want to give an exhaustive list of examples, but if I may slightly confine the question, will he look at the wording in the clause and make it clear, either now or on Report, that when the ORR “must have regard”, the definition of an emergency is specific to that licensee, as opposed to something affecting everyone, such as extreme heat on the road surfaces?
Justin Madders
I will take that away. The test under the clause is the license holder’s ability to undertake the licence. It is probably inappropriate for me to speculate om whether that would apply to the rest of the network or specifically to the licence holder. My instinct is to say that that would not be the question. It is about the ability of the licence holder to undertake its functions, and if they are significantly impaired in the ORR’s view, the source of that impairment is probably not relevant. If it is an emergency that has created the impairment, clause 19(2) would come into effect. However, if, having consulted with officials, I have more to say on that, I will of course write to him.
The Chair
Maybe next time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 17 to 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Litter functions
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 22, page 16, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under this section must ensure that—
(a) a single authority or licence holder is designated as responsible for litter clearance on each highway specified in a licence;
(b) the identity and contact details of that responsible body are published;
(c) members of the public may report litter and make complaints directly to that responsible body; and
(d) that the responsible body remains accountable for litter clearance notwithstanding any arrangements made with another person to carry out the work.”
This amendment would establish clear responsibility and public accountability for litter clearance on licenced highways.
Greg Smith
Amendment 79, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, tries, like most of our amendment today, to give more clarity about what happens in the event of the scourge that is littering. I cannot imagine that there is any Member of this House who has not been out litter picking along the roads and highways in their own constituencies—not the motorway, but on certain parts of the strategic road network and A roads. I certainly see groups in my constituency doing that on a regular basis. All our constituents are rightly upset when they see litter on the verges and sides of the roads. It gets me incrediblyangry too.
The point that the amendment makes is that a motorist or local resident should not be left guessing who is responsible for litter on a licensed road. Will the Government accept a named and published accountable body and a direct route for complaints under each licence that is issued? If work is outsourced, who remains legally responsible for ensuring that the highway is kept clear? The public-facing accountable body should, in my opinion, at least be clearly defined in the regulations when they come to pass and provision to ensure that is the case—as amendment 79 would—should be written into the Bill.
It would be a disaster if we get this wrong and an accident happens because of severe fly-tipping or litter on any one of these roads. We have all seen severe fly-tipping in our own constituencies and the impact it has, particularly on safety. During debate on the previous group we discussed the extreme heat. There were significant fires in that extreme heat, and glass dumped on the side of the road only exacerbates that particular problem. While I do not want to labour this point at length, I think it is incumbent upon the Government to properly consider this amendment and to see if we can strengthen the Bill through its inclusion.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Member for moving this amendment as it gives me an opportunity to promote an upcoming litter pick in my constituency, alongside the father of the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles, on Saturday morning. We will be doing our bit, as we always do. I pay tribute to all the volunteers up and down the country who do a fantastic job in showing great community spirit. However, I make it clear that the trunk road network is not a place for such activities. Instead, it should be handled by an appropriate body, which is indeed what clause 22 seeks to do.
Regarding amendment 79, the shadow Minister is right to raise the issue of clear lines of responsibility for litter clearance on licensed highways. He is right that there should be a clear responsibility. That is why clause 22 exists. He will not be surprised that existing litter legislation was not drafted to account for privately operated highways under the new licensing framework. Clause 22 therefore allows the Secretary of State to make regulations so that existing litter duties can operate properly for licensed highways. That does not mean that responsibility could be handed out arbitrarily. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that litter functions sit with the appropriate body for the licensed highway and with a clear responsibility for them to carry them out. My objection is not to providing clear information as the hon. Member wants; it is about prescribing detailed requirements about contact details for complaint handling on the face of primary legislation. Clause 22 already provides a regulation-making power to establish how these functions will operate.
Clause 22 ensures that the existing framework for litter under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 can be applied appropriately to the highways specified in relevant licences. The clause therefore allows the Secretary of State to make regulations so that litter responsibilities can operate effectively on licensed highways. The regulations may apply existing duties to keep land clear of litter and refuse to highways covered by a licence. They may also allow the litter enforcement functions to be exercised by or on behalf of a licence holder. In some cases, those functions may sit alongside another body’s responsibilities, in others they may be exercised instead of them. That flexibility ensures that the responsibility can be allocated appropriately for the licensed highway.
The regulations may also make appropriate changes to how existing litter legislation applies to a private licence holder so that it works effectively with licensing frameworks. This will ultimately help ensure that there are clear lines of accountability and no gaps in the management of licensed highways. I therefore commend clause 22 to the Committee.
Greg Smith
I recognise the arguments that the Minister has put forward, but I still think the Bill would be stronger with the exact wording of my amendment. However, I accept his assurances and at this moment, although we might return to it on Report, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Transfer schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 22 to 31.
Schedule 1.
Justin Madders
I will take clause 23 and schedule 1 stand part together as clause 23 simply introduces schedule 1. I will then turn to the Government amendments.
Clause 23 and schedule 1 set out how transfer schemes operate under the Bill. The provisions are necessary to make sure that the assets, rights and liabilities necessary for performing the role of the licence holder can be transferred to them. It is vital to enable the seamless transition from a previous licence holder to a new one. The amendments to schedule 1 will ensure that the provisions cover the scenarios that we envisage transfer schemes will need. They enable the transfer schemes to be made from a strategic highways company to its wholly owned subsidiary, permit the transfer of a licence under specified circumstances beyond those set out in clause 14, and allow for a transfer scheme to provide for compensation to be paid to a transferor or third party.
Clause 23 introduces schedule 1, which makes detailed provision for transfer schemes. A licence holder may need property, contractual rights and other legal interests in order to construct, operate, maintain or improve the highway specified in its licence. Existing rights and liabilities may also need to move between the Secretary of State, a strategic highways company, a licence holder or another appropriate person.
Transfer schemes provide an efficient statutory mechanism for making those changes. They can transfer existing property, rights and liabilities and make the supplementary provision needed to ensure that a transfer operates effectively. The detailed powers, procedures and protections are set out in schedule 1. Together, clause 23 and the schedule support an orderly transition into the licensing regime, as well as when a licence is revoked, expired or transferred to a new licence holder. This ensures that responsibility for a licensed highway is matched by the assets and legal arrangements needed to discharge it.
Government amendments 22 and 23 allow for a transfer scheme to provide for transfers of property, rights and liabilities from a strategic highways company to its subsidiary. Amendment 23 adjusts wording to ensure that subsidiaries of strategic highways companies are referenced explicitly in the list of persons for whom the Secretary of State can make a transfer scheme. This is vital to ensure that the transfer of assets, including the Dartford crossing and the lower Thames crossing project, from National Highways to its subsidiary can take place before the transition to the private sector.
The current drafting of schedule 1 only allows a transfer scheme to be made transferring assets to a subsidiary if that entity already holds a licence or is intended to in the future. That would not allow for scenarios in which an intermediate vehicle is set up to hold the assets before a further transfer. This amendment makes that possible and is essential for the proper functioning of these provisions, for scenarios that are likely to occur.
Amendment 24 follows on from amendments 22 and 23 and enables transfer schemes to provide for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities from subsidiaries of strategic highways companies to licence holders. This amendment ensures that where assets, rights and/or liabilities have been transferred to a subsidiary of a strategic highways company, they can then be transferred on to a licence holder or person due to hold a licence. That, in combination with amendments 22, 23 and 25, provides for a scenario in which the strategic highways company sets up a wholly-owned subsidiary to hold assets, rights and liabilities due to be the responsibility of a licence holder. It allows for the Secretary of State to then transfer those assets, rights and liabilities on to the licence holder or person due to hold a licence.
Government amendments 25 and 26 reflect the changes in amendments 22 to 24 to enable transfers to and from subsidiaries of strategic highways companies. They make consequential changes to ensure that the definition of “subsidiary” in paragraph 1 of schedule 1 and other references to subsidiaries in the paragraph accurately align with the new drafting in amendments 22 to 24.
Government amendment 27 makes it clear that transfer schemes can include provisions that come into effect at different times. It does not specify that different dates must always be included in provisions. In many cases, it may be more appropriate for the whole transfer scheme to come into effect at once. However, there may be circumstances where it may be appropriate for particular parts of the transfer scheme to come online at the point when the relevant responsibilities in the licence do too.
For instance, in the case of the Dartford crossing, the existing design, build, finance and operate contract will run beyond when the transaction to the private sector is due to take place. When the transfer scheme is made for the Dartford crossing, the scheme will be able to set a later date for certain responsibilities under that contract to transfer, ensuring they can remain with National Highways and its DBFO contractor until the end of that arrangement. Were this not possible, the licence holder would need to delegate their responsibilities to National Highways who would then delegate them to the contractor. While not infeasible, that complicated arrangement can be avoided through the amendment.
Government amendment 28 sets out requirements for when transfer schemes transferring property, rights and liabilities away from a licence holder can be made by the Secretary of State. It means that the Secretary of State cannot make a transfer scheme without the consent of the licence holder and the transferee, where that transferee is not the Secretary of State herself or a strategic highways company, except where the scheme is being made in connection with a licence revocation or expiry.
Setting out conditions that must be met before the Secretary of State makes a transfer scheme will reassure investors that transfer schemes would not be made on an ad hoc basis. In circumstances where the licence is either not being revoked or has not expired it is right that the Secretary of State be required to obtain the transferor’s consent before making the transfer scheme.
Government amendment 29 allows for transfer schemes made under schedule 1 to provide for the transfer of licences granted under clause 3. A transfer scheme may transfer the whole or part of the licence. Clause 14 already sets out a process for the ORR to consent to licence transfers. Where a licence is transferred under clause 14, the Secretary of State will have to make a separate transfer scheme under schedule 1 to transfer the relevant assets, rights and liabilities alongside the licence.
In some cases, it will be more efficient to transfer the licence alongside the relevant assets, rights and liabilities, rather than running two separate processes under clause 14 and schedule 1. That will generally be where a licence transfer is initiated by the ORR rather than the licence holder, for example to split the licence between two licence holders. The amendment will allow for more efficient and streamlined licence transfers in appropriate cases where the ORR initiates a transfer.
Where only part of a licence is being transferred, the amendment also allows for the apportionment of rights and liabilities under the licence and incidental modifications to the licence’s terms and conditions.
I turn to Government amendment 30. Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 allows transfer schemes to provide for the payment of compensation. Currently, schemes can only provide for the Secretary of State to pay compensation to third parties who are adversely affected by the scheme. The amendment extends that provision to also allow schemes to provide for the transferee to pay compensation. That ensures that transfer schemes can require the transferee to pay compensation if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate in any given case. For instance, in some circumstances it may be appropriate for a new licence holder to pay compensation instead of, or as well as, the Secretary of State.
Douglas Lumsden
I am trying to think of possible compensation schemes. If, for example, a person’s property has been blighted by a new road that has been constructed, who would be liable for that? Would it be the licensee? Would that transfer to a new owner as well?
Justin Madders
The clauses are about the transfer of assets, rights and liabilities. That is why the amendment is in there—to ensure that if there is an outstanding compensation claim, there is a power for the transferee to pay that. We do not want to be in a situation where a party who is trying to exit the arrangements is refusing to meet its obligations. This is a complicated set of amendments, but they are effectively trying to cover all bases in terms of whether there is compensation. It is also about whether a party leaving the agreement is seeking some compensation for costs that they have occurred.
This is a fairly broad amendment, but it is necessary. We obviously hope not to have many situations where licences are transferred in whole or part, but it is prudent to have provisions in the Bill to ensure that those circumstances are catered for.
Douglas Lumsden
I am trying to work out who is responsible for property blight. Would it be the licence holder? Would it be the Highways Agency? Who would it be?
Justin Madders
Property blight would probably be dealt with by development consent orders and the planning process rather than this Bill, which is about the financial and regulatory framework for operating highways. It would probably come before we got to the issuing of licences. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Government amendment 31 further extends the existing compensation provision in schedule 1 to allow transfer schemes to provide for compensation to be paid to transferors as well as third parties. In some cases, it may be appropriate for compensation to be paid to a transferor—for example, where a licence has been revoked on a non-consensual ground set out in the licence. Under amendment 30, the scheme could provide for the compensation to be paid by the Secretary of State or the transferee, as appropriate. The drafting is not prescriptive. Compensation will not always be needed for either the transferor or a third party, but the provision is drafted to make it possible for all relevant scenarios to be covered.
Greg Smith
I will not speak at length; I merely ask some questions of the Minister about the taxation provisions at the end of schedule 1. I think many of our constituents would be surprised to find in the Bill the following provision:
“The Treasury may by regulations make provision for varying the way in which a relevant tax has effect”
in relation to a transfer. The Bill even says that income tax could be varied.
I can conceive of a situation where the ORR finds itself in a sticky spot trying to transfer a licence— perhaps there are not many willing participants—and tries to create an incentive for it to be taken on. Surely, however, to be as explicit as providing for the varying of taxes from income tax to corporation tax and beyond is highly unusual within legislation. Our constituents would normally expect a tax to be a tax. Although there may be, in Budgets from time to time, provisions that allow reliefs, to nakedly change corporation tax or income tax—as my reading of schedule 7(1) suggests—seems an extreme measure. I would be grateful for an explanation from the Minister.
Justin Madders
I will have to disappoint the shadow Minister. I will not be able to give him a detailed explanation today. All I would say is that the schedule does require such proposals to be approved in a statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure, but I will seek counsel from Treasury colleagues about what possible circumstances this may apply in and write to the shadow Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments made: 22, in schedule 1, page 68, line 7, after “company” insert
“, a subsidiary of a strategic highways company,”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 23, which allows for a transfer scheme to provide for transfers from a strategic highways company to a subsidiary of a strategic highways company.
Amendment 23, in schedule 1, page 68, line 9, after first “to” insert “—
(i) a subsidiary of a strategic highways company, or”.
This amendment allows for a transfer scheme to provide for transfers from a strategic highways company to a subsidiary of a strategic highways company.
Amendment 24, in schedule 1, page 68, line 10, at end insert—
“(ba) from a subsidiary of a strategic highways company to a person who holds, or is to hold, a licence;”.
This amendment allows for a transfer scheme to provide for transfers from a subsidiary of a strategic highways company to a licence holder or prospective licence holder.
Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 68, line 13, after “company” insert
“or a subsidiary of a strategic highways company”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 26 (which leaves out provision that a reference to a strategic highways company includes a reference to its subsidiary).
Amendment 26, in schedule 1, page 68, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
“(2) In sub-paragraph (1) ‘subsidiary’ has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 2006 (see section 1159 of that Act).”
This amendment is consequential on amendments 23 and 24.
Amendment 27, in schedule 1, page 68, line 36, after “date” insert “or dates”.
This amendment clarifies that different parts of a transfer scheme may come into effect at different times.
Amendment 28, in schedule 1, page 69, line 10, at end insert—
1A “(1) The power to make a transfer scheme within paragraph 1(1)(c) is exercisable only if the Secretary of State obtains the consent of—
(a) in the case of a transfer within paragraph 1(1)(c)(i) or (ii), the proposed transferor;
(b) in the case of a transfer within paragraph 1(1)(c)(iii) or (iv), the proposed transferor and the proposed transferee.
(2) The consent of the proposed transferor to the making of a transfer scheme is not required where the scheme is made in connection with or in pursuance of the revocation or expiry of a licence.
(3) In this paragraph ‘proposed transferor’, in relation to a transfer scheme proposed to be made, means the person who is proposed to be the transferor; and ‘proposed transferee’ is to be read accordingly.”
This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which a transfer scheme may be made under paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 1.
Amendment 29, in schedule 1, page 70, line 20, at end insert—
2A “(1) A transfer scheme may include provision for the transfer of a licence held by the transferor to the transferee.
(2) Provision under sub-paragraph (1) may relate to the whole or any part of the licence.
(3) Where a transfer scheme provides for the transfer of a part of a licence, the scheme may include provision—
(a) apportioning rights or liabilities under the licence;
(b) making incidental modifications to the terms and conditions of the licence.”
This amendment provides that a transfer scheme may include provision for the transfer of the whole or part of a licence.
Amendment 30, in schedule 1, page 70, line 23, after “State” insert “or the transferee”.
This amendment provides that a transfer scheme may provide for compensation to be payable by the transferee, in relation to the scheme, as well as by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 31, in schedule 1, page 70, line 23, leave out
“any person, other than the transferor or transferee,”
and insert
“the transferor or any person”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment provides that a transfer scheme may provide for compensation to be payable to the transferor as well as any third party whose interests are adversely affected by the scheme.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24
Charging of tolls
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 24, page 17, line 14, leave out lines 14 and 15.
This amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to specify any circumstances in regulations about how tolls must be paid.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 51, in clause 24, page 17, line 20, leave out lines 20 and 21.
This amendment would remove the power from a licence holder to specify equipment to be carried in or fitted to a road vehicle while it is on the highway.
Amendment 53, in clause 24, page 18, line 6, at end insert—
“(9) Before setting the levels of tolls to be charged, the holder of a licence must consult—
(a) road users likely to be affected,
(b) local businesses,
(c) local residents,
(d) local highway authorities whose areas may be affected.”
This amendment would require consultation before tolls can be charged.
Amendment 54, in clause 24, page 18, line 6, at end insert—
“(9) A tolling scheme made under this section may not come into force unless it has been approved by Parliament.
(10) On any occasion that the licence holder wishes to increase the level of a toll which is already being charged under a licence, this must be approved by Parliament.
(11) To meet the requirement in subsections (9) and (10), the Secretary of State must make regulations setting out the tolling scheme and levels of tolls to be charged under it.
(12) Regulations made under subsection (11) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would require parliamentary approval of road user charging under this Act on each occasion that it was implemented.
Clause stand part.
Greg Smith
The amendments in this group stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. The crux of much of what we have spoken about today, and I am sure will continue to speak about at length on this Bill, is the way in which tolls are charged. Our amendments in this group seek to get the clarity that many of our constituents, I am sure, will want on that very question.
The lead amendment is about removing the power of the Secretary of State to specify circumstances in regulations for how tolls must be paid. Amendment 51 is about removing the power from a licence holder to specify equipment to be carried in or fitted to a road vehicle while it is on the licensed highway. Amendment 53 requires consultation before tolls can be charged. Amendment 54 requires parliamentary approval of road user charging under the Bill—assuming that it becomes an Act—on each occasion on which it is implemented.
The power to determine how a motorist pays should not be an open-ended power to require equipment in vehicles. I simply do not get the necessity or the proportionality of that requirement in the Bill, which is why we seek to remove it. The requirement for equipment in vehicles is almost like taking 10 steps backwards in order to use a tolled road. Certainly, tolls can have those little boxes in a windscreen, which beep as someone goes through a barrier, but as has now been widely proven—over multiple decades—that is just straightforwardly unnecessary.
Here in our capital city, we cannot drive a vehicle without paying the toll that is the congestion charge. That does not involve anyone having to have a little box in their windscreen or any other equipment in their car, because we all have those very straightforward things that have been on our cars for many, many years called number plates. The cameras can very straightforwardly pick any vehicle up as it goes by. By law, we have to have a number plate. If we have not paid a toll, the congestion or ULEZ—ultra low emission zone—charge, the Birmingham clean air toll or whatever against the registration of our vehicle, we get a penalty charge notice in the post. It works. Some of us might not particularly like it, but it works. Why on earth should any toll operator suddenly require any motorist seeking to use the toll roads to stick things in their windscreen or put chips in their car, or whatever it might be?
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a problem with ghost number plates and other forms of avoiding ANPR, automatic number plate recognition? What would his solution to that be?
Greg Smith
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point—there is certainly a problem with ghost plates, but that is an enforcement problem for the authorities, for police forces, for the Government to crack down on to stop a criminal practice that he is right to say is happening on our streets. I am not convinced, however, that we should legislate for a scheme that will involve the tolling of new infrastructure, such as the lower Thames crossing, and require the expense of technology not only going into cars, but to read that technology in cars in order to pay the tolls, when we have a registration system on all our vehicles in the first place.
On those registration plates, we have agreements with many other countries whose citizens could conceivably drive to the United Kingdom from abroad, to ensure that their plates are recognisable as well. In particular in London, therefore, any visitors driving over from France, Belgium, the Netherlands or wherever will, equally, not need to start strapping devices to their windscreens in order to visit our country, to spend their money here and to enjoy the wonderful things we have to offer in England.
I put it to the Minister that this could be a much simpler Bill if we simply get rid of those provisions. I do not want to relitigate the argument about exactly how much the toll is going to be—we still do not know—but before any toll level is set, affected road users, businesses, residents and local authorities should be consulted. Surely that is a straightforward ask.
We heard a lot of evidence from the haulage sector in our oral evidence sessions. The sector already operates on tiny margins; it is very common for a haulage operator, certainly those that I visit in my own constituency, to be operating on as low as a 1% margin. If haulage operators are to be charged these tolls, it is vital that they should have their say, and for that to be put clearly on the record. We should also bear in mind that ultimately all the costs get added to the cost of the goods being transported, so this is an inflation-fuelling measure.
We all know how consultations go sometimes—we do not always get what we want—but the impact that any tolls could have should be clear and on the record, so that when that toll rate is set, it takes into account, if nothing else, the market conditions that will dictate whether people are willing to use that road or will take any measure conceivable to avoid getting on it in the first place.
Any new tolling scheme or any increase to an existing toll should require Parliament’s approval. Why should that decision be left to operators, Ministers or the ORR alone? We need safeguards to prevent unnecessary equipment requirements, and parliamentary control to apply to the level of any charges.
Justin Madders
Amendment 50 would amend the ability of the Secretary of State to reassign responsibility for payment of a toll through regulation. The shadow Minister argues that the amendment would remove the power to specify any circumstances in regulations about how tolls would be paid. The amendment would remove important flexibility from the tolling system and the ability to make someone other than the registered keeper responsible for paying a toll in specified circumstances.
This provision matters, as it is not always possible to trace the registered keeper of a vehicle and there may be situations where it is appropriate for another party to be pursued for payment. That could include hired or leased vehicles, as I am sure the witnesses from last week would attest to. It could also be important where vehicles are registered overseas or following a change of vehicle ownership. Ultimately, it will normally be right for the registered keeper to be held liable for any charges, but that will not always be the case, for the reasons I have set out. It is important that we maintain flexibility.
Clause 24(2)(b) allows regulations to address precisely those circumstances, providing for someone other than the registered keeper to pay the toll where keeper liability would be inappropriate. The question is not whether tolls should be paid, but who should be responsible for them. We would retain the flexibility to make that distinction, rather than impose keeper liability in every case. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 51 would amend the ability for a licence holder to require equipment to be carried in or fitted to a vehicle. It is worth pointing out that just because something is in the legislation, that does not mean there is some dastardly, secret plan to implement it. I will give a practical example of why this power is in the Bill. At the Dartford crossing, before the toll barriers were removed, those who wished to do so were able to set up an account and place a smart tag in their vehicle. The smart tag would speak to the toll booth and open the barriers, charging the registered account. It meant that those who had the tag did not need to open their windows to drop a coin into the bucket at the booth, and it sped up their journey. A similar arrangement applied at the Mersey tunnels.
There are, of course, no longer barriers at the Dartford crossing and the charges are based on the number plates of those who cross. We have already heard why that is not necessarily a foolproof process. But—this is the point of having the clause in the Bill—we do not know what might happen in the future in terms of technology in cars. It is possible that we might not even have number plates at all. Perhaps there will be chips attached to vehicles that have all the user’s data on them, which will be important in tracing the registered keeper. The fact that we do not know how vehicles will develop in the future means that it is important to keep the Bill technology-neutral. That is the purpose of this clause.
Douglas Lumsden
The Minister is right that we do not know what the vehicles of the future will look like, but it should not be up to the holder of the licence to dictate what should be in people’s cars. If we think about the Bill, this is not about just the lower Thames crossing; it could be used for schemes right across the country. Surely the Minister is not suggesting that we would have a different piece of equipment in our car for every scheme that we may be passing through, from one end of the country to the other?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the intervention, but I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that it is important that we keep the Bill technology-neutral because we do not know what might happen further down the line.
Alison Griffiths
I think it is quite interesting that, in an age of acute cyber-security risks, the Minister considers this a technology-neutral position. We have an analogue system that works very effectively and systems that could be controlled by the Government rather than the licensee, which would ensure appropriate cyber-security. The position that the Minister is suggesting is technology-neutral is actually the reverse: it exposes us to acute cyber-risk over which we will have very little control.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I would say that she is making my case for me: we need to keep up with important changes and risk in the cyber-security world. That is why keeping the Bill as technology-neutral as possible is important, because we simply do not know what will be coming next. Giving operators the flexibility to be able to determine what technology is used is an important part of cyber-security moving forward.
Amendment 53 would insert specific consultation requirements into the Bill before a toll can be set. I agree that local communities and those who use the tolls should have a voice. The question is not whether they should have a voice, but how best to secure that engagement within the Bill’s framework of independent regulation. As it stands, the framework places responsibility with the regulator to set tolling requirements through its code and licence conditions, and to enforce compliance. Consultation requirements should sit within those arrangements, rather than be prescriptive in the Bill.
In exercising its functions, the ORR must have regard to the principles of transparency, accountability, proportionality and consistency, and keep the interests of users at the heart of its decision making. That is an important safeguard in the Bill, and I hope that it addresses some of the shadow Minister’s concerns. He will know that the Bill establishes a stakeholder group that will directly advise the ORR. Again, I hope that will address the point about the voices of users being heard in this process. I do not believe that the amendment would improve engagement. Instead, it would constrain the regulator’s discretion to determine how best to take forward individual users’ voices, so I ask the Member not to press it.
Jim Dickson
Without wishing to prolong proceedings, it is very important that the exact level and differential of tolls between the Dartford crossing and the lower Thames crossing—this legislation is being used to construct the lower Thames crossing—is properly considered. My constituents are particularly keen that there should not be a differential between the two crossings so that a financial incentive is created to use one rather than the other, somewhat negating the fact that we have the new infrastructure in place. We need to try to balance the traffic between the two crossings, and tolling will obviously be an important part of that. Would the Minister note that? Perhaps we can ensure collectively that that is in the thinking of the licence holder going forward.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We believe that it would not be in the interests of the licence holder to have a differential scheme, but he is right to raise the importance of that local voice and we believe the legislation as it stands will enable that to happen.
Amendment 54 would, if enacted, see a requirement inserted for Parliament to approve each new tolling scheme. Making pricing dependent on parliamentary approval would introduce uncertainty for investors about the revenues on which a scheme depends. We need a framework that combines effective public controls with the predictability necessary to attract long-term private investment. The Bill seeks to strike that balance through independent regulation. The ORR is a strong independent regulator with a reputation for boosting investor confidence by fostering stable, predictable investment conditions, and it has responsibility for setting tolling requirements and enforcing them. That is the right approach, with robust regulatory oversight within a stable, predictable framework, rather than making prices subject to a separate parliamentary decision.
My concern is therefore not with scrutiny itself, but with the uncertainty the amendment would create for financing schemes under the Bill. It would make those schemes, including the lower Thames crossing, less attractive to investors and harder to finance. I therefore ask the Member not to press the amendment.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendments. On the equipment in vehicles point, as I said in my earlier remarks, we are in danger of taking several steps backwards, as he himself acknowledged that there were schemes in the past where we used to wind our window down—literally wind it down, rather than press a button—and then throw a few coins into a basket. That has gone—it is over—and so should that be gone and over and moved to an ANPR system, albeit with the challenges we have around ghost plates to enforce against.
I just do not understand why we would have any interest—this is not a party political point; this is just a practical point for all our constituents—in trying to bring about a scheme that involves boxes and chips and all sorts of things being required to be put into heavy goods vehicles and private vehicles, rather than just using the number plate system that by law we are all required to have on our vehicles.
On the point about consultation, the hon. Member for Dartford made the point incredibly well. Preventing the disincentives to use a new scheme if the toll turns out to be higher than the existing Dartford crossing scheme is a sensible point. The hon. Gentleman knows his constituency far better than any of us. If he reports that that is a live concern among his constituents, I would urge the Minister to listen so that the good people of Dartford do not find themselves with that disincentive to use a new scheme because it is priced higher than the existing one.
I am content to withdraw amendments 50 and 53, both of which I suspect we will come back to on Report. I really do invite the Minister to think about how that consultation, in the interests of his colleague the hon. Member for Dartford as much as any future schemes, could be addressed before we get to that stage. On amendments 51 and 54, particularly the point on parliamentary approval—not for Parliament to set tolls—given the Minister declined the rules that we suggested around tolling regimes earlier, if there will not be guidance and upper limits as there are on the debt that any licensee may hold, that only leaves the option for us in Parliament to vote on those tolling arrangements as they come along on each and every occasion.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 51, in clause 24, page 17, line 20, leave out lines 20 and 21—(Greg Smith.)
This amendment would remove the power from a licence holder to specify equipment to be carried in or fitted to a road vehicle while it is on the highway.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2026 - large print - (3 Nov 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
This afternoon, the Committee will continue its line-by-line scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. As a reminder, the Committee must conclude its consideration of the Bill today. We resume with the debate on new clause 47. I call the Minister to resume her remarks.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
It is a pleasure to have you back in the chair again, Dr Murrison. I was actually just concluding my remarks.
To round up, legal aid helps to ensure that those seeking protection can access justice, and supports the effective operation of the asylum system, which is fundamentally central to an open, independent and fair justice system. The United Kingdom also has obligations under the UN refugee convention to provide access to justice for those seeking asylum.
For the reasons I have given, the Government cannot support this new clause. I respectfully ask that it be withdrawn.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Murrison, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for this final furlong—this final sitting of the Bill Committee. New clause 48 would put a cap on the non-visitor visas, with one number set every year by regulations approved by both Houses, with the option of separate caps for individual routes.
Let me start with the past: net migration peaked at 944,000 in the year to March 2023, and we Conservatives do not pretend otherwise. It was far too high, and the British people are right to be angry about it. It fell to 171,000 last year, and it fell because the previous Conservative Government acted. We ended the right of most students and care workers to bring dependants, and we raised the salary threshold for skilled workers. Those decisions are what enabled Britain to turn the corner.
Every one of those changes sits in the immigration rules. They can be reversed by a Minister with a statement of changes, without a vote in this House. There is no cap. There is no target. The fall we have seen is not protected by law, and what was done with the stroke of a pen can be undone in the same way.
That is why this Government’s approach falls short. This Government promised to significantly reduce net migration, but have failed to put a number on it. Ministers will happily take credit for figures driven by Conservative reforms, while refusing to be held to any measure of their own. A promise with no measure is a promise that can never be broken.
Our approach is about control: who comes here, how many, and who must leave. New clause 48 would let Parliament decide the number every year in the open, where the public can see it and Members must vote on it. Route caps would allow us to protect the NHS and our universities, giving them certainty rather than leaving them exposed to sudden swings in policy. Australia and Canada plan their migration in exactly that way, setting levels in advance and debating them openly—nobody would call those countries closed or unwelcoming.
If the Government are confident that numbers will stay down, they have nothing to fear from a cap. If they are confident, the House deserves to know why. I ask the Minister a simple question, to which I would be grateful for a simple answer: do the Government have a numerical target for net migration—yes or no?
Anna Turley
The short answer is no—I will also give the longer answer.
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for this new clause. We are committed to the reforms we set out last year in the “Restoring control over the immigration system” White Paper, and we have already made substantial progress. We have delivered a dramatic 80% reduction in net migration, which reached a record high under the last Government. I am old enough to remember David Cameron promising caps in the tens of thousands on immigration. This year, immigration stands at 171,000, the lowest figure since 2012. We saw a peak under the previous Government of more than 900,000, so we have seen an 80% reduction on that figure, and it did not need an arbitrary number. We propose that an arbitrary cap is not a working proposition.
The hon. Gentleman’s new clause would restrict access not only for workers but also for family members of UK nationals, students and international businesspeople, to whom the UK has treaty commitments to allow access, including in multiple trade agreements signed by the previous Government. A cap across all routes would create the absurdity of trading off places between a British citizen wanting to bring in their spouse, a specialist engineer needed on a national infrastructure project or a student wanting to study at one of our top universities.
The operation of a cap would be costly and complex to implement. Workforce planning for UK businesses would become highly complex, with workers allowed one day and barred the next, impacting their ability to operate and hampering growth. Groups representing different sectors and industries would have to argue that their workers are more essential than others. International sports players would be prevented from playing in UK teams, and world-class musicians would be prevented from working with UK-based creatives or doing extended tours. Families would have their cases determined simply by whether an arbitrary numerical ceiling has already been reached, rather than their individual circumstances.
The previous cap was in place only on the tier 2 immigration route between 2011 and 2020, and it was removed by the previous Government. They would have found that it slowed access to the route and generally affected lower paid but vital occupations such as nurses and teachers. The cap was amended on numerous occasions by Governments between 2011 and 2020, with many occupations being removed from it, making it less and less likely to be reached.
This Government are taking a better approach by linking migration more closely with UK skills and needs, creating a fairer and more effective system, placing an emphasis on contribution, and reducing net migration from the record high it reached under the last Government. To strengthen alignment between migration and workforce policy, the Government raised the skilled worker threshold in July 2025 to regulated qualifications framework level 6 and introduced the temporary shortage list, which linked access to international recruitment for medium-skilled roles related to the industrial strategy and critical infrastructure with credible workforce plans that address shortages in the UK labour market through domestic interventions, which I think we all agree is the priority.
The immigration White Paper, the industrial strategy and the “Get Britain Working” and post-16 skills White Papers are intended to lead to a more effective labour market. Taken in the round, they will meet the shared objectives of getting one million young people who are not in education, employment or training into that work or training. Demand for priority occupations is expected to rise in the next 10 years, and the importance of maintaining an immigration system that prioritises resident workers while allowing for the targeted recruitment of overseas skills to drive growth is paramount.
As the hon. Member will know, our approach is having the desired effect. As I have said, net migration is down by 82% since the grotesque peak of nearly 1 million people in 2023. Through effective and sensible reform, not absolute and inflexible limits, this Government are bringing down net migration and restoring order and control to our immigration system. I hope that reassures the hon. Member that we support the spirit of his amendment and recognise the importance of controlling migration. However, an additional statutory duty and an arbitrary cap are unnecessary. For those reasons, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Blake Stephenson
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that we are not persuaded by the Government’s arguments.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 49 would put a 10-year qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain into law for those who are self-sufficient, earn at least £38,700 and have no criminal record. A year ago this month, the Government consulted on earned settlement and promised a 10-year baseline applying to people already here. They said it would begin in April. In March, that became the autumn. In September, it became later this year. The Thursday before last, the Minister told the Committee that settlement was
“currently undergoing a lot of discussion.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 22 October 2026; c. 338.]
Yesterday the Home Secretary came to the House with the outcome of that discussion: not a tougher policy, but a softer one. Once again, the Government have buckled after backlash from left-wing Back Benchers and unions. Care workers who arrived before May last year will keep the five-year route on a salary of £25,000. Around 300,000 people will benefit from that change. The number of people expected to receive indefinite leave to remain by 2030 has risen to about 1.9 million—some 300,000 more than the Government’s own forecast just a year ago.
That is what happens when policy is left to rules rather than to law. Every month of delay brings another round of lobbying, and every round of lobbying brings another concession. That is a pattern that we have seen throughout the Bill. The language is tough—“Settlement is a privilege, not a right; it must be earned”—but the action is soft. When the moment came to apply that principle to the largest cohort in our history, the Government blinked. Settlement is permanent. It cannot be undone. It brings access to benefits and social housing and it is a gateway to citizenship. A decision of that weight should be earned and the standard should be set by Parliament, not drafted, delayed and diluted without a single vote. That is the approach my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has set out, and it is what new clause 49 delivers: a clear threshold in statute that cannot be quietly lowered the next time pressure builds.
I put a question to the rest of the Committee. I will happily give way to the one remaining Lib Dem Member present, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, if he can tell us whether his party supports a 10-year qualifying period at all or welcomes yesterday’s retreat. For those who see no problem to solve, I say this: a country that hands out permanent status on the passage of time alone is not being generous; it is simply not making a decision.
The Government now have a choice. If they believe their own rhetoric, here is the clause—let them vote for it. When will the earned settlement rules be laid? I do not think that was answered on the Floor of the House yesterday, though I may be mistaken. Of the people already here, how many will now face the 10-year period and how many will settle after five?
Anna Turley
I promised Committee members that they would not have long to wait; I hope that they have been able to spend time absorbing the changes announced by the Home Secretary yesterday. New clause 49 would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the passing of the Act, to introduce a 10-year qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain applications for holders of the visas set out in the new clause, and for the partners, parents or dependants of a person who holds UK citizenship. The new clause would also introduce eligibility requirements relating to access to social protection, income and criminality. I thank the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling the new clause.
For the sake of hon. Members who could not attend the Home Secretary’s statement yesterday, or tune into the media round this morning, I will provide an overview of what was announced. Under the previous Government, who promised time and again to bring down net migration, the number of people migrating to the UK exploded, placing untold pressure on local communities and public services across the country. In 2023 alone, nearly 1 million people arrived in the UK—comparable to the entire population of Estonia, of nearly two Manchesters, or of Devon. In just four years, the same number of people arrived in the UK as had done in the previous four decades.
In the face of such abject loss of control, this Government had to act. I remind Opposition Members that the Conservatives were in power for a substantial amount of the time during which the increase in migration happened, so they had plentiful opportunity to introduce the changes to ILR and settlement that they want to see. This Government have had to act rapidly to try to protect people from the surge that happened in the last four years of their Government.
As the Home Secretary laid out, when formulating the reforms, the Government’s principle guiding factor was fairness: fairness for those who came here legally to play their part, and fairness for British citizens, who should not be asked to bear a greater burden. As I have reiterated throughout the Committee’s scrutiny, we have a proud history of welcoming those who are wholeheartedly and sincerely looking for a better life, and who have something to contribute, but we must acknowledge that that requires something back. Individuals who come here must play their part, contribute to the community and become part of our national life. That is not just necessary; it is right. If we are to ask our fellow citizens to buy into a system of shared taxation and universal public service, they must know that everyone is contributing their fair share.
Under the current settlement system, it is predicated that an individual becomes eligible for settlement when they have been in the UK for five years. Among other things, settlement gives an individual access to free education, to our NHS and, should they fall upon it, the welfare state. Until now, having simply served time—those five years—was enough for people to qualify. As the Home Secretary laid out, the current system does not represent true fairness. Those considerable rights should come after responsibilities are met.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Minister has mentioned fairness a number of times, but the blanket retrospective changes to ILR seem unfair to those who have been working and contributing here. Will she not reconsider?
Anna Turley
I am afraid that I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. When people come here, it is on the terms of their visa; the terms of settlement are entirely separate. As has been legally tested in court, decisions are made at the point at which a person applies for settlement, not at the point at which they come into the country under different visa regulations. That point is clear. If we had the situation he asks for, we would never be able to change immigration policy, because somebody who is in the country when changes come into place will always be disadvantaged.
As I said, the Home Secretary laid out that the current system does not represent true fairness. These considerable rights should come after responsibilities have been met: after someone has contributed, integrated, and bought into what it means to be British and to have the privilege of living in our wide, diverse community. Settlement should be earned. As the Home Secretary laid out, settlement will now be based on wider contribution, rather than simply time served in the UK.
On new clause 49 specifically, the Opposition will note that under the Government’s earned settlement framework, the standard qualifying period will be 10 years and any form of criminality will be an absolute bar to an individual ever being able to settle. On the other hand, those who contribute most to our communities, through higher earnings, socially important roles and exceptional talent, will be recognised and rewarded through a reduced-rate settlement. These fair and necessary changes are what the public expect from this Government.
As the Government have now announced our reforms to settlement, I ask the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw his new clause, but I will just respond to his question about when the changes will be made. The regulations will be laid in December this year and will come into force in 2027. He also asked how many people will now be eligible; at the end of the five-year period, 1.4 million people will be. That number is half a million down from the 1.9 million it would have been had we not intervened. Given that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I was delighted when the Minister nearly voted with us on new clause 49, but I appreciate that it has been a very long day and there have been quite a few sittings on this Bill, so I am sure all will be forgiven.
Consider two people, both of whom were granted indefinite leave to remain on the same day. One has worked, paid their taxes, raised a family and never troubled the police; the other has since been convicted of a serious violent offence. Under the law today, the Home Office cannot deport the second person, who will keep exactly the same permanent status as the first. That is not fairness; it is a failure to distinguish between those who honour the privilege of settlement and those who abuse it. New clause 50 would change that. It would allow indefinite leave to remain to be revoked for foreign criminals and for those granted it after commencement on terms short of the 10-year standard in new clause 49, with the Ukraine, Afghan and Hong Kong schemes protected.
Our borders plan is clear that all foreign criminals should be deported and never allowed to return to the UK, but where deportation stalls, settled status must not become a shield. The existing power to revoke under section 76 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is narrow and rarely used. At the end of last year, more than 19,000 national offenders were living in our communities—I think that has since risen to about 21,000, with some having completed their sentences—while still being subject to deportation or removal. Every one of them is a case in which the system has said that they should go but has not yet made that happen.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary told the House once again that settlement is a privilege and not a right. We agree with that sentiment, but a privilege that can never be withdrawn, however gravely it is abused, is not a privilege at all; it is an entitlement by another name. The Government’s new rules reportedly make criminality grounds for refusing settlement. That is good, but it only works at the front door. It does nothing about the person who obtains settlement and offends afterwards. If the principle is right before the grant, why does it stop applying the day after?
New clause 50 would also ensure that the concessions announced yesterday do not become permanent by default. If Parliament decides that 10 years is the standard, those who are granted settlement on lesser terms should not be beyond review. For the law-abiding migrant who has worked here, has supported themselves and has contributed, nothing changes. For the serious offender, settlement can be lost. That is the line that our new clause draws, and I believe that the overwhelming majority of the British public, including the many settled migrants who play by the rules, would agree with where it falls. I ask the Minister how many grants of indefinite leave were revoked in each of the last three years, and how many foreign national offenders hold indefinite leave today.
Anna Turley
The Opposition’s new clause 50 aims to enable revocation of a person’s indefinite leave where they are liable to deportation, have not been in the UK legally for at least 10 years and are not within defined cohorts set out in new clause 49.
The Government are absolutely clear that foreign criminals should be deported from the UK wherever it is legal to do so. Any foreign national convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence is considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity. Settlement can already be revoked under section 76 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, where a foreign national is liable to deportation but cannot be deported because of our obligations under the European convention on human rights or the refugee convention. The new clause would therefore have no practical effect on our ability to deport individuals and/or to revoke indefinite leave to remain.
As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire pointed out, we have announced our intention to change the rules of the policy, so that, where previously only those with a custodial sentence would have been prevented from settling in this country, now everyone who has had any kind of criminal record will be prevented from settling. That is a substantial and wide-ranging change to the policy. We are clear that we will ensure that no one is able to settle who has a criminal record.
Blake Stephenson
I have caught the Minister just in time, before she sits down. If the Government accept the principle of the new clause, why do they not accept that it would be helpful to have it in the Bill?
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I say, the difference is that the new clause would not enable us to deport any more people. Going forward, we will not allow people to have that settlement. The proposed measure would not allow us to remove any more people than is currently permissible.
Indefinite leave brings certain unconditional entitlements and freedoms that limited leave does not bring, such as the automatic right to work, study or access benefits, no restrictions on where a person lives, and no requirement to report. A person who has acted in a way that warrants revocation of their indefinite leave should not expect to retain it simply because they have been settled in the UK. While it may not always be possible or right to remove that person for legal reasons, revocation, which we have talked about during the passage of the Bill, takes away those undeserved privileges and advantages.
We already deport people who are settled in the UK. All foreign nationals who receive a custodial sentence in the UK are referred to the Home Office by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service for consideration of deportation or administrative removal. We also receive referrals from the police, other law enforcement bodies and the security agencies. A deportation order invalidates a person’s leave and prevents an individual from lawfully entering the UK while it remains in force. I hope that has clarified the issues raised by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. I respectfully ask him to withdraw new clause 50.
Blake Stephenson
I wish to press the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 52—Requirement for leave to enter or remain as a spouse or civil partner—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, make such amendments to the Immigration Rules as may be necessary for the purposes of implementing the requirements specified in this section.
(2) Where a person (‘the applicant’) seeks indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the spouse or civil partner of a person with leave to enter or remain in the UK (‘the partner’)—
(a) the applicant must provide evidence that they were married to or in a civil partnership with the partner for a period of at least two years prior to the making of the application for indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom;
(b) the applicant and the partner must prove that they remain, and intend to remain, in the marriage or civil partnership and that they intend to live together as spouses or civil partners;
(c) the partner must have a salary of at least £38,700 per year;
(d) the applicant and the partner must be at least 23 years old; and
(e) any application is to be refused if the applicant and the partner are first cousins.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘the Immigration Rules’ mean rules laid before Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”
This new clause would place requirements, including a salary threshold, on individuals seeking to enter or remain in the UK as a spouse or civil partner.
Blake Stephenson
New clauses 51 and 52 concern a particular route; 58,000 family visas were granted in the year to June, and it remains the one major route to this country with no limit at all. New clause 51 would introduce an annual cap on spouse and partner visas, set after consultation, with no more than 5% from any one country. New clause 52 would set four requirements: two years of marriage before settlement; a sponsor income of £38,700; both parties to be at least 23; and no first cousin marriages.
I anticipate that Committee members may raise a number of objections to the new clauses, so let me pre-empt some of those directly. The first is that the new clauses would potentially interfere with the right to marry. They would not. British citizens would remain free to marry who they choose. Nothing in the clauses touches that; the clauses consider the conditions on which a partner from overseas comes to settle here permanently. Every country sets such conditions; the only question is whether they are set by Parliament or left to shift with the political winds.
Perhaps the second objection will be that £38,700 is too high, but that is not a new figure. It was the level that the previous Government legislated to reach, matching the threshold for skilled workers, so that those who bring a partner here can support them without needing to rely on taxpayers’ money. This Government paused the increase pending review. The Migration Advisory Committee reported in June last year, yet 17 months later there is still no decision. That is a familiar pattern: Ministers commissioned the review, received it and then did nothing with it, leaving families, employers and the public in the dark. If the Government think that £29,000 is the right figure, they should say so and defend it; if not, they should act.
Anna Turley
The Government’s position is clear: net migration must come down. We support the right to family life and value the contribution that migrants make to our society. However, that must be balanced with a properly controlled and managed immigration system. British citizens and those settled in the UK are free to enter into a genuine relationship with whomever they choose. If they wish to establish their family life in the UK, it is appropriate that they do so on the basis that they can support themselves financially, without recourse to public funds, and can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society.
However, a numerical cap is not the right way to control family migration. It would have a detrimental impact on British citizens seeking to bring their immediate family members to the UK, and it would raise concerns about compatibility with our international obligations. The proposed nationality cap and additional partner requirements raise significant equalities concerns. Requiring a couple to have been married or in a civil partnership for two years could disadvantage people in long-term relationships who cannot marry or form a civil partnership in their home country, including some same-sex couples. A minimum age of 23 would go beyond the legal age for marriage in the UK. It should also be noted that in 2011 the Supreme Court found that changes made to the immigration rules to increase the age requirement for partner visas to 21 were unlawful.
The provisions governing whether family members may come to or stay in the UK are set out in the immigration rules. The Bill is therefore not the appropriate vehicle for prescribing detailed requirements for the partner route. As we have made clear, the Government will reform the family visa system. The current system has become too complex, inconsistent and open to abuse, with British citizens facing the strictest requirements.
Our new family policy will cover all UK residents, including those who are British, those settled on work routes and refugees seeking to bring family members to the UK. It will include clear relationship requirements and an appropriate level of English language skills, and it will ensure that the family unit has sufficient means to support any dependants without relying on the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman asked when that would come into force. We have made it clear in the immigration White Paper that family migration will be reformed to tackle the overly complex family immigration arrangements. Changes to these requirements must sit alongside wider reform of settlement, integration and article 8. It is important that the changes work together as part of a coherent system.
To ensure financial independence, applicants on the family route must currently meet either the minimum income requirement or the adequate maintenance test. The Migration Advisory Committee has reviewed the minimum income requirement, which is currently set at £29,000. We are considering its recommendations in detail alongside the work carried out as a result of the immigration White Paper. Changes to family migration requirements must sit alongside wider reforms to settlement. Taken together, those reforms will enable us to control family migration through clear and robust eligibility requirements while ensuring a coherent immigration system.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about cousin marriage. Cousin marriage is permitted under UK law, and the immigration rules reflect that position.
Blake Stephenson
Could the Minister elaborate on the legal prohibition, or otherwise, and the position around cousin marriage and the rights to bring cousins into the UK to marry?
Anna Turley
I am afraid that I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman, because the only information I have is that, as it is permitted under law, the immigration rules reflect that position. I know that there has been a lot of discussion and debate on this issue on the Floor of the House, so I would not want to mislead the Committee with an incorrect position. I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that.
It was also mentioned that the income level for a visa, which was previously set at £18,600, rose to £29,000 in April 2024. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would implement a further rise to £38,700. The minimum income requirements in the family immigration rules were raised, as I say, and this Government have been clear that we need to balance a respect for family life with ensuring that the economic wellbeing of the UK is maintained.
To ensure that we reach the right balance and have a solid evidence base for any future change, on 10 September 2024 the Home Secretary commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules, and it has now done so. There is no date set for when we will publish a response to the MAC report. However, the MAC’s recommendations are being considered in detail alongside the work being carried out as a result of the immigration White Paper, which made it clear that family migration would be reformed to tackle the over-complex family immigration arrangements, including financial arrangements. This is a more effective and proportionate approach than imposing an arbitrary numerical cap and prescribing individual requirements through this Bill. I am afraid that the Government therefore cannot support the new clause.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for offering to follow up with a more detailed response in relation to the question on cousin marriage. That would be helpful, certainly for the Opposition and perhaps for the rest of the Committee.
The Committee will not be surprised to hear that we are not persuaded by the Government’s argument, so I wish to press new clause 51 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are becoming very familiar with losing three to 10 this afternoon—but there are a few more to go. New clause 53 would put into law the ban on care workers bringing dependants that the previous Government introduced in March 2024. It is worth reflecting on the past to understand why it is necessary.
In 2023, around 100,000 care workers came to this country, accompanied by around 120,000 dependants—more dependants than workers. A route designed to staff our care homes had become one of the largest drivers of migration into Britain, and it was being exploited on an industrial scale. One in five licensed care sponsors could not even be matched on the Care Quality Commission register. Some were not real care providers at all. Workers were brought here under false pretences, charged thousands of pounds for jobs that did not exist, and left in debt and at risk of exploitation. Some 1,400 care sponsor licences have since been revoked. The route was badly abused, and often it was the people it was meant to help who paid the price.
The previous Government did act. We ended the right of care workers to bring dependants and required sponsors to be registered with a regulator. That rule was part of a package of reforms that helped bring net migration down by three quarters of a million—it worked. The Minister will no doubt tell the Committee that the Government have gone further by closing the care worker route to new overseas recruitment last year. If that is so, accepting new clause 53 would cost the Government nothing, but the closure sits in the immigration rules. Both can be reversed by a statement of changes, without a vote and without the House having any say.
We saw yesterday how quickly settled policy can shift under pressure. The Home Secretary told the House that settlement must be earned and in the same statement exempted care workers who are already here from the 10-year standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain. It should be highlighted to the Committee that when lobbying intensifies, Ministers bend. If the sector or the Government’s own Back Benchers press next for dependants to be readmitted, what will stand in their way? At present, nothing but a Minister’s resolve.
New clause 53 would replace that with the law. That matters to the public, who were promised that the numbers would come down and stay down; it matters for local services, schools and housing, which absorbed much of the growth; and it matters for care workers themselves, because a route with clear and stable rules is far harder for unscrupulous sponsors to exploit than one that changes with every announcement. If the Government believe this rule is right, they should be willing to defend it in statute. If they are privately considering relaxing it, the Committee deserves to know now. Do the Government have any intention of relaxing the restriction—and if not, will they accept new clause 53?
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Member for moving his new clause. While I acknowledge that the previous Government restricted care workers who applied on or after 11 March 2024 from bringing dependants with them to the UK, that was not before over 1 million health and care workers and their dependants had come to the UK between 2021 and 2024. Even then, the Government at the time opted not to extend the restriction to people who came to the UK before 11 March 2024. As the right hon. Member for Croydon South, who tabled the new clause, was a Home Office Minister at the time, he would be better placed than most to explain the motivations behind that decision.
While the Opposition may take credit for the premise of that restriction, it is a disgrace that we were put in this position in the first place. Absent the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined yesterday, around 1.9 million people would have been forecast to reach settlement between 2026 and 2030. That is almost three times the number granted settlement between 2021 and 2025, around 1.6 times the population of Birmingham and comparable to the entire population of Estonia.
Since the Government came to power in 2024, we have brought net migration under control and it has fallen dramatically. In July 2025, the Government restricted people working in medium-skilled occupations from applying with dependants. That and other measures in the White Paper have seen net migration continue to fall.
The new clause would go beyond just preventing dependant family members from joining their care worker partner or parent; it would also mean that dependants already in the UK would need to leave when they needed to make their next visa application. That would either break up families or force people delivering vital care services to leave the UK.
The new clause is also not required. Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 already allows the Secretary of State to lay rules setting out
“the practice to be followed in the administration of this Act for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom.”
The former Government could have used that existing power to make this change, but they chose not to. The immigration rules are adjusted and amended regularly. They allow for quicker adjustments to be made, and the proposed changes to primary legislation are not required.
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire talked, quite rightly, about the abuses in the care sector, which have been a real concern to us since we came to power. We have revoked 1,800 licences of fraudulent and non-compliant care businesses. We now have a rule that, in order to get a licence, a business has to be CQC-registered. He will have seen that we have tried not to blame the individuals, many of whom came here with good intentions to undertake the obligations of their visa. As we announced yesterday, they will be entitled to a second chance to apply for another care visa with a properly registered and licensed organisation, giving them a further five years to fulfil the obligations they thought they were coming here to meet.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for that detailed response. I may have missed part of it, so I want to make it absolutely clear that I was not an immigration Minister in the previous Government. I was happily getting on with my life in the private sector before I came here. That said, I am not persuaded by the Minister’s response and I will press the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 58 is a modest but important proposal. It would require the Home Office to publish, every quarter, each licensed sponsor’s headcount and the number of worker visas it sponsored. Sponsorship is a privilege granted by the state. A business that holds a sponsor licence is trusted to bring people into this country, to vouch for them and to meet obligations on pay, conditions and compliance. When the state extends that trust, the public are entitled to scrutinise how it is being used. At present, they cannot.
The Home Office publishes a register of licensed sponsors, but it tells us almost nothing about scale. We cannot see which employers depend on a handful of overseas workers and which on hundreds. We cannot see whether a business with 10 staff is sponsoring 50 visas, or which sectors are training British workers and which have simply stopped bothering. That matters because the system is under strain, as we have heard endlessly during the passage of the Bill.
By my calculations, in the 12 months to June, the Home Office revoked 4,403 sponsor licences, up 141%. Behind each of those revocations is a business that was trusted but should not have been and, in too many cases, workers who were exploited, underpaid or left without a job. Every one of those failures was visible in the data before it became a scandal: a care provider sponsoring far more workers than it could plausibly employ, or a business whose headcount bore no relation to its visa numbers. Employer-level data would help to spot those warning signs earlier, before the damage is done.
The new clause has a second purpose. The Government have said, rightly, that the economy must reduce its reliance on overseas recruitment and invest in the British workforce. Their White Paper promised to link immigration to skills and training at home. I agree with that ambition—as do all of us on this side of the House—but an ambition without measurement is just a slogan. If Ministers want to be judged on reducing reliance on migration, they should welcome a tool that lets Parliament and the public test whether that is happening, employer by employer and sector by sector.
Some may say that the new clause places a burden on business. It does not. This is information that the Home Office already holds through the sponsor management system; the new clause would simply require its publication. Others will raise commercial sensitivity, but a business that relies heavily on the public grant of sponsorship should expect a degree of public scrutiny in return. Honest employers have nothing to fear from transparency; it is the abusers who rely on the system staying opaque.
This is not about penalising business; it is about delivering accountability and early warning of abuse, and giving the House the evidence it needs to hold the Government to their word. In closing, I ask the Minister: how many sponsors have more than 100 sponsored workers, and how many licences were revoked last year, by sector?
Anna Turley
Sponsorship is a privilege, not a right. Upon obtaining a licence, all sponsors, irrespective of the route for which they are licensed, are bound to perform sponsor duties and meet certain standards. Those duties are commensurate with the privileges that being a licensed sponsor confers. We will not hesitate to take appropriate action where organisations fail to perform their duties correctly or to adhere to those standards, including where they seek to abuse the sponsorship or immigration system by sponsoring workers for roles that are not eligible for the relevant route.
We continue to examine ways to strengthen the system, having already revoked a record number of sponsor licences. The hon. Gentleman asked for that figure: last year alone, we revoked 3,299 sponsor licences, compared with just 347 in 2023—an increase of 950%. I acknowledge the broad rationale behind the new clause, but the Government do not consider it necessary. As he will be aware, the Government already publish a list of organisations that hold a sponsor licence, which allows us adequately to oversee compliance in this space. We assess that any changes to require that extra information would be unnecessary and an additional burden on businesses. I am not sure whether the calculations have been done to assess the financial burden on businesses of complying with his new clause.
Furthermore, it would not be sensible to publish the numbers of workers sponsored by each licensed sponsor, particularly for companies sponsoring small numbers of overseas workers, as that could create data protection issues under our GDPR obligations. In the event that the Government deem it appropriate to request further data from licensed sponsors, we already have the powers and the mechanism to do so under the existing sponsor guidance framework. Creating an additional statutory requirement in primary legislation would be a disproportionate step. That being said, as I have mentioned, the Government continue to examine ways to strengthen the system, having already revoked a record number of sponsor licences.
More broadly, Members across the Committee will be aware that in March 2025 the previous Home Secretary announced that we would increase the skill threshold of the skilled worker route from RQF level 3 to RQF level 6, or from A-level to degree level. In so doing, the Government are fundamentally refocusing the system on higher-skilled migration. Not only that, but we have cut from access to overseas recruitment more than 100 occupations to which the previous Government allowed access when it brought in the 2020 skilled worker route, in businesses such as vape shops, barber shops and takeaways. It is also worth mentioning that many businesses that appear on the register may have obtained licences before changes to the immigration system introduced last year. Their presence on the register does not mean they would qualify under the current rules.
Overall, this Government’s reform and continued tightening of the visa sponsorship system is already bearing fruit. We have brought net migration down by 82%, after the previous Government allowed it to balloon to nearly 1 million people in the year ending March 2023. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 69—Sponsor licences: designated persons and sanctioned companies—
“(1) The Secretary of State must revoke any sponsor licence held by—
(a) a sanctioned person; or
(b) a sanctioned company.
(2) For the purposes of subsection 1(a), a person is a "sanctioned person" if the person is—
(a) a designated person;
(b) a body corporate, partnership or other undertaking that is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a designated person, within the meaning given in the relevant regulations;
(c) a body corporate that is a subsidiary of, or is under common control with, a person falling within paragraph (a) or (b); or
(d) a person acting on behalf of, or at the direction of, a person falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
(3) For the purposes of subsection 1(b), a company is a “sanctioned company” if the company is—
(a) a designated corporate, partnership or other undertaking, within the meaning given in the relevant regulations; or
(b) a designated body under the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026.
(4) Revocation under subsection (1) must take effect no later than 7 days after the day on which the person or company becomes a sanctioned person or company, or, if later, the day on which the Secretary of State becomes aware of that fact.
(5) The Secretary of State must not grant, renew or reinstate a sponsor licence to a sanctioned person or company.
(6) Where a sponsor licence is revoked under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must not curtail the leave of a person sponsored under that licence before the end of a period of 30 days beginning with the day of revocation, unless they are satisfied that curtailment within that period is necessary in the interests of national security.
(7) Subsections (1) to (4) do not apply to the extent that the activity concerned is authorised by a licence granted under regulations made under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
(8) Where a person or company ceases, for the purposes of subsection (1), to be sanctioned, the Secretary of State must, on application, consider afresh any application for a sponsor licence made by that person or company, and may not refuse it on the ground of the earlier sanctioned status or revocation.
(9) For the purposes of this section—
“body corporate” means a company within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, or a body incorporated outside the United Kingdom;
“designated person” means a person designated by name under, or for the purposes of, regulations made under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018; or
“relevant regulations” means the regulations under which the person concerned is designated;
“sponsor licence” means a licence granted by the Secretary of State to a person or company permitting that person or company to act as a sponsor in relation to an application for entry clearance, leave to enter, or leave to remain under the immigration rules.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to revoke the visa sponsor licence of any company or other person subject to UK sanctions designation, or owned or controlled by a designated person.
Blake Stephenson
The new clauses—new clause 69 stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and in my own name—address the same weakness: a sponsorship system with loopholes that those who abuse it know how to exploit.
New clause 59 would make revocation of a sponsor licence mandatory where there has been visa fraud, with an indefinite ban on reapplying. Consider how the system works today: a sponsor is caught committing visa fraud, its licence is revoked, and it then faces a cooling-off period of around 12 months, after which it can apply again. If even that is too long to wait, the people behind the company can simply wind it up, form a new one and start afresh with a different name on the paperwork but the same individuals behind the desk. That is not enforcement; it is a mild inconvenience.
We should be clear about what visa fraud means in practice. It is not a technical breach of paperwork. In the care sector, people paid thousands of pounds for jobs that did not exist. They arrived to find no work, no wages and debt they could not repay. Some were housed in overcrowded accommodation, controlled by those who brought them here. Visa fraud is very often a gateway to modern slavery. Those who commit it should not be given a second chance to do it again, and new clause 59 would ensure that they are not.
New clause 69 deals with a different loophole, but one that is harder to defend. It would require the revocation within seven days of any sponsor licence held by a person or company subject to UK sanctions, while giving their workers 30 days to find another sponsor. When this country sanctions an individual or a business, it is because we have judged them to be a threat to our security, complicit in aggression abroad or involved in serious corruption or human rights abuses. We freeze their assets and bar them from our financial system, yet there is no automatic requirement that they lose the privilege of sponsoring workers into the United Kingdom. It is extraordinary that this is not already the law.
The new clause would be fair to the workers involved. They are not the ones who have been sanctioned, and they should not be punished for the conduct of their employer. That is why the new clause would give them time to find another sponsor and continue working lawfully in the UK.
Neither new clause should be remotely controversial, and neither should divide the Committee. They close gaps that should never have existed, and they protect the integrity of our immigration system and the people most at risk of exploitation within it. I hope that the Government will accept them—if not today, then perhaps on Report—and that if they cannot, they can explain clearly why.
In closing, I ask the Minister whether any person or company subject to UK sanctions holds a sponsor licence today, and how many revoked sponsors have later obtained a new licence.
Anna Turley
While I recognise the intention behind the new clauses, the Government will not support them, as the effect they seek can already be achieved under the existing sponsor licensing regime—to use the hon. Gentleman’s words, this is already the law. The sponsorship system already provides powers to revoke a sponsor licence where an organisation, or the person controlling that organisation, becomes subject to UN or UK sanctions. It is therefore unnecessary to create an additional statutory requirement in primary legislation. Moreover, prescribing this matter on the face of the Bill would remove the flexibility deliberately provided through the existing sponsor licensing arrangements.
As I have already outlined, but will again reiterate, sponsorship is a privilege, not a right. The Government will not allow individuals and companies—particularly those subject to sanctions—to abuse the sponsorship system. Businesses, individuals and sponsor visa applications remain subject to rigorous checks, and licences will be refused, investigated and revoked where necessary.
The Government have already taken substantial action. As I said, in 2025 we revoked 3,299 sponsor licences—an increase of 950%. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clauses.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 63 concerns English language testing, a topic on which I have tabled many questions to the Home Office, as the Minister will be aware. It would stop the immigration rules allowing fully remote English language tests unless Parliament authorised them in legislation.
This Government have made much of raising English language requirements. Only yesterday, the Home Secretary confirmed that settlement will require English to A-level standard. She said that it is unacceptable for migrants to come here without learning our language. I agree with every word of that, but at the very moment the Government seem to be raising the standards, they are lowering the guard on testing. The Home Office plans to move its English test online or make it “digital by default” without in-person invigilation from late 2027, under a contract worth up to £816 million. In answer to my written questions, Ministers acknowledged the “challenges” posed by AI-assisted cheating. They also confirmed that they intend to pursue remote testing for the “Life in the UK” test as well.
The warnings could not be clearer. In March, the IELTS partnership, the world’s largest provider, withdrew from the tender process, warning that a fully remote test
“would rely on unproven technologies and practices.”
Research by Cambridge University Press has shown that remote testing creates more opportunity for identify fraud, proxy test taking and organised criminal exploitation. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants has moved away from remote exams because of cheating.
The body that runs America’s law school admissions test is ending remote testing over widespread AI-enabled cheating. In Mexico, the country’s leading university ordered 58,000 students to resit their entrance exams in person, after a remote round was riddled with cheating. Australia and Canada have both rejected remote language testing for visa purposes.
However, we need not look abroad. We remember the 2014 scandal, when organised cheating in supervised centres invalidated tens of thousands of results. If fraud on that scale was possible with an invigilator in the room, what does the Minister think will happen when there is no room at all?
Consider the absurdity of where this leads us. A teenager sitting a GCSE is supervised, and a learner driver sitting a theory test must attend a test centre and prove their identity, yet a test that can unlock a visa and, in time, permanent settlement here in the UK would be undertaken sitting at home, in front of a laptop, with nobody checking who is really answering the questions.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Listening to the shadow Minister throughout the day, it is revealing just how deficient the Bill is in tackling the fundamental problems with immigration and asylum policy. Even if the Government do not agree with our new clauses, I invite the Minister—perhaps I should have intervened on her at some point—to address a wider point the shadow Minister is making: how do we deal with all these issues that are simply not addressed in this legislation or anywhere else where the Government say they are acting?
Blake Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. If the Minister cannot answer today, we need to widen the debate on Report and think about the cumulative impact of the holes in the legislation.
The stakes are rising. As English requirements for settlement go up, so does the value of a fraudulent pass. Criminal gangs follow value. A Government who promise to smash the gangs should not be opening a new market for them, which is what moving to English online testing will do. Ministers say that the change will deliver a net benefit to the public purse, but any short-term saving will be swallowed many times over by the cost of fraud, enforcement and, eventually, rebuilding a system that should never have been weakened in the first place.
Early proposals for this contract included physical test centres. Somewhere along the way, they disappeared. Parliament deserves to know why, and it deserves a say before a control this important is quietly dismantled by the Government. Integrity in testing is integrity in the immigration system. I ask the Minister, do the Government still intend to allow fully remote testing and will they publish their assessment of the fraud risk before they do so?
Anna Turley
New clause 63 seeks to prevent the immigration rules from permitting
“any fully remote English Language test to satisfy any requirement to demonstrate knowledge of English,”
unless that is expressly permitted by an Act of Parliament. I want to give the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire some reassurance: the short answer is no, we are not looking to go fully remote.
The contracts for the current secure English language testing service are coming to an end and the Home Office is looking at the next iteration of the service to ensure that policy intent and customer needs can be supported and met. I and other Ministers are discussing this issue because we share the hon. Member’s view that fully remote testing is not appropriate. I will be making sure that this matter is at the heart of those discussions. I will come on to why I do not think the new clause should be on the face of the Bill, but I hope he is reassured that we take this issue as seriously as he does.
The immigration rules exist to set out the detailed requirements of the immigration system, including the means by which an applicant may demonstrate knowledge of English. That allows the Government to adjust those requirements through a well-established procedure, subject to parliamentary oversight, through the existing scrutiny arrangements for the rules, without requiring a new Act of Parliament each time an operational or technical change is needed.
While I of course acknowledge, share and have sympathy with the point the hon. Member is trying to make—it is at the heart of our ongoing discussions—as a matter of general principle, the Government resist amendments of this kind, regardless of the specific subject matter, because they remove operational and technical matters from the rules and place them instead under the control of primary legislation. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East raised the fact that things are missing from the Bill; this is part of the reason why. The vast majority of immigration rules are made through secondary legislation. Where primary legislation is amended by secondary legislation, Parliament often requires the affirmative procedure, which allows an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, as it will allow any legal changes to be debated and authorised by Parliament.
If this new clause is accepted, it will remove the flexibility the Government need to make technical and operational changes to English language testing requirements as circumstances evolve. Rather than being able to respond through the established procedure for amending the rules, any such change will instead require primary legislation, which inevitably takes longer to prepare and is dependent on the availability of parliamentary time.
Blake Stephenson
I totally understand why the Minister is making arguments for new clause 63 not to be on the face of the Bill, but can I ask her to unpack some of her earlier statements? I appreciate that there are commercial sensitivities, but are the Government considering not moving away from in-person testing, or are they still planning to move away from in-person testing, and just discussing the model used and contemplating the safeguards in more detail?
Anna Turley
It is the latter. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman more information at the moment because those things are under discussion, but I and other Ministers are clear that we do not want to move to a fully online service. That would not be appropriate. The correct model is under evaluation and discussion at the moment.
Putting this matter in primary legislation would significantly slow down the Government’s ability to make necessary changes quickly, whether in response to developments in testing technology, evidence of fraud or security risks, or the need to improve accessibility for applicants. In turn, that delay could have an adverse impact on the immigration system and on the applicants who rely on it, who would be left using a testing approach that the Government may have already identified as needing to change simply because the mechanism to change it had become unreasonably slow and burdensome.
I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that any delivery model must meet appropriate integrity requirements and principles, including data security, cyber-security, accessibility, and fraud risk and prevention, to ensure compliance with Home Office policy. As I have said, we are clear that in-person tests must form a key part of that; we cannot have fully online assessments. That will ensure that the service delivers on the fundamental principles underpinning our immigration policies and our visa journey.
We take this matter seriously. Compliance with those requirements will be assessed through the tender process to ensure the strictest compliance with Home Office security parameters. Any form of English language test—remote or otherwise—must also meet rigorous standards of identity verification, security and integrity. As I said, the Government are reviewing the suitability of any testing format, and any future changes to the rules in this area will be subject to the usual scrutiny arrangements. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw the new clause.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for her detailed response and the additional assurances that she has provided from the Dispatch Box—if indeed it is even called the Dispatch Box in a Committee Room. I have asked a lot of questions on this subject, but the answers—together with the response we have received today—do not provide sufficient assurance, so the Minister will forgive me if I press the new clause to a vote to ensure that the measures are included in the Bill.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will speak to new clause 68, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford. In September, MI5 did something that it had never done before: it independently issued a public espionage alert, warning our universities that the China General Technology Research Institute was a front for Chinese intelligence. Its primary purpose, MI5 said, was to fund research that directly improves the espionage capabilities of China’s Ministry of State Security. More than 100 researchers linked to UK institutions had contributed to its projects in artificial intelligence, cyber-security and covert communications—the very capabilities that are used against our own country.
It is unprecedented for our intelligence services to make an intervention of that kind, and we should be clear about what it tells us. Many of those academics did not know who was fully funding their work. The front was designed to be hidden, but that is precisely the point. If our universities lack the systems, the duty and the incentive to spot these warning signs and report them, hostile states will keep exploiting that gap.
This will not be the only example. The absence of clear guidance or regulation from this Government has left our higher education sector vulnerable to Chinese front organisations. UK universities have 34 cyber-security and telecoms partnerships with Chinese institutions, which is roughly equivalent to all 27 member states of the European Union combined, and it is considerably more than even Russia. Of those 34, 13 are with bodies embedded in China’s defence research system, and four hold top secret military research clearance.
The threat is not only to research. Last November, it was reported that Sheffield Hallam university halted its research into Uyghur forced labour after alleged intimidation by Chinese authorities. When a hostile state can silence academic work on this country’s own campuses, the problem goes far beyond intellectual property.
New clause 68 would propose a new responsibility on higher education bodies. Universities that sponsor international students and researchers would be required to report to the Home Office, within five working days, any suspicion that funding or research linked to a sponsored person poses a national security risk. Reports made in good faith would be protected and those who choose to ignore the warning signs would face significant fines.
Why is a legal duty necessary? Our universities depend heavily on international fees and partnerships, which creates a conflict of interest when concerns arise. An institution under financial pressure may be reluctant to raise an alarm that could cost its students funding or a valuable collaboration. A clear legal duty removes that dilemma. It tells every university that reporting is not optional, and it protects those who do the right thing.
Existing schemes vet researchers and students at the point of entry. That matters, but risks do not stop at the border; funding changes hands, partners change and projects evolve. New clause 68 deals with the risks that emerge afterwards, which is exactly where the MI5 alert shows that the danger lies.
The current situation is, in our view, untenable. International collaboration is one of the great strengths of British academia, and nothing in the new clause threatens legitimate partnership at all. However, we cannot accept British universities, knowingly or otherwise, working to increase China’s intelligence, cyber and defence capabilities. The new clause gives the sector the clarity it needs and the Home Office the information it lacks. Finally, I ask the Minister how many higher education sponsor licences have been suspended or revoked on national security grounds.
Anna Turley
As all Members will know and agree, the defence of the realm and the national security of the UK is the first priority for any Government.
While I hope that the Opposition Members will understand that I am unable to provide precise insight into all that we have in place to uphold the UK’s national security on this issue, not only within the education sector, but across all the threats that we face today, I can assure them that the UK already operates a range of robust safeguards designed to manage national security risks associated with international study, research, collaboration and sensitive technologies. These include the academic technology approval scheme, under which certain international students and researchers seeking to study sensitive subjects must obtain approval before commencing their studies.
As Opposition Members can imagine, we also work closely with the higher education sector and relevant Departments to ensure that national security risks are appropriately identified and managed. A prime example of that came earlier this year, when senior leaders from over 70 universities attended a security briefing delivered by MI5 director general Sir Ken McCallum and National Cyber Security Centre CEO Richard Horne to increase the understanding of how foreign interference can manifest, including attempts to shape and censor research or teaching, along with how to resist and report it.
That action took place against the backdrop of £3 million being invested in a package of measures to tackle the issue in our world-class universities. The new academic interference reporting route will enable senior leaders at universities to report concerns directly to the Government, including security services. That will enable individual concerns to be acted on more quickly, while also building a bigger picture of threats facing UK institutions.
Although I agree that universities are already playing an important role in maintaining research integrity and identifying potential concerns, I would say that national security assessments can require specialist expertise and information that may not be available to individual sponsors. This statutory amendment would place broad reporting obligations on higher education providers and require them to make potentially complex national security judgments about what constitutes a national security risk without necessarily having the relevant information or expertise to do so.
Blake Stephenson
If the Government believe that it is inappropriate to put the burden on the universities, what other solutions might they bring forward to deal with the concern that we have raised?
Anna Turley
As I mentioned, I am not at liberty to discuss all the individual actions that we are undertaking. However, as I have set out, we have put in substantial investment, including £3 million, to tackle this issue along with the new academic interference reporting route.
The new clause would introduce enforcement measures, including licence actions and civil penalties linked to reporting obligations that it might be difficult for sponsors to apply consistently in practice. The Government also consider it important that reporting arrangements can adapt as risk and operational requirements evolve. Placing detailed sponsor reporting duties in primary legislation would reduce that flexibility.
The new clause would also likely create significant assessment and reporting burdens and enforcement controls. Sponsors may need to establish new governance arrangements, monitoring processes and reporting mechanisms without the expertise to make those assessments. The Government are therefore not persuaded that a new statutory duty of the type proposed is necessary. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 71—Offence of employing an illegal worker: liability of officers for neglect—
“(1) Section 22 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (offence: bodies corporate, &c) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) If an offence under section 21(1) or (1A) is committed by a body corporate and is attributable to any neglect on the part of an officer of the body, the officer, as well as the body, shall be treated as having committed the offence.
(2B) A person who, at the time of the offence, was shown in the register kept by the registrar of companies as a director or secretary of the body, or as a registrable person with significant control over the body, is to be treated for the purposes of subsections (2) and (2A) as an officer of the body at that time unless the person proves that they had ceased to hold that position before that time.
(2C) The appointment or registration of a new officer, or a change in the persons with significant control over the body, after the time of the offence does not affect the liability of any person under subsection (2) or (2A).’
(3) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) Subsections (2A) to (2C) apply in relation to a partnership as they apply in relation to a body corporate, with references to an officer of the body being read as references to a partner.’”
This new clause would make directors or partners guilty of the offence of employing an individual disqualified from employment by reason of their immigration status if the offence was committed as a result of their neglect, not only with their consent or connivance (as is currently the case).
New clause 72—Unpaid illegal working penalties: disqualification of directors—
“(1) The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 5A insert—
‘5A Disqualification for unpaid illegal working penalties
(1) The court may make a disqualification order against a person where, on an application under this section, it is satisfied that—
(a) a penalty notice has been given under section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 to a company of which that person was a director or shadow director at the time of the contravention,
(b) the whole or part of the penalty remains unpaid at the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which it became payable, and no objection or appeal in respect of it is pending, and
(c) the person’s conduct in relation to the contravention, or to the non-payment of the penalty, makes them unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.
(2) An application under this section may be made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The maximum period of disqualification under this section is 15 years.’”
This new clause would enable directors to be disqualified where a penalty imposed for employing workers without leave to enter or remain in the UK has gone unpaid for six months. It complements NC70 by stopping the same individuals from simply setting up another company.
Blake Stephenson
The aim of the new clause is pretty simple. When a business is caught employing people who have no right to work here, the people who run it at the time should pay and not be able to walk away without consequences. Illegal working is a pull factor to the UK. The promise of cash-in-hand work in a car wash, corner shop or barber’s is what the smuggling gangs sell before people get into the boats in the first place. It undercuts honest employers and exposes vulnerable people to exploitation. That is why the previous Conservative Government tripled the fines up to £60,000 per worker and why my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has pledged more raids on car washes and vape shops where illegal working is concentrated.
In the first half of last year alone, nearly 1,300 penalties were issued, worth almost £70 million, which is a good thing. Ministers would like to talk about record numbers of raids and arrests, and I welcome every single one of them, but a raid is just the beginning. The deterrent is what happens afterwards, and a fine is only a deterrent if it is collected. Under section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, the penalty is a debt of the employer, usually a company, and of no one else, so after a raid, the director resigns and a nominee living abroad, with no assets here, appears at Companies House, or the company is dissolved and a new one opens the following week in the same shop under a slightly different name. The penalty dies with the old company.
That is not a hypothetical scenario. A BBC investigation last November exposed “ghost directors” behind a network of corner shops. People were paid £250 to £300 a month to put their names on businesses that they did not run. One was the registered director of more than 50 businesses. Many of the companies were dissolved after about a year and reopened with small changes to the paperwork. The Insolvency Service tells the same story. A highland takeaway was fined £45,000. One director resigned five days after the raid and the fine was never paid. A Suffolk car wash was fined £180,000. When its director was banned last year, every penny remained unpaid. A Lincolnshire car wash went into liquidation with its £20,000 fine outstanding.
Successive Governments have raised the fines, but none has closed the escape route. The new clause would, and I encourage the Government to accept it, if not today, perhaps on Report. New clause 70 would close the loophole, as it would make the people in charge at the time of the offence—the directors, partners, registered persons with significant control and shadow directors—jointly and severally liable for the penalty. Liability would be fixed at that moment, so appointing a new director, bringing in an overseas owner, renaming the company or dissolving it would make no difference at all. A phoenix business run by the same people or from the same premises would inherit the penalty. If one’s name were on a Companies House register at the time, one would be treated as holding that role. The new clause would deliver fairness, which I know the Government want to deliver through their immigration system. A director who took all reasonable steps or a genuine buyer who paid full value without knowing of the penalty would be protected.
New clause 71 deals with criminal liability. Today, a director is personally guilty of employing an illegal worker only where the company’s offence was committed with their “consent or connivance”. Almost every comparable regulatory offence adds “or neglect”. New clause 71 would add neglect so that a director who never asks whether right to work checks are done and is careful not to know can no longer escape. New clause 72 would allow the Secretary of State to seek the disqualification of directors whose company leaves a penalty unpaid for six months so that the same people cannot simply start again on the merry-go-round.
I ask the Minister: how much of the illegal working penalty income from each of the last five years has actually been collected, and how much was written off because the company was dissolved? I appreciate that she may not have that on the tip of her tongue, but those are important questions. If she accepts the principle but does not accept the new clauses, will she table her own amendment on Report? A fine that is never paid is no deterrent. A loophole this well known is an invitation to do the wrong thing. I commend new clause 70 to the Committee.
Anna Turley
I agree that illegal working undermines honest employers, undercuts legitimate wages and fuels the industry of immigration crime. I am determined to clamp down on illegal activity in every sector. I will continue to pursue rogue employers, protect vulnerable workers and ensure that those who break our immigration laws face the consequences. We have expanded efforts across Government and law enforcement to target, investigate and enforce penalties on unscrupulous employers who illegally employ individuals with no right to work in the UK.
I beg the Committee’s indulgence: I want to give a bit more detail on the work that we are undertaking at the moment. Immigration enforcement has had a very busy year. Between 1 January and 31 June, 7,220 illegal working visits were carried out, resulting in 4,756 arrests—a 31% increase on visits and a 20% increase on arrests, compared with 2025. It has been the most successful start to a year on record for illegal working enforcement activity. Over that period, more than 1,200 businesses found to be employing people illegally were issued with a civil penalty, which means that they face significant fines of more than £74 million.
All employers in the UK are required to carry out prescribed right to work checks prior to employing someone of any nationality. The right to work scheme is underpinned by civil and criminal sanctions for non-compliance. In February 2024, the civil penalty levels for illegal working increased. The starting point increased from £15,000 to £45,000, and for repeat offenders it went up from £20,000 to £60,000 per illegal worker. That helped to strengthen the deterrent effect of the civil penalty scheme, and increased the consequences for employers who fail to comply with their legal responsibilities.
Blake Stephenson
I appreciate the numbers that the Minister is stating in order to demonstrate the Home Office’s enforcement work, but do she and the Government accept that the loopholes I outlined are very real, and that they ought to be closed somehow in legislation?
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s points, and I will come to them; I was just setting out the background and what is currently being done.
An employer’s legal duty to prevent illegal working is a key element of our enforcement framework. Section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 provides for a civil penalty where an employer employs an individual who is disqualified from carrying out the work in question by reason of their immigration status. An employer may establish an excuse against civil penalty liability by complying with prescribed requirements. Those include compliant right-to-work checks or where extended liability applies the relevant prescribed requirements for those arrangements.
From October 2026, the right-to-work scheme was extended to specify additional working arrangements, including engagement under a worker’s contract, and individual subcontracting and online matching service—such as for Uber drivers or Just Eat and other delivery drivers. Extended civil liability also applies to certain non-direct contractual arrangements for the provision of work or services. Employers must ensure that individuals are permitted to carry out the work in question. Right-to-work checks establish whether an individual is permitted undertake that work, including any restrictions on the type of work or hours that they may work.
Depending on the circumstances and any applicable legal requirements, illegal working may result in the sanctions we have discussed or the following consequences: a civil penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker, or, in criminal cases, a conviction for illegally employing a person, which carries a sentence of up to five years and/or an unlimited fine. Those exploiting migrants could face criminal convictions for facilitation or trafficking offences and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, closure of the business and a compliance order issued by the court, disqualification as a director, not being able to sponsor migrants that travel to the UK, the seizure of earnings made as a result of illegal working and the review and possible revocation of a licence in the alcohol and late-night refreshment sector or private hire vehicle and taxi sector.
I have given that lengthy background to set out the context. I think the point that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire is making in the new clauses is the right one. We have to ensure that we enforce this, but as I said, there is a clear and comprehensive illegal working system with a whole range of penalties that can be used. We are expanding our efforts to ensure that we target, investigate and enforce those penalties on unscrupulous employers who illegally employ individuals with no right to work in the UK. We have introduced significant changes to strengthen the illegal working regime and extended the right-to-work scheme. As I said, our immediate priority is to ensure that these changes, which we have just implemented, are applied effectively. We will continue to assess how they work in practice and, in the light of that evaluation, consider whether further steps are needed to strengthen the regime.
The hon. Gentleman has made important points in Committee that I am sure we will continue to consider and review, but, alongside the changes in the Bill, we have already introduced a range of sanctions to tackle illegal working. We want to make effective use of the powers that we have, rather than introduce the additional provisions proposed in the new clauses.
I would also point to our track record, which I have outlined, to show how seriously we are taking the issue of illegal working. Immigration enforcement activity has increased significantly since we came to power. There has been a 122% increase in arrests relating to illegal working, on the two-year period immediately prior to the election, and a 111% increase in visits to businesses across the UK suspected of using illegal workers, with 25,000 visits. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand the urgency and determination with which we are undertaking that activity. I am afraid that we cannot accept the new clauses.
Blake Stephenson
The new clause is about the substance in law, not necessarily enforcement. We think that the substance in law needs to be tightened up, so I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 69, in clause 50, page 52, line 1, at end insert—
“(1A) Where any provision of this Act includes a power to make regulations and such provision or regulations would affect—
(a) the identification of victims of slavery and human trafficking in Scotland,
(b) the provision of support to victims of slavery and human trafficking in Scotland, or
(c) any duties on Scottish public authorities relating to tackling slavery and human trafficking in Scotland,
the Secretary of State must consult with and receive consent from Scottish Ministers before making such regulations.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with and receive consent from Scottish Ministers before making regulations relating to slavery and human trafficking which affect Scotland.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 134.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 127.
Clause 51 stand part.
Government amendments 128, 135, 129, 136 and 46.
Clauses 52 and 53 stand part.
Siân Berry
It is great to have you finishing up the Committee for us, Dr Murrison.
I have tabled amendment 69 in relation to clause 50 and part 1. That area of the Bill gives the Secretary of State quite broad power to make regulations that are consequential to the Bill. As it stands, the Bill has quite a range of implications for Scottish trafficking laws and how they are carried out. The amendment aims to ensure that the Government receive consent from Scottish Ministers before introducing regulations affecting slavery and human trafficking.
The amendment refers in particular to clause 11, which creates a new legal procedure for claim notices requiring people to notify the Home Office of any reasons or grounds for why they should be allowed to enter, remain or not be removed from the UK. In that respect, the Bill tries to shift the burden of responsibility on to survivors by creating the obligation to treat a failure to disclose relevant details at the earliest opportunity as damaging to one’s credibility.
The way things are looked at in Scottish law seem to be different from the English approach. This kind of restrictive approach to vulnerable groups seeking sanctuary in the UK seems to contradict the commitments in Scotland to the UN refugee convention and the UK’s obligations under the inter-agency co-ordination group against trafficking. Those obligations require victim identification procedures to take into account the possibility of trauma, coercion and subsequent delayed disclosure. The amendment would help by forcing the Government to look again at how clause 11 might interfere with the obligation placed on Scottish Ministers via the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 to provide support to victims of trafficking.
Section 9 of that Act requires Scottish Ministers to secure necessary support and assistance for adult victims of human trafficking, and gives Scottish Ministers their own statutory duty. That duty is triggered by a reasonable grounds decision. The new credibility penalty in clause 11 seems therefore to conflict with the statutory framework established by the 2015 Act and with the approach enshrined within it—a fundamental human rights approach to believing survivors.
That statutory inconsistency between the two provisions poses a question of how reserved powers within the Bill and devolved functions will interact. Consideration must be given to the Bill’s implications for those devolved powers, particularly in relation to trafficking frameworks, and to whether the Bill’s provisions can be enacted without undermining existing statutory duties in Scotland.
I worked with the Scottish Refugee Council on the amendment. It recommends that Scotland should maintain its greater flexibility to provide secure immigration status for trafficking survivors, and its goals of supporting recovery and reducing the risk of re-trafficking. To do that, the Bill should explicitly protect the operation of the 2015 Act and preserve Scottish Ministers’ discretion to provide support. The amendment is therefore needed to ensure that UK immigration measures do not impede the fulfilment of devolved duties on trafficking.
Although I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote, I hope that the Government will look again and discuss this matter further with Scottish Ministers before the Bill’s final stages.
Blake Stephenson
We have reached the final provisions of the Bill—“Hurrah!”, I hear everyone say. These provisions cover regulations, extent and commencement. Such clauses are often treated as housekeeping, but how and when the Bill comes into force decides whether anything in it actually happens. And here the Government’s amendments tell a revealing story.
Government amendment 134 would mean that regulations made under the core protection powers are subject to affirmative procedure where they amend primary legislation. That is right; where Ministers change Acts of Parliament, Parliament should be able to vote. I only wish that the Government had applied that principle consistently. My amendment 142 would have done the same for regulations exempting further categories of people from contributing to the cost of their asylum support. As drafted, Ministers can widen those exemptions by negative procedure without a single vote. If the principle is good enough for Government amendment 134, it is good enough for amendment 142.
Government amendments 127 to 129 and 136 deal with extent to the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, and with aligning commencement dates with the provisions that they amend. They are technical amendments, and you will be pleased to hear, Dr Murrison, that we do not intend to divide the Committee on them.
Government amendment 135 deserves the Committee’s attention, however. As the Bill was introduced, part 3—on core protection—would have come into force automatically two months after Royal Assent. Under Government amendment 135, it will come into force only when the Secretary of State chooses to make regulations. A fixed date of implementation has become an open-ended discretion. Government amendment 46 gives the Lord Chancellor a new power to rewrite tribunal rules around the start of the new appeals authority, again by negative procedure and with no vote required.
The Government can move quickly when they want to. Government amendment 47 brings the new deportation provisions into force on Royal Assent. The question, then, is not whether Ministers can set a firm date, but why, on the central reforms of the asylum system, they are now choosing not to. The Government’s message on asylum has been about urgency: “The system is broken and must be fixed.” Yet when it comes to the provisions that are meant to fix it, the start date slips from a certainty to a maybe. We saw the same pattern on settlement this week. It started with a policy announced a year ago; it was delayed from April to the autumn; and when it finally arrived, it was softened. There is tough language, but the Government are quietly kicking the can down the road.
Amendment 69 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion would require the Secretary of State not only to consult Scottish Ministers, but to obtain their consent before making any regulations under the Bill that affect the identification or support of victims of modern slavery in Scotland or the duties of Scottish public authorities.
I recognise that victim support in Scotland operates within a devolved framework. Ministers should talk to their Scottish counterparts, but consultation and consent are very different things indeed. Consent is a veto. Immigration is a reserved matter and the national referral mechanism is a UK-wide system—one that is too often used by those facing removal to delay it. Handing the Scottish Government a block on changes to that system would create precisely the kind of divergence that people smugglers and those rigging our laws are quick to exploit. There has been an obvious pattern throughout the Committee where the Green party has tabled amendments to leave out clause after clause of the Bill. Amendment 69 is another attempt to slow down a system that already moves far too slowly, and we will oppose it.
Earlier in the Committee, we sought to put deadlines in the Bill, requiring the first time period regulations to be made within six months of the new authority being established and limiting how long cases could be routed back to the first-tier tribunal. The Government did not accept them. Amendment 135 shows why they were needed. Without dates in law, there is nothing to hold Ministers to. I therefore ask the Minister two questions. First, will she set out a timetable for commencing each part of the Bill? In particular, when does she expect part 3 to come into force? Secondly, why have the Government moved part 3 from automatic commencement to commencement by regulations, and will she commit to publishing that date before Report? If the Government are serious about fixing the system, they should be willing to say when.
As this is likely to be the last time I speak in this Committee, I thank you, Dr Murrison, and the Chairs of previous sittings; the Clerks, for their very patient work indeed on a substantial amendment paper; and the Minister and Members on all sides for this debate. We have disagreed—often sharply, but politely. The Committee has given these issues the scrutiny they deserve and we will no doubt return to many of them on Report.
Anna Turley
As we have heard, amendment 69 would require the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers and obtain their consent before exercising any regulation-making powers in the Bill in a way that relates to the identification or support of victims of slavery and human trafficking in Scotland or affects any duties on Scottish public authorities relating to tackling slavery and trafficking.
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling the amendment. I want to reassure her that we are cognisant of Scottish Ministers’ powers in this area. We have worked closely with the Scottish Government throughout the development of these provisions and are committed to working closely throughout the further stages of the Bill. My predecessor and I have both engaged our devolved counterparts on the measures in the Bill and we are seeking legislative consent for any of the provisions as appropriate. We will continue to engage the Scottish Government throughout the legislative process to resolve any issues relating to devolution.
While we continue to have those discussions, it would not be appropriate to support the amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers on all regulations in part 5, even those both the UK and Scottish Government agree are reserved. The provisions in the Bill are framed to reflect our understanding of the devolution settlement in Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland and Wales. It is important to clarify that it is not appropriate to give the Scottish Government any kind of veto on an issue like this, because we are talking about immigration. The decision-making process here has significant impacts on the operation of the immigration system, including protection from removal, which arises from the recovery period. Seeking to devolve the entire identification process would be in direct conflict with the Home Secretary’s immigration functions, which are reserved. The Bill does not change that position, so I am afraid we will oppose the amendment.
Clauses 50 to 53 contain general provisions that are typical housekeeping elements in this kind of legislation. Clause 50 allows for the Secretary of State to make consequential or minor provisions under the Act by regulations. Clause 51 confirms that the extent of the Act will apply to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 52 confirms the Secretary of State’s ability to specify through regulations when the Bill will come into force, confirms that the measures listed under clause 52(3) will come into force on the day of Royal Assent and those listed under 52(4) will come into force two months after Royal Assent. It also specifies when certain elements from part 1 can come into force, including their interdependencies with previous pieces of legislation.
To respond to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire’s point about timeframes, it is not normal to commence provisions earlier than two months after Royal Assent. The measures of the Bill to commence on Royal Assent are those where we consider there is justification for their early commencement, such as allowing preparatory work by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to establish the new repayment mechanism. The Bill is drafted so that some other measures will start commencing from two months after Royal Assent, namely the core protection measures. The remaining measures will need to be commenced by regulations, and this will be done at the earliest practicable opportunity.
Tom Gordon
I will relay the Minister’s remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, and I echo her sentiments and those of the Opposition spokesperson about the way in which this debate has been conducted throughout.
Anna Turley
I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to pose another devastating challenge. I hope hon. Members feel the intentness with which we listened and absorbed the discussion and debate. Many things from this Committee will influence a lot of our thinking.
To conclude, I just want to say a few more things on the Bill. We are proud of the protection that we provide in this country to those fleeing war and terror. However, we also know we must bear down on abuse and restore order and control to our borders. This Bill provides protection to those in need while bearing down on abuse of the system. It ensures swift and fair decisions, giving sanctuary to those in need while removing those with no right to remain. It provides robust legal protections while tackling abuse of human rights laws. It ensures that the right to support comes with responsibilities and expectations on those who receive it.
Abuse of our system is eroding public support for the very idea of providing asylum at all. This Bill ensures that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and earns the consent of the British people, who are open, tolerant and generous, but rightly expect that we restore order and control to our borders.
Siân Berry
I echo some of the comments from other hon. Members on the Committee and thank the Minister for engaging with the many amendments I have tabled to the Bill, because I think they are necessary. I believe that the Bill does not reflect the long-held British value of welcoming refugees, which is still the view of the majority of people in our country. I do not think that obstructive and unfair processes, damaging attitudes and downgrading human rights will stop the criminal gangs or the boats, or tackle the lack of safe routes, which feeds the market for that kind of organised crime. However, I believe that we have had a constructive debate about many of these things, and Parliament will hopefully convince the Minister and the Home Secretary to think again. I also very much appreciate the excellent chairing that we have had.
Finally, I want to thank the many different charities, grassroots support networks, non-governmental organisations and independent experts who have helped and supported the scrutiny I have given to the Bill, not least the Refugee Council—an amazing organisation that rightly essentially won “The Traitors” last week, after Romesh Ranganathan gave his well-deserved prize money to support their work. May they long continue to be faithful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 134, in clause 50, page 52, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) regulations under section (Core protection: amendments) which amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation (within the meaning of that section);”.—(Anna Turley.)
This amendment is consequential on NC36. The effect of it would be that regulations made under the power in the new clause inserted by NC36 would be subject to the affirmative procedure if they amended primary legislation, and otherwise subject to the negative procedure.
Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Extent
Amendment made: 127, in clause 51, page 52, line 21, at end insert—
“(3) Paragraph 21 of Schedule 1 (and section 1(3) so far as relating to that paragraph) also extends to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories within the meaning of the British Nationality Act 1981 (see section 50(1) of that Act).
(4) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide—
(a) for any of the provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modification, to the Isle of Man, and
(b) for any of the provisions of Parts 3 and 4, and this Part so far as relating to Parts 3 and 4, to extend, with or without modification, to the Bailiwick of Guernsey.
(5) A power under any provision listed in subsection (6) may be exercised—
(a) so as to extend (with or without modification) to the Isle of Man any amendment or repeal made by or under this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates;
(b) so as to extend (with or without modification) to the Bailiwick of Jersey any amendment or repeal made by or under Part 2 or 5 of this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates;
(c) so as to extend (with or without modification) to the Bailiwick of Guernsey any amendment or repeal made by or under Part 2, 3 or 4 of this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates.
(6) Those provisions are—
(a) section 36 of the Immigration Act 1971;
(b) section 9(3) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997;
(c) section 170(7) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
(d) section 163(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;
(e) section 49(3) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004;
(f) section 63(3) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006;
(g) section 60(4) of the UK Borders Act 2007;
(h) section 60(6) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015;
(i) section 95(5) of the Immigration Act 2016;
(j) section 86(4) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022;
(k) section 64(4) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.”—(Anna Turley.)
This amendment provides for the consequential amendment of the British Nationality Act 1981 in paragraph 21 of Schedule 1 to the Bill to extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories. The amendment also provides powers for other provisions of the Bill to be extended to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Commencement
Amendments made: 128, in clause 52, page 52, line 23, leave out “(5)” and insert “(5B)”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 129 and 136.
Government amendment 47, in clause 52, page 52, line 30, at end insert—
“(ba) section (Liability to deportation of certain residents despite section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971);”.
This amendment would mean that the new clause inserted by NC5 would come into force on Royal Assent.
Government amendment 135, in clause 52, page 52, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would change the way in which Part 3 (core protection) is commenced, so that instead of it commencing automatically two months after Royal Assent it would be commenced by regulations.
Government amendment 129, in clause 52, page 53, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Section (Enforcement of decisions of the Immigration Services Commissioner) comes into force at the time when paragraphs 9 and 14 of Schedule 1 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 come fully into force.”
This amendment makes provision about the commencement of the new clause inserted by amendment NC33.
Government amendment 136, in clause 52, page 53, line 7, at end insert—
“(5B) In Schedule (Core protection: amendments)—
(a) paragraph 9(c) comes into force at the same time as paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 11 to the Immigration Act 2016;
(b) paragraph 28 comes into force at the same time as section 59(3) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 comes fully into force;
(c) paragraph 51 comes into force at the same time section 135 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 comes into force.”
This amendment would delay the commencement of three amendments made by the new Schedule inserted by NS1, so that they come into force only when provisions being amended are brought into force.
Government amendment 46, in clause 52, page 53, line 25, at end insert—
“(11) The Lord Chancellor may by rules made by statutory instrument make amendments to Tribunal Procedure Rules in connection with regulations under subsection (1) that bring Part 1 into force.
(12) Before making rules under subsection (11), the Lord Chancellor must consult the Senior President of Tribunals.
(13) A statutory instrument containing rules under subsection (11) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Anna Turley.)
This amendment would give the Lord Chancellor the power to amend Tribunal Procedure Rules in connection with the commencement of the powers of the IIAA. This may be especially needed if commencement regulations make the kind of provision mentioned in clause 52(8). (See also amendment 43.)
Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I would like to reflect on everyone’s comments in conclusion to today’s proceedings, which were well made, and add my own. I thank officials and all colleagues for the thoughtful way in which they have approached these matters.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Social Housing Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Social Housing Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2026 - (3 Nov 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders. Please switch electronic devices to silent mode. No food or drink is permitted during the sittings, other than the water provided. Hansard would be grateful if Members could email their notes or pass them to the Hansard colleague in the room.
New Clause 36
Fiscal impact assessment
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the fiscal impact of this Act.
(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) any impact on local authority finances;
(b) an analysis of the extent to which social housing represents value for money for Government expenditure; and
(c) any changes to the financial ability of social housing tenants to access Right to Buy.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a fiscal impact assessment of the Act.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 54—Review of the impact of this Act on home ownership—
“(1) Within two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact of this Act on the number of social housing tenants becoming homeowners in the previous year, relative to each of the preceding ten years.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of this Act on—
(a) the number of Right to Buy applications,
(b) the number of completed Right to Buy purchases, and
(c) the ages of former social tenants who successfully purchased their homes through Right to Buy,
in the calendar year prior to the review.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this review before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require a review of the impact of this Act on rates of home ownership among social housing tenants.
New clause 59—Review of the impact of the Act—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct and publish a review of the impact on the Act on—
(a) the supply and retention of social housing;
(b) the extent to which social housing tenants’ rights are protected by the provisions of the Act;
(c) the exercise of the right to buy; and,
(d) the exercise of the right to acquire.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review before Parliament together with a statement setting out any proposed actions in response to its findings.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the impact of the Act on the supply and retention of social housing, tenants' rights, and Right to Buy and Right to Acquire.
Gareth Bacon
Good morning, Mr Vickers. It is nice to resume our proceedings under your chairmanship.
The Bill will change how social housing is funded, how receipts are used and who can afford to buy their home. Understandably, that will create unhelpful uncertainty for local authorities and social housing providers and, by extension, for tenants. Local authorities are right to be anxious, because clause 10 hands the Secretary of State sweeping powers over capital receipts, and councils cannot plan if they do not know what they will lose or gain.
New clause 36 would simply require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to publish and lay before Parliament a fiscal impact assessment. It must examine the effect on local authority finances, whether social housing offers value for money for the taxpayer and how the Bill changes tenants’ financial ability to use right to buy. If the Government are confident in their figures, they have nothing to fear from publishing them.
The Bill represents an assault on the aspiration of social housing tenants to own their own homes. It is an ideological attack on a policy that, for over 40 years, has given millions of people the opportunity to get on the housing ladder who might otherwise never have been able to do so. By extending the qualifying period and slashing discounts, the Government are effectively seeking to abolish people’s right to buy their own home, and to force residents into renting for longer and longer.
My new clause 54 would therefore require a review of the impact of the Bill on the rates of home ownership among social housing tenants. The impact assessment shows a dramatic projected decline in right-to-buy sales within the first two years of the Bill coming into force, with sales nearly halving. With little effort to support people on to the housing ladder, and with cuts to measures such as first-time buyer stamp duty relief, the Government are tearing up not only one of the most effective routes to home ownership for social housing tenants, but one of the only routes, full stop. That is why it is critical that we understand the Bill’s full impact and demonstrate the disaster that awaits social housing tenants who aspire not just to live in their own home, but to own it.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak to new clause 59, which, in a similar spirit to the official Opposition’s new clauses 36 and 54, asks that the Secretary of State carry out a review. My new clause asks that the review takes place 12 months after Royal Assent.
We come at this with a different aspiration: I feel the Opposition amendments have been tabled to catch the Government out, whereas we support the objectives of the Bill. However, although we support the changes to right to buy and the tightening of stock disposal, it is only right that the House be able to see, via a review by the Secretary of State within 12 months, whether those objectives have indeed been met or whether we need to legislate further to continue to protect social housing stock, on which we are in full agreement with the Government.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I will speak to new clauses 36, 54 and 59. Members of the Committee will have heard my opinion of the merits of Opposition amendments that seek further statutory reviews in general, so they can guess where I am heading with some of these.
Although we share the aim of ensuring that the impact of our reforms is properly understood, the Government do not believe that further statutory review requirements are necessary or proportionate. We have already published an economic impact assessment. We have arrangements in place to monitor the effects of the Act. The impact on businesses is expected to be de minimis, with estimated direct costs well below £1 million.
New clause 59 would specifically require a review within 12 months covering the supply and retention of social housing, tenants’ rights, the right to buy and the right to acquire. Many of the measures in the Bill will take time to bed in, so a statutory review within that timeframe risks providing only a partial picture of their impact. More broadly, the Government already publish comprehensive data on social housing sales and demolitions, right-to-buy sales and replacements, local authority housing stock levels and new affordable housing supply, including detailed local authority-level data. We will continue to monitor the impact of the reforms through these existing datasets and established statistical releases. We therefore do not think that new clause 59 is warranted.
On the specific issue of home ownership raised by new clause 54, a core aim of the right-to-buy measures in the Bill is to ensure that social homes are not sold off without being replaced. I therefore agree with hon. Members about the importance of monitoring these reforms and their impact. However, imposing additional statutory review requirements would risk duplicating existing analysis without providing a more meaningful assessment of the Act’s effects. The Government’s priority is to implement these important reforms and monitor their impact effectively through the arrangements already in place. For those reasons, I am afraid we cannot accept new clauses 36, 54 and 59.
Gareth Bacon
I have listened carefully to the Minister. In the light of what he says, we will withdraw new clause 36. However, when the time comes, we will press new clause 54 to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 37
Provision of social housing: foreign public office holders and associated persons
“(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance concerning the provision of social housing by foreign public office holders.
(2) A local housing authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning applications for social housing made by foreign public office holders and associated persons including—
(a) persons holding senior public office in a foreign state; and
(b) spouses or civil partners of such persons;
(3) Guidance under subsection (1) may include provision relating to—
(a) public office holders subject to sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom;
(b) disclosure requirements; and
(c) verification of overseas assets.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay any guidance issued under this section before Parliament.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would require guidance relating to social housing eligibility for certain foreign public office holders and associated persons.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Every home that is illegally sublet is a home taken from a family who need it. With waiting lists as long as they are, that is nothing short of theft from the public. It is also unfair to the many tenants who play by the rules. We know that the problem exists, yet we have little idea of how well it is being tackled. How many prosecutions are brought? How many properties are actually recovered? What stops landlords and councils acting?
The new clause answers those questions. Within 12 months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of enforcement activity. It would set out the number of prosecutions, the number of properties recovered and the barriers to enforcement. The Bill claims to be about making better use of social housing stock. Freeing up homes that are being misused is the obvious place to start.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling and speaking to the new clause. The Government want to ensure that social housing is used effectively and efficiently to meet housing need. Tackling illegal subletting is an important element of that. We are clear that landlords should be taking action to clamp down on such unacceptable practices. I very much agree with the shadow Minister’s comments about how unacceptable they are; they are a misuse of social housing.
New clause 38 would require the Secretary of State, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to publish and lay before Parliament a review of the effectiveness of enforcement activity relating to the illegal subletting of social housing. The review would have to include information on numbers of prosecutions, numbers of properties recovered and any barriers to enforcement.
As I have already set out, the Government are undertaking a review of social housing stock management that specifically considers unlawful subletting and tenancy fraud. It would be premature, in our view, to legislate for a separate enforcement review before that work has concluded. The findings of the stock management review will inform any future action; I can give the shadow Minister that assurance.
In addition, much of the information that the new clause seeks to collect is already collected through other sources, including local authority housing statistics. New statutory reporting requirements would add limited value, while placing additional burdens on local authorities and registered providers. The shadow Minister is a man who wants to deregulate and remove burdens, so I am again surprised that he is urging the Government to add new burdens and requirements on local authorities. In our view, they are not warranted; we think they would risk diverting resources away from frontline housing management and service delivery.
Where unlawful occupation of social housing properties occurs, the Government expect landlords to take active steps to tackle fraud and ensure that social housing is used fairly, which may include taking legal action. The Government are already taking targeted action to detect tenancy fraud and recover social homes. Through the Cabinet Office’s national fraud initiative, tenancy records from local councils and participating housing associations are routinely cross-matched against wider public sector data to identify unlawfully occupied properties, saving the public purse an estimated £78,300 for every home recovered.
On 8 July, the Government also announced a new innovative data-sharing partnership between the Public Sector Fraud Authority and Airbnb. This first-of-its-kind agreement, led by the PSFA within the Cabinet Office, will ensure that social housing properties remain there for families who need them, not in the hands of criminals. This is a clear example of the Government taking action on fraud. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.
Gareth Bacon
On balance, I will accede to the Minister’s request. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 39
Standards relating to maintenance of social housing
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance relating to standards for the maintenance of social housing.
(2) Guidance under this section must include detailed instructions for full compliance with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 (S.I. 2025/1042).
(3) Guidance under this section must also include provision relating to—
(a) damp and mould,
(b) electrical safety,
(c) response times for repairs, and
(d) tenant complaints procedures.
(4) Registered providers must have regard to guidance issued under this section.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would require the Government to issue guidance relating to maintenance standards in social housing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 47—Social responsibilities of registered providers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance concerning the social responsibilities of registered providers of social housing.
(2) Guidance under this section must include consideration of—
(a) tenant wellbeing,
(b) estate management,
(c) anti-social behaviour,
(d) community engagement,
(e) neighbourhood quality, and
(f) support for vulnerable tenants.”
This new clause would require the Government to provide guidance on the wider social responsibilities of registered providers.
New clause 48—Review of registered providers of social housing: governance—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a review of the governance arrangements of registered providers of social housing.
(2) The review under this section must consider—
(a) board composition;
(b) accountability to local communities;
(c) the role of elected representatives;
(d) tenant representation;
(e) transparency and scrutiny arrangements; and
(f) the publication of performance information.
(3) A report of the review must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
This probing new clause would require a review of governance arrangements within registered providers of social housing.
New clause 49—Social housing governance standards—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance on minimum governance standards for registered providers of social housing.
(2) Guidance under this section must include provision on
(a) financial transparency,
(b) tenant representation, and
(c) publication of performance criteria.”
This new clause seeks to strengthen governance and transparency among registered providers.
New clause 50—Attendance before local authority scrutiny committees—
“(1) A senior officer of a registered provider of social housing must attend a meeting of a local authority overview and scrutiny committee if—
(a) complaints have been made about the performance of the registered provider in relation to the quality or provision of social housing, and
(b) the registered provider is requested to attend the meeting by that authority.
(2) Subsection (1) applies only where the registered provider owns or manages more than 10% of the social housing stock within the authority’s area.”
This new clause would enable local authorities to require senior housing association representatives to attend scrutiny committee meetings.
New clause 51—Quarterly performance information—
“(1) Registered providers of social housing must, within six months of the passing of this Act and every three months thereafter, publish quarterly performance information.
(2) The information published must include—
(a) repairs which are not completed within 6 months,
(b) complaints received and upheld,
(c) instances of antisocial behaviour,
(d) percentage of tenants satisfied with their housing service, and
(e) number of properties void for longer than three months.”
This new clause would require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information.
New clause 61—Social housing quality standards—
“After section 92K (fundamental objectives), of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, insert—
‘923KA Quality standards
(1) In discharging the regulator’s objectives under subsection (3) of section 92K (fundamental objectives), the regulator must, within twelve months of the passing of the Social Housing Act 2027, publish—
(a) specific quality standards (the “Home and Place Standard”) for social housing; and
(b) a methodology for assessing providers against those standards.
(2) The Home and Place Standard published under this section must include provision on—
(a) the quality of—
(i) homes,
(ii) service to tenants, and
(iii) surrounding environment, including green space and access to transport links; and
(b) the long-term environmental sustainability of social housing developments.’”
This new clause would require the Regulator of Social Housing to publish a new Home and Place Standard, along with plans to assess social housing providers against those standards.
Gareth Bacon
Every hon. Member will have heard from constituents living with damp, mould, faulty wiring or repairs that never arrive. The death of Awaab Ishak shamed this country, and we all promised that it would never happen again. Since then, the Government have introduced new housing regulations, but regulations alone do not help a landlord who is unsure what compliance looks like, or a tenant who does not know what to expect.
New clause 39 attempts to fill that gap. Within 12 months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State would be required to publish guidance including detailed instructions for full compliance with the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025. It would also cover damp, mould, electrical safety, response time for repairs and complaints procedures. Registered providers would have to have regard to it. Clear standards protect tenants and give good landlords certainty.
On new clause 47, social homes are safe havens for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Whether they face destitution, abuse or persecution, some of those with the greatest need in our society find their safety and peace in social housing, yet for too many residents, estates are poorly managed, antisocial behaviour is rife and tenants are unsupported. Residents must not bear the burden of poor management practices. My new clause 47 would therefore require the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to publish guidance on the social responsibilities of providers.
Up and down the country, many providers already exercise good practice and due diligence and uphold their social responsibilities. However, there exists a small fraction within the system who do not fulfil their responsibilities as required. New clause 47 would strengthen the Government’s hand in ensuring and enforcing good practices and would give tenants greater protections against unscrupulous behaviours.
On new clause 48, social housing is not an issue that ends with the housing of vulnerable people; it begins with it. Once homes are found for those in need, it is vital that registered providers be properly managed, run and governed. At present, I believe that not enough is done to ensure that. My new clause 48, a probing clause, would therefore require a review of governance arrangements within registered providers of social housing. It should not be the case that, just because someone is vulnerable, they have little say in how their estate is run, who runs it or what agreements are being made. That is why new clause 48 has a specific focus on key points such as accountability to local communities. We want to see a fair and accountable social housing sector, and I call on the Minister to assure the Committee of that future here today.
On new clause 49, registered providers are responsible for nearly 3 million homes—about 63% of all the homes that make up the national social housing stock. In some parts of the country, housing association stock outweighs that of local authorities by huge margins. In the north-west, 86% of stock is owned by private registered providers. Tenants in such housing deserve nothing less than openness and clarity about how their estates are run. New clause 49 would require the Secretary of State to publish, within 12 months of Royal Assent, guidance on minimum governance standards, covering financial transparency, tenant representation and publication of performance criteria. New clause 49 is a probing amendment. It aims for clearer standards, not red tape. It makes a simple and straightforward ask, and I hope the Minister will give assurances on that point.
On new clause 50, social housing residents deserve accountability. Where life has dealt a weak hand, where the unexpected has created hardship or where vulnerabilities have led to inhibitions, social housing should be a fair, open and accountable backstop. That is why new clause 50 seeks to enable local authorities to require senior housing association representatives to attend scrutiny committee meetings. For the most vulnerable in society, protections are essential, so it is necessary to scrutinise the performance of registered providers. As I say, the vast majority of providers are fair, efficient and honest, but it is unfair on tenants to assume that without checking. That is why I tabled new clause 50.
Finally, on new clause 51, across the public and private sectors it is good practice to evaluate and publicise the performance of any department, business or team. The same practice should apply to registered housing providers. That is why I tabled new clause 51, which would require housing associations to publish quarterly performance information, including on vital indicators such as repairs left incomplete after six months, complaints, antisocial behaviour, levels of tenant satisfaction and void properties. Those are critical issues that cannot be left unsolved in an efficient and trustworthy social housing system.
Mr Dillon
I rise to speak in support of my new clause 61, which is a probing amendment. As the new clause outlines, a home and place standard would be a design and place-making framework for an organisation to enable the measurement of housing quality, to guide strategic investment and to shape resident wellbeing. The core pillars of such a standard should focus on customers, on homes and on the place. It should also make sure that social housing providers are part of a sustainable future.
Although it may not be appropriate to mandate in the Bill a standard on to private registered providers, I would be keen to hear from the Minister how his Department is shaping the future standards for the sector and encouraging those PRPs to go further: to think beyond just their bricks and mortar, and about where their homes are situated, about the role they play on an estate, about the role that they can play in a town, about encouraging sustainable transport into new developments and about having a holistic approach to what makes social housing so important and making it even more successful.
Matthew Pennycook
I will begin by speaking to new clause 39. I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments on standards and decency. It is reassuring to know that his deregulatory zeal does not extend to Awaab’s law, the decent homes standard or minimum energy efficiency standards.
As well as delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation, we are determined to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing. Maintenance is a critical part of that. We have set out the standards required for social housing through the decent homes standard. In the coming months, we will provide more detailed guidance on how landlords can meet that standard. We have also published electrical safety guidance that sets out rights and responsibilities for landlords, local authorities and tenants.
On complaints, social landlords are already subject to the Housing Ombudsman’s statutory complaint handling code. We are working closely with the ombudsman to ensure that it has the resources and capacity to meet increased demand and support better complaint handling by landlords. We have also introduced Awaab’s law, with its clear time-bound requirements on social landlords to investigate hazards and take action. Ahead of phase 2 of that law coming into force on 30 November, we have published updated guidance to support landlords to comply with its requirements.
Awaab’s law promotes a person-centred approach, putting the need to make individuals safe at the heart of legislation. Again, I commend the Opposition, because it was a Conservative Act of Parliament that provided the powers to introduce Awaab’s law into the social rented sector. However, in our view it would not be appropriate for the Government to tell landlords how to put individuals at the heart of the legislation, as the solutions will vary depending on individual circumstances. For that reason, we do not believe that the additional guidance called for in the new clause is necessary.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. What provision is he putting in place to replicate those arrangements where there is no mayoral authority?
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Gentleman’s point is well made; the set of arrangements that I have just specified apply to mayoral strategic authorities. It is worth making clear, though, that where there are concerns that a registered provider is not meeting the outcomes in the regulatory standards, it can be referred to the independent Regulator of Social Housing, so this is not the only route. I am talking just about the new measures on local authority scrutiny that are coming forward through the 2026 Act, but the right hon. Gentleman tempts me to debate an issue that is much wider than the scope of the new clauses.
New clause 51 would require all registered providers to publish specified information on their performance every three months. The Government are committed to ensuring that tenants have clear and meaningful information about their landlord’s performance and are able to hold them to account. I also recognise the importance of continuing to improve the quality of the data available and ensuring that it is used effectively to identify emerging risks and drive better outcomes for tenants. However, there is already an extensive framework in place to achieve this.
All registered providers are required annually to publish tenant satisfaction measures, which cover many of the areas identified in the new clause, including repairs, complaints, antisocial behaviour and tenants’ overall satisfaction with their landlord. Those measures sit alongside a much wider range of regulatory, financial and statistical information collected by the regulator, including information on providers’ stock and rents. The regulator’s transparency, influence and accountability standard also requires all registered providers to collect and provide information that supports effective scrutiny by tenants of their landlord’s performance.
I am mindful of the need to keep reporting requirements on registered providers proportionate and to minimise administrative burdens. It is my view that the current framework strikes the right balance. For those reasons, I do not believe that prescribing a further quarterly reporting regime in primary legislation is necessary or proportionate. I therefore hope that the hon. Members for Orpington and for Newbury will not press their new clauses.
Gareth Bacon
I thank the Minister for his lengthy answer. I will accede to his wishes and will not press my new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 40
Fixed-term tenancies for social housing
“Nothing in this Act prevents a local housing authority or registered provider from granting a fixed-term tenancy for social housing in accordance with existing enactments.”—(Gareth Bacon.)
This new clause would preserve local authority discretion to use fixed-term tenancies for social housing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The most recent data available to us shows that the waiting list for social housing stands at a shocking and shameful 1.34 million people. However, that data, which comes from a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government publication from March 2025, is now well out of date. To understand one of the fundamental problems that we are here to rectify, which is how to get people off the streets, out of temporary accommodation and into social housing, we must understand the full scale of the issue before us.
My new clause 52 would therefore require housing register applications to be reviewed at least every three years to ensure that the waiting list remains accurate and up to date. Without that, it is impossible for resources to be properly distributed, stock to be efficiently allocated and decisions to be made promptly. Efficiency means more than people getting a roof over their head and a place to call home. That is why I believe the proposals in my new clause would make essential and much-needed changes to the system.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling and speaking to this new clause. I am enjoying the irony of a shadow Minister who bemoans this Government’s, in his words, zealous overcentralisation and penchant for regulation, but who proposes a new clause that would impose on local authorities a statutory requirement to review their housing register at least once every three years—a new duty that would create additional administrative burdens—without any evidence that it would improve allocation decisions.
Local authorities take different approaches to managing their housing register. It is right that they have the flexibility to do what works best for their own local area. In addition, councils already reassess housing need both before a household joins a waiting list and again before allocating a social home, and thereby ensure that social homes go to those most in need.
Gareth Bacon
On this occasion, I will respectfully decline the Minister’s invitation. I stand by my remarks. If we do not understand the scale of the problem, we cannot possibly tailor our solutions correctly. We seek to divide the Committee on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Dillon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As members of the Committee know, I worked in social housing for 14 years before entering this place. One of the more challenging elements of my role was ensuring the safety of our residents, particularly with annual gas safety checks. We had to make three attempts to carry out the check before going to court and seeking an injunction to access the property, not only resulting in legal costs for the social provider, but extending the time that a tenant was residing in a property without the boiler having its approved checks done. The same problem can also extend to five-year electrical safety checks. Only yesterday, I hosted a roundtable with the British Pest Control Association, where we spoke about how delays to access in such instances are causing further damage through pest infestation. Bedbugs, for example, often move within a block of flats, so quick access to all dwellings in that instance is key to stopping the spread and its impact.
The new clause has come from experience of working in the sector. I have never known a judge not to grant an injunction when a social landlord has been able to prove that it has made those three attempts. Although article 8 and the right to a private life may come up, that is of course a qualified right. As long as the access is in accordance with the law, necessary or proportionate, or pursuing a legitimate aim, article 8 considerations can be laid aside.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Newbury for tabling and speaking to the new clause. It raises an important issue that we recognise has been an area of growing concern, and on which there were some particularly considered and constructive debates in the other place; I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his engagement. Those debates reinforced the incredible complexity of the issue, which involves the interaction of the fundamental rights of tenants, the legal duties placed on landlords and the safety of both residents and their neighbours.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, since those debates in the other place, the Government have been undertaking an intensive process of engagement and policy development to examine the issue. In that respect, we are grateful for the input and expertise that we have received from a range of residents’ groups, landlords, representative bodies and charities. That engagement has put it beyond doubt that this is an issue that must be resolved. However, it also made it clear that we cannot act in haste and risk creating new systemic problems, and there are a range of challenges that arise from various options in this area.
For that reason, the Government cannot support new clause 60, but we will shortly bring forward a consultation that will examine the issue in the round to get at some of those challenges and find out what the potential solutions might be. It will also look at the design and the necessary safeguards for any new law in this space. To support the sector with practical advice, we will bring forward plans to develop best practice guidance on access procedures.
I absolutely understand and recognise the expertise of the hon. Member for Newbury in this area. He raises a valid point, but for the reasons I have given, I hope he will withdraw his new clause.
Mr Dillon
I thank the Minister for his reply and for his Department’s understanding of the wider impact. I welcome the consultation being launched. I agree that the balance between a landlord’s rights and a tenant’s rights needs a lot of thought. When I was drafting new clause 60, I did not include pests as a hazard; I appreciate that that should have been included as well. I look forward to seeing the Government’s progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 62
Ability of tenants to request an electric vehicle charging point
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision to enable tenants to request and install a domestic Electric Vehicle Charger.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) made under this subsection must include—
(a) the grounds on which a request can be declined including—
(i) electrical standards,
(ii) planning requirements, and
(iii) cost; and
(b) a requirement for social housing providers to respond to the request within one month.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Mr Dillon.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 63—Provision of electric vehicle charging points in new social housing developments—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make provision to require new social housing developments to include electric vehicle charging points.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Mr Dillon
These are simple new clauses and we hope that Members on both sides of the Committee will support them. In effect, new clause 62 would allow social tenants the opportunity to have an electric charging point on existing stock, and new clause 63 seeks the same for new builds.
Matthew Pennycook
I can assure the hon. Member that the Government are committed to improving access to convenient home charging for tenants, including in social housing. However, we do not believe that new clause 62 is the right way to achieve that objective.
Tenants can face hurdles in getting landlord or freeholder approval, sometimes without a clear reason; that is not in dispute. The Department for Transport is already consulting on an ability to charge for tenants and leaseholders. That consultation, published on 21 October, considers both legislation and non-statutory guidance to give residents clearer routes to request permission for a charge point. It also seeks views on setting clearer expectations for landlords and freeholders when responding to those requests, including in social housing.
New clause 62 would pre-empt that consultation by introducing requirements before the Government have considered any evidence or fully assessed the impacts. In our view, that risks introducing grounds for refusal, which could be inappropriate and have the unintended consequence of deeming certain scenarios unreasonable when they are not, limiting access to home charging for tenants rather than making it more accessible. We want to ensure that any intervention is workable for tenants, while also taking proper account of the legitimate responsibilities and constraints on landlords and freeholders.
New clause 62 would risk creating an inconsistent approach between different property types, which could cause confusion for housing providers and leave other tenants without the same protections. Support with installation costs is already available, with existing Government grants providing up to £500 towards the cost of installing an eligible charge point.
New clause 63 seeks to require new social housing developments to include electric vehicle charging points. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Newbury about the importance of ensuring that new homes are equipped for the transition to electric vehicles. In schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, part S, which was introduced in 2021, already requires charging infrastructure in new residential buildings and those undergoing major renovations in England, including in social housing developments. In our view, the new clause is therefore not required. The Government are also currently considering whether those requirements should be strengthened via the DFT consultation.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
On new clause 63, does the Minister agree that, before we worry about electric vehicle charging points, the new developments must have enough parking spaces? As it is, I suspect that hon. Members’ postbags are full due to new developments coming forward without enough parking spaces, even before electric vehicle charging points are put in as well.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to opine on a completely different issue. The hon. Member for Newbury may correct me, but car parking spaces are not in the scope of his new clauses. The hon. Member for Broxbourne is more than welcome to write to me with specific concerns about local authority action in that area.
For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury will withdraw new clause 62 and will not press new clause 63.
Mr Dillon
I happily accept the Minister’s considered view about the consultation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 66
Review of the use of empty homes as social housing
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a review on the use of empty homes as social homes.
(2) A review under this section must include information on—
(a) the number of empty homes in England and Wales that could be used for social housing,
(b) the potential merits of a scheme to bring empty homes into use as social housing, and
(c) any challenges involved in establishing such a scheme.”—(Gideon Amos.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 67—Long-term empty homes use: strategy and funding—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a national strategy for increasing the acquisition and renovation of long-term empty homes for use as low-cost rental accommodation.
(2) A strategy published under this section must include options for establishing ring-fenced funding for bringing empty homes into use as low-cost rental accommodation, to be made available to strategic authorities or local authorities.
(3) In this section, ‘low-cost rental accommodation’ has the meaning given in section 69 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (low cost rental).
(4) Within 12 months of the publication of the strategy under subsection (1)(a), and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish data on—
(a) the number of empty homes renovated as a result of the strategy and any subsequent actions, and
(b) the number of acquired empty homes allocated to people previously in temporary accommodation or rough sleeping.”
This new clause would create a national strategy to bring long-term empty homes into use as low-cost rental accommodation.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to speak again—no day would be complete without a sitting of this Committee. New clause 66 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis). In proposing the new clause, she said:
“There are hundreds of thousands of empty homes across England and Wales, while many families wait years for a social home or remain in temporary accommodation.
My amendment would require the Government to carry out a review of how empty homes could be used as social housing. It would assess how many properties could be brought into use, the potential benefits of a dedicated scheme and the barriers that would need to be addressed.
Bringing empty homes back into use can be a faster and more cost-effective way of increasing social housing supply, while also helping to regenerate local communities. This review would give the Government the evidence it needs to act and I hope it will receive support from across the House.”
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I particularly draw attention to the regeneration benefits of bringing empty homes back into use, which are significant. As hon. Members know, many of our town centres have too many empty buildings, and there is a real bottleneck in the procedure for getting them back into use.
The late Liberal Democrat Housing Minister Andrew Stunell started the last significant empty homes programme that any Government have introduced. Begun in 2010, it brought 120,000 empty homes back into use; that is 10 times the number of social homes created last year and a significant contribution to meeting the need for housing.
When the Conservatives took over in 2015, that programme was abandoned—its funding was ended. The number of empty homes is now on the increase again. As a result of the programme, it fell to a record low, from 315,000 to 203,000. However, it has gone up again under subsequent Governments. By October 2026, it had risen to 303,000, almost back to its 2010 level, up 14% on 2024 and 50% higher than in 2015 when the programme ended.
The programme brought units into use for affordable rent, low-cost home ownership and social rent. It therefore made a significant contribution to not just housing but social housing. Its grant was around £22,000 per dwelling—significantly less than the average subsidy for creating new social housing. It was therefore a very important factor.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has pointed out, there are hundreds of thousands of empty dwellings in the country. We need a programme to bring them back into use. That is the missing link in the Government’s housing policy. A Liberal Democrat Government would bring in an empty homes programme forthwith. We commend the new clause to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for speaking to new clause 66, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Eastleigh. He rightly pointed out that there are currently more than 300,000 homes that have been empty for six months or more. The Government absolutely want to see more empty homes brought back into use across the country, but we do not believe that a national review or a national empty homes strategy supported by a new ringfenced fund is the right approach.
The scale and causes of empty homes vary considerably between places, as do local housing pressures and the interventions that will be most effective. Therefore, we believe that local authorities and mayoral strategic authorities are best placed to understand those circumstances and determine the right approach for their areas. Local authorities can already access funding to bring homes back into use, including through the social and affordable homes programme, the local authority housing fund and the long-term rough sleeping innovation programme. Loan funding is also available through the Public Works Loan Board to support the acquisition of empty homes.
We are also strengthening local authorities’ powers to bring empty homes back into use by reforming empty dwelling management orders, removing evidential requirements and reducing the period that a property must be empty before it is eligible for an EDMO from two years to six months.
Mr Dillon
The Minister has outlined a number of funding packages and processes that are already set up to tackle empty homes. Can he say how well they are working, and whether the Government need to go further? A national strategy, with a regional breakdown or local levers within it, could help tackle the problem.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman asks me a very specific question. I commit to give him, in writing, a sense of the local and regional breakdown of the use of EDMOs and these powers. Funding is available, but the point I am making is that although funding can be a barrier, it is only one part of the solution. Local authorities have a range of powers and incentives available to tackle empty homes. We want to continue empowering them to use those, but we think it is right that they retain the flexibility to respond to particular local priorities.
Although the Government agree with the sentiment behind the new clauses, we do not believe that this Bill is the best route forward. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing new clause 66.
Gideon Amos
Perhaps I can give an example from my own experience. I have set on record my interest as a social landlord. In another life, under the programme I described, I brought into use four empty dwellings as social housing. The challenge with an empty home is that, although the grant level is generally less, and the cost can be less than building a new home, the schemes are much more complicated due to ownership, these being existing buildings, consents and the fact that many are listed. So it is with some trepidation that owners and developers go into this field.
The benefit of the previous scheme was that it was a ringfenced scheme dedicated for empty homes, rather than relying on the existing processes and programmes. Affordable social housing programmes will not generally be geared towards what can be long-winded and complex schemes in the empty homes field. Having a ringfenced fund that is named and available gives owners and developers the confidence to know that an empty homes scheme will compete well among the applications submitted in the social and affordable homes programme.
Finally, I reiterate that the previous scheme was the most successful that I can find recorded for empty homes. It brought the number of empty homes down to its lowest level ever, from 320,000 down to 200,000. This is proven technology, so we should proceed with it. Unless and until the Government have their own empty homes programme—I have not heard about one—we should continue to push them on this.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Bacon
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 20, page 16, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the power to amend or repeal, by regulations, provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before or in the same session as this Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 81, in clause 20, page 16, line 15, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for regulations made under Clause 20.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 78.
Clauses 21 to 23 stand part.
Gareth Bacon
Amendments 80 and 81 are about transparency and accountability. We believe that the Bill is unsuitable for its own stated purpose of making provision for social housing. Already on Second Reading, and here in Committee, we have seen an unwillingness from the Government to reshape the Bill into something that not only is fit for purpose but actually delivers provisions to benefit social housing tenants. If they cannot be trusted to deliver for tenants over the full process of parliamentary scrutiny, it would be unwise to let the Secretary of State alone make further changes to the system without the same level of oversight.
Let us be clear: clause 20, page 16, line 10 —subsection (2)—is a Henry VIII clause. It allows the Bill, after all the debate, analysis and scrutiny here and in the other place, to be selectively amended at the whim of the Secretary of State of the day. It has been clear to date that the Government are misguided in their approach to reforming the social housing sector, so it would be unwise to let further reforms go unchecked in the future. That is why I have tabled amendment 80, which would ensure that Ministers cannot just use regulations to amend or repeal existing Acts.
On amendment 81, the Government have done their best to centralise power and avoid scrutiny throughout the last two years. The demolition of local democracy by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the cancellation of elections and now the Henry VIII powers in this Bill are just a few examples from this Department alone. It is critical that such power grabs do not go unchecked, and that is why I have tabled amendment 81, which would require an affirmative parliamentary procedure for regulations made under clause 20.
I recognise that it is sometimes necessary to tackle less consequential points or issues in need of immediate response through secondary legislation, but that does not mean that Ministers have an excuse to avoid the watchful eye of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that all hon. Members will support amendments 80 and 81.
Matthew Pennycook
As the shadow Minister made clear, amendments 80 and 81 concern the power in clause 20 to make consequential provision and the level of parliamentary scrutiny that should apply. I recognise that they seek to ensure robust parliamentary scrutiny, but as we have already discussed during our proceedings, the Government believe that the Bill strikes the right balance.
Amendment 80 would prevent consequential regulations from amending or repealing primary legislation. That could mean that any consequential changes identified following Royal Assent would require additional primary legislation. That would be an inefficient use of parliamentary time and could delay implementation. The power is expressly limited to provisions that are consequential to the Act. It cannot be used to pursue new policy objectives, whether related or not, to the legislation approved by Parliament in the Bill. Any regulations made beyond what is consequential on the Bill’s provisions would be open to legal challenges, as well as parliamentary scrutiny. Importantly, clause 20 already provides additional scrutiny where this power is used to amend or repeal primary legislation, with such regulations requiring the approval of both Houses.
Amendment 81 would go further by requiring all consequential regulations to be approved by both Houses. We do not consider that to be proportionate. Where regulations do not amend or repeal primary legislation, the negative procedure provides an appropriate level of scrutiny for more technical, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provisions. The power is limited to making provision that is consequential on the Act and is intended to ensure its effective implementation and the maintenance of a coherent legislative framework. I therefore consider that clause 20 provides the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, while avoiding unnecessary demands on parliamentary time. On that basic, I hope I have sufficiently reassured the shadow Minister, and I ask that he does not press amendments 80 and 81.
Gareth Bacon
I wish to press Opposition amendments 80 and 81 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
May I take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to you, Mr Vickers, and the other Chairs of the Committee? I also thank our exemplary Clerks, the Hansard reporters and the Doorkeepers for overseeing our proceedings, and my officials and private office for all their support in bringing forward this piece of legislation. Finally, I thank my hon. Friends on the Government Benches for their valuable insights.
I have had a spirited and constructive dialogue with the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman. I accept fully that there are principled points of disagreement, but I have valued their challenges and contributions. I very much look forward to further engagement with all hon. Members as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.
Gareth Bacon
I echo the Minister’s sentiments. Obviously, on a subject like this, there will be disagreements across the House, but they have been largely respectful and, at times, quite good-humoured. I thank the Minister, his officials, my hon. Friends from the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and all hon. Members on the Committee. I look forward to seeing you all on Report.
Gideon Amos
I repeat the thanks from the Minister and the Opposition spokesman to officials. I thank my hon. Friends who have supported me, and the Minister for taking on board so many amendments—at least in spirit, if not in reality.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.